Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Agrees To License ActiveSync To Google
JacobSteelsmith writes "Microsoft agreed today to license ActiveSync to Google. Google is using ActiveSync as part of Google Sync, which enables the synchronization of data between mobile devices and, presumably, Google Calendar and your contacts stored at Google. 'Microsoft's vice president of intellectual property and licensing, Horacio Gutierrez, said in a statement that the Google license is "a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property."'"
Permanent beta in 3...2...1...
Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
OTOH, after AAPL licensing it, they would look stupid if they refused GOOG.
And with this step, it *is* the de-facto standard.
Intersting thought, that the only thing being left of MSFT in a couple of years is a protocol to sync wireless clients to a server...
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
From one bad company to another. Sigh...
We're not evil! Honest injun! We licnsed ActiveSync to Google, who is also not evil!
Okay, I can't keep a straight face now for some reason... :-?
My blog
"a great example of Microsoft's openness"
Buahhhhhhh
Now Google can sync their deletions with your portable device too.
"a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property."
Ha ha yeah, my ass.
What Google has just done is to license PPP from Microsoft. Nice job.
Don't believe me? Read this.
All the "Activesync Protocol" is, is good old PPP.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Really this is ...
Okay why can't we have an open standard to sync data with mobile devices?
I mean just how hard would it be? I don't use outlook under windows and I do use Linux. I want some way to sync my phone to all my systems.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Does anyone actually know what was licensed here? Was there even a patent involved or is this journalist just expecting sense to spew out of the mouth of a Microsoft executive when he should know better?
How we know is more important than what we know.
P-P-PowerBook?
All the "Activesync Protocol" is, is good old PPP.
Umm what? It looks like he's just using ppp to connect the device up to his computer. ActiveSync is as much PPP as email is ethernet.
"a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property"
I translate this as: "we bought this thing ages ago, we used it to drive somebody we didn't like out of business, it no longer provides us with any competitor advantage, and the code base is a mess anyway."
Isn't industry moving to SyncML? This guy was watching ActivSync creep up 3 years ago.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
I think you're completely misunderstanding what he was setting up there... it looks like he's using PPPD to "bridge" the iPAQ across his Linux box to his Windows box, just so he can sniff the ActiveSync traffic.
From the page you reference:
"You can use your device as if it were *directly* connected to the Windows box, and you can spy the traffic between the Device and the Server !
The protocol seems to be needing a TCP server on the ActiveSync side, on port 5679. "
That, er, doesn't mean ActiveSync is PPP.
Here's to the crazy ones
* This troll written by a perl script running on Linux.
google could have done this in-house easily (it's basically just PPP with bloat), this is just google mitigating the possibility of future trouble with with a company that has an absurdly general patent.
Cool, can you point us to all the other examples?
Quit with the fucking copypasta. You clearly have not used linux in a long long time if that's what you think it still is.
I suspect I am not the only one who now feels dumber having read your comment.
Your saying that Active Sync is just PPP is like claiming that... DNS is just ARP... one (can and in the case of Active Sync) may use the other... but is not absolutely required to... and even when such a low level protocol is used, it is the higher level data that matters to applications.
If it was that simple... don't you think there'd be more FOSS implementations of ActiveSync than there is if it was just PPP... oh right, it's not!
To recap... PPP: Layer 2 protocol, Active Sync: (likely) Layer 3-5 protocol
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
"Thus begins a new world order. In the past we at MS were more than willing to face protracted legal battles with smaller opponents until their resources were depleted. We now wish to move beyond our past antitrust positions and compete freely and openly in the market of ideas. Primarily because in this case we have no choice. The opponent is too large and the economy is bad and we would probably lose. But smaller less financial able companies beware. Don't take this as a sign of weakness. If you do not have the resources for sustained legal action we will show no mercy."
Point to Point Protocol
After my experience with ActiveSync on my iPaq... to hell with it. I won't use any product that uses ActiveSync, even if it's got Theo, RMS, Linus, Steve Jobs, and the whole FreeBSD core team recommending it.
Let alone mere Google.
A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil. Likewise, a company as big as Google cannot be completely non-evil. MS does play a big role in driving standards, for better or worse. Heck, MS might even be more diligent in getting Silverlight supported on all platforms, whereas I _still_ can't get Flash 8/9 support for my Wii or Android phone. Despite Ballmer's threats to "kill Google", his primary responsibility is to make money for MS shareholders, not to put Google out of business. Besides which, isn't MS planning on abandoning the Zune and getting out of the MP3 player/PDA market anyway? (I wonder if they will still push their OS for cellphones.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"Fair and Reasonable" means "terms that only a large company like Google can afford". If you're an open source project, you can suck Microsoft's exhaust.
"Fair and Reasonable" is a term Microsoft uses to fight off any responsibility for letting open standards pollute their precious proprietary protocols.
A company as big as Microsoft cannot be completely evil.
Licensing a suite of proprietary interfaces and protocols lest Google implement their own and promote open source and open systems is not an example of Microsoft not being "ebil".
...and far from earning respect, Microsoft's thieving, scattergun approach to acquiring patents deserves only disgust and contempt. I know it's really the patent system's fault that Microsoft and others are both motivated and enabled to steal by patenting the trivial, the broad, the already invented etc. in the first place, but if theft and extortion were made legal it wouldn't make calls for respect from professional thieves and racketeers any more palatable, would it?
And with this step, it *is* the de-facto standard.
Instead of any open standard, a proprietary protocol controlled by Microsoft is now the standard for syncing.
Thanks a whole hell of a lot, Google and Apple.
Isn't industry moving to SyncML?
With Microsoft, Google, and Apple behind ActiveSync, apparently not. Who's using SyncML?
I just tried it with my windows mobile 6.1 phone (Samsung Blackjack II) and followed the instructions to the letter. No joy. It was good for about 20 minutes of aggravation though. Maybe Google can harness that angst for their next datacenter project. grrrr...
... wow what a AMAZING show of openness.. really now you shouldn't have ...
when company B is becoming a major competitor to A in several key areas you don't often see A give B a nice advantage in terms of functionality and compatibility.
before this thing starts to smell bad.
Read radical news here
Does this have any advantage over NemusSync? It doesn't require jailbreaking, but Nemus lets me maintain a calendar on my iPhone that isn't synced or erased when I sync my Google calendar data, which is a feature I do use. What does Google Sync have going for it?
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
It can connect over ppp but so can a lot of other things. This is sort of like saying that because Firefox connects over TCP/IP, the html protocol is just TCP/IP or that a Porsche is just old plain asphalt because it gets somewhere by road.
the clock on the wall says 4 til 7
No. Google licensed Exchange ActiveSync, a protocol runs on top of http(s) to provide calendar and contacts synchronization and push email for mobile devices. It only requires an internet connection - unlike BlackBerry, which requires special network support.
On the client side, Exchange ActiveSync is implemented by the iPhone (since firmware 2.0), Windows Mobile devices, and some Sony Ericsson and Nokia devices. Microsoft Exchange is the most popular server, but other closed- (Zimbra) and open-source (Z-Push) implementations exist.
I have been using TouchDown for Exchange support, but built in activesync that I don't have to buy for $30 would be awesome.
Due to the global downturn, I can no longer afford to distribute and maintain my TRON fanzine on my Dunegons and Dragons web sight, you insensitive clod!
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Google benefits because they can now easily sync to Exchange servers. Before, Google's Exchange synchronization tool required you to keep Outlook as you default Email account and have it installed on your PC and your PC up and running and logged into your account. Even then, it wasn't too smooth.
By licensing ActiveSync, Google can now synchronize their calendar (and gmail) to people's MS Exchange server calenders (and email).
For Microsoft, it takes a bit of pressure off of businesses who are finding Exchange's proprietary technology confining.
Microsoft's Exchange Server is one of the major components that tie businesses to Microsoft based solutions. This monopoly is beginning to fray. Non-Windows portable devices keep on multiplying, and employees are demanding to be serviced by the IT department. In order to prevent companies from abandoning Exchange Server, Microsoft is allowing non-Windows devices some access.
By allowing non-Windows devices access to Exchange, Microsoft hopes to keep their Exchange monopoly alive. Windows systems are still first class Exchange citizens, but by allowing basic synchronization with non-Windows devices, Microsoft has relieved the pressure on companies to abandon Exchange.
A great example of making a proprietary method of syncing mobile devices even more important when there are open standards already available...
nice one google, lets add to your monopolistic competitor's ability to make the market even less free then it should be.
There are many things that should be forced open and active sync is a good example. Im sure people could list a tonne of others.
Why would Google want to license the most broken piece of software that MS has ever produced? ActiveSync is quite possibly the worst software that I have ever had to deal with. It is slow, unstable, and unreliable. It often has to be reinstalled. It fails for no reason. Why would Google want to be within a mile of this twisted mess?
Even a broken app that worked half the time would probably perform better over all than ActiveSync. Using ActiveSync was so painful, I just bought a CF card reader/writer for my HP PDA (compare 15 minutes to transfer an mp3 with ActiveSync to 10 seconds directly).
Not only that, but OpenSync is probably already better already -- and that is saying a lot. That money would be a lot better spent improving OpenSync.
I can honestly understand paying for really good apps -- but broken ones? Where is the value in that? It is like paying full price for a car that does not drive.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
the synchronization of data between mobile devices
To be precise, the synchronization of some data between mobile devices: it still doesn't support tasks and notes.
It is a pity, but I had a better sync 10 years ago on my palm. The concept of custom conduits allowed for a very smooth synchronization of many different types of information: not only the big four (calendar, contacts, tasks and notes), but also e-books, passwords, etc. I love my iPhone, but I need 5 different ways to sync its data.
zimbra is opensource
All your dates are belong to us
All the "Activesync Protocol" is, is good old PPP.
Not even close to the same universe as correct.
ActiveSync is an email synchronization protocol (among other things) built on top of WBXML and HTTP(S). See Microsoft's documentation for it here.
Bah. Sorry for the google search result link. Here is a direct link to microsoft.
http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/D/D/5DD33FDF-91F5-496D-9884-0A0B0EE698BB/%5BMS-ASDOC%5D.pdf
the Google license is "a great example of Microsoft's openness to generally license our patents under fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft intellectual property."'
Thats me out, license is one thing but respect for Microsoft intellectual property impossible.
Why Act%$/#"%(!! [connection reset by peer]
Although the main Zimbra product is open-source, the connector for ActiveSync is not. It requires an additional license.
ok,
then, try acessing a windows mobile device with your "good 'n' old PPP".
its hell a lot more than just PPP
Dunegons and Dragons web sight,
Does that allow you to spot the webs of giant spiders easier or something? An extra roll to avoid web-based traps?
Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
But their outlook connector is proprietary
And with this step, it *is* the de-facto standard.
No, it's not. It's only a standard for Microsoft and Apple mobile phones, and for Microsoft Exchange. There are a lot of people using those devices, but that doesn't make it a de-facto standard. For it to be a de-facto standard, there would have to be a lot of implementations of the protocol, and there aren't. SyncML may or may not have fewer users, but it has far more implementors.
Intersting thought, that the only thing being left of MSFT in a couple of years is a protocol to sync wireless clients to a server...
If Exchange goes away, ActiveSync becomes meaningless.
Maybe we can have gmail push email to the iPhone now just like it does with Exchange.
U.S. patent number please, anyone?
Ick, twitter sock puppets.
by twitter (104583) *