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."'"
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.
Actually this is one of the missing pieces in the Google Apps puzzle. They've gained push e-mail and synching on anything that supports ActiveSync which includes Windows Mobile devices & iPhone/iPod Touch.
Once they finish off Google gears for offline gmail, then they have pretty much fixed the problem off offline / mobile access to GMail which makes Google Apps alot more appealing.
Most of the complaints against the use of web services is that you lose out when on the road or internet connection is down.
It's almost the Exchange Alternative everyone has been looking for.
Jason.
Do you talk in stock symbols to make yourself look smart? Or did you really not realize that using "Apple", "Google", and "MS" would have used only 1 more character than what you did, would have been much more readable, and would have made you look like far less of a tool? (And that completely ignores your effort on the shift or caps lock key.)
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
A chair. With a hand-written note saying "Gonna fucking kill you." All very valuable IP.
Even more at issue is the fact that Google's offering compete directly with Microsoft's server offerings. Apple was just licensing a connector component for handhelds to use MS Servers.
Cool, can you point us to all the other examples?
Sure. You might want to look at the current list of specs covered by the Open Specification Promise (that means no licensing fees, royalty-free, and a patent non-enforecement guarantee) for a start.
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.
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.
We're not evil! Honest injun!
Fucking racist whiteys.
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
They didn't license the software, they licensed the protocol for emails, contacts, calendar to be pushed to devices. MUCH different than the software you are complaining about.
Push e-mail is still not available (at least for a WM phone).