Mobility Today Podcast #101

Nice, we are all allowed to have our own opinions. Which is why we can even have a disagreement on this forum. I just see a larger picture than the facts stated on piece of paper which never tell the true intentions behind why it happened but thanks for the debate.

I c. I thought you were talking about the Palm OS version.

Phys, I was only joking about Palm, I dont hate them at all, my favourite windows mobile phone was the Treo 750V.

At this point Chris, I agree with you and don't give a monkey either.

I made my point awhile ago with verifiable citations, and unless there is contrary evidence to what I have provided already, it is just a waste of time and space to defend my point against unsubstantiated claims. Even more of a waste is entertaining snide remarks about whether or not I was "listening" when I simply just do not agree with what was stated since it lacked any evidentiary support the contrary position.

I am still jonsing to see what Android will bring to the table. =D

Chris, do you really despise Palm that much?

Jerry, Jerry are you sleeping, please concentrate this is a windows mobile podcast, no bull, palm is rubbish

LMAO! I feel an impression coming on! :)

Always calm just making a point there. I'll check out some babes after I'm off work.

oh I don't give a monkey, everyone just calm down and look at some booth babes!!

Wow, what are you talking about Physboy, the iPod plays MP3, AAC and WAV non of which belong to Apple in any way and are all not only open but WAV is the uncompressed version of your standard CD at 1411kbps. My iPod Classic 160GB is 50% music all ripped from my CD collection, 10% from my friends all MP3 from who knows where and the rest is converted Videos I made from my DVD collection. All playable on not only other iPods but any device that supports those codecs. If that is not supporting some of the best codecs the average user is going to use then what else is. But if you want to talk DRM which I do dislike then that is another story and most content providers are guilty of that including Apple and Microsoft. Has Apple tied their content to their iPod's, yes do I blame them no, but there is freedom of choice and you can buy any other PMP you want but they all essentislly do the same thing; play your media content however you choose.
Also like I said before which if you were listening you'd realize that selling the software as a package bundle is not the same as forcing your software onto venders machines. Apple makes their own computers, Microsoft does not; therefore Microsoft should not be entitled to dictate what software is bundled with any PC that is created by a HP, DELL, Toshiba or any of the other PC manufacturers. If Microsoft wants to do that then they are more than welcome to do as Apple and make their own computers.

"With that said as far as DOJ goes Apple is allowed to control exactly what goes into their hardware. Microsoft has no hardware therefore they are not allowed to play by the as rules of a hardware manufacture."

If that were true then the following lawsuit would not have been approved by a federal judge in CA:

http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/cmp/20050922/20050922slattery.html

which alleges that "Apple configured the iPod so that it will play only iTunes files and not digital music files from competing vendors of online music. Apple has also encoded its iTunes files so they will only play on the iPod and not any other digital music player"

The rules are the same, monolpolizing is monopolizing it does not mater how it is achieved. In addition, Apple does sell it's OS seperately from it's hardware as an upgrade and bundles Quicktime and Safari with it.

After reading all that I can say that what has been left out is that Apple is a hardware/software company whereas Microsoft is a software company. Only recently over the past few years has Microsoft truely started to enter the hardware arena. With that said as far as DOJ goes Apple is allowed to control exactly what goes into their hardware. Microsoft has no hardware therefore they are not allowed to play by the as rules of a hardware manufacture. Microsoft was trying to eliminate competition by forcing hardware manufacturers to not include third party browsers and other software onto desktops and laptops. Microsoft got caught because various software companies got together and filed suite against Microsoft which of course hot the attention of the DOJ. Microsoft not only lied calling IE a feature but claimed it could not be removed from the Wkndows OS which was lie #2. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot. There were other issues but that can be for another day when heads are cooler.

"Really, 'cause the last time I checked, laptops that come with integrated 3G devices still get their OS updates EXACTLY the same way other computers W/O integrated mobile data devices designed to work on a given carriers network."

If it was doable on mobile devices, it would have already been done. Due to the current structure of MS->OEM->Carrier it won't be done. Let me know when it does become a reality. While I would hope that it could be accomplished someday, the odds are that it wont. Meanwhile, that function sits dormant with each passing release of the OS. I wonder why?

"Oh yea, you mentioned the Automatic Update item in the control panel for WM 6 while you were busy contradicting yourself and agree with my initial claim 100%."

As I mentioned, for small updates, yes. However, if you think you're going to get WM6.1 downloaded via Windows update, you are delusional. Heck, did you even notice you can't even get WMP as a standalone download anymore? MS stopped that right about the advent of WM2003.

Yeah, I guess "minor" company like Apple can get away with things like that. Perhaps though, there are things behind the understanding of both you and I in the legal sense that have not caused any action to be taken against Apple.

Really, 'cause the last time I checked, laptops that come with integrated 3G devices still get their OS updates EXACTLY the same way other computers W/O integrated mobile data devices designed to work on a given carriers network. In addition, what about unlocked devices sold directly to the end user from the mfrs. Oh, and then there is that Automatic Update thing which MS put in WM 6 so they could do exactly what you are trying to suggest they can't do. Oh yea, you mentioned the Automatic Update item in the control panel for WM 6 while you were busy contradicting yourself and agree with my initial claim 100%.

Regarding your question, I have no answer. There are a multitude of reasons why some companies get away with doing things that other companies are chastised and/or persecuted for. I can speculate that since Apple was no where near as big and popular as MS was during that time the DOJ felt like going after the big dog. Enforcement agencies typically sacrifice going after smaller offenders to get at big offenders. Other than that I have no evidence regarding your question. I only have evidence that the DOJ expressed it was not ok for MS to bundle IE with the OS but they did not go after Apple for doing the same thing.

Your talking to yourself when you accuse me of "not getting it".

I am done dealing with the strawman arguments, contradictions and special pleadings for the day.

Using the desktop comparison is just plain silly and almost incomparable. A desktop has no dependence on a carrier and the technology it uses. You need to come up with a better analogy.

"What the carriers want to put on the device has nothing at ALL to do with MS OS updates. "

Further evidence that you obviously don't understand. MS can't just push out an update without having it customized for the device it goes on. That means working closely with the OEM. The OEM then presents the device to the carrier for netork testing. So, what you are proposing is just not how the mobile device world works.

Now what I will say is that it is possible for MS to push out smaller scale updates (if applicable) like browser security fixes, generic driver fixes, and things like that. To that end, I suppose that's what the Windows update control panel item was for in the first place.

As for Apple....you didn't answer my question. Why do you suppose Apple has "flown underneath the the radar" if you are so sure that Apple has indeed performed the same actions as MS has committed. Remember, it was much (much) more than just the inclusion of a browser that was at question. My point is Apple has been a popular computer manufacturer for many years now and has in the past sold to main niche graphic and education markets and within the last few, a viable desktop for the rest of the market. It is also a very high profile company. So, tell me, why hasn't it been called out for the same reasons as MS?

"Please tell me why you assume A-T groups have not preceded against Apple? This should be good!"

Please, you have to be kidding right? I never said that Apple does not get hit by A-T groups, just not for the same things that MS is getting hit for when they are doing the same thing. Find me the information where Apple is being challenged for bundling a browser and media player with their OS. Here's some info on MS A-T stuff:

1.) This one only shows the cases as of 2003, 5 years ago and in the US only.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/legal/10-28settlementfs.mspx

2.) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/eu-opens-new-antitrust-probe-microsoft/article-169543

3.) The clincher:

"In the years that followed, Microsoft insisted that Internet Explorer (which first appeared in the Plus! Pack sold separately from Windows 95) was not a product but a feature which it was allowed to add to Windows, although the DOJ did not agree with this definition."

Quote from Wikipedia regarding US vs. MS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Let me know when Apple was challenged by ANY authority for including Safari in their OS.

"It wouldn't be the place of MS to throw down the gauntlet about how the carriers work with OS updates."

Why do you insist on tangent straw-manning. This has nothing at all to do with what I said. My claim is about MS providing MS updates to the end users in the same way they provide updates to end-users of computers, regardless of whether or not the end-user has a direct license with MS or an OEM license (as in the case of WM devices). What the carriers want to put on the device has nothing at ALL to do with MS OS updates. What your suggesting is like saying that if HP wants to update their bloatware on someones computer, that person can not get the MS software updates until HP is done bundling their bloatware patches with the MS patch. That is ridiculous and is not how it works for desktops.

"The difference is MS gets slammed by A-T groups for it and Apple does not".

And why do you suppose that is the case? What do you consider "the front line?" Apple Mac sales have done well in recent years with more people buying Macs now than ever before, mostly due to the iPod halo effect and that people aren't too hot on Vista. Do tell. Are you implying that Apple is in someway "flying under the radar? With all the media attention they get, I find that hard to believe. Please tell me why you assume A-T groups have not preceded against Apple? This should be good!

As for MS and carriers, what you forget is that they are the OS provider, not the actual device maker. It wouldn't be the place of MS to throw down the gauntlet about how the carriers work with OS updates. Remember, MS releases updates to the OEM which then customize to the particular hardware platform (and to some extent - the netork platform) that the device will work on. Because there are middle men involved (important ones at that), MS and crew will never have enough leverage to enforce that on the carriers. Unfortunate, but true.

Uh boy, here we go...

"By all logical conclusion then it is NOT the same thing. Apple has had their own crap to deal with in the past (Itunes exclusivity, batteries, etc). The nature of the OS really hasn't been one of them."

Eh?? What logic are you talking about?? Apple and MS BOTH bundle a bowser and a media player with their OS, they are doing the SAME thing. The difference is MS gets slammed by A-T groups for it and Apple does not. Ultimately they both will have to comply with any conditions set forth by the governing authorities, but since MS is on the front-line it makes sense that they would be cautious on their newer lines since all eyes are on them.

"I think MS hands are tied on this one...Until someone on the WinMo side does the same thing, it will be business as usual."

Self-contradiction. I agree that Apple has a more effective relationship with the carrier regarding carrier crapware. I disagree that MS has it's hands tied by the carriers though, for two reasons:

1.) You can play virtual hot-potato all day long regarding the ineffective relationship between carriers and MS, but at the end of the day, as you pointed out MS has the responsibility and capability to resolve the issue. The problem is that they have not taken the initiative to do so to date.

2.) As with the 6.1 release, MS NDA's prevent carriers and ODMs alike from releasing new versions and updates prior to MS officially anouncing it.

The bottom line is that instead of creating an environment where relationships and conditions are conducive to creating a similar customer support experience as the Desktop OS experience, they have done the exact opposite and made it virtually impossible to acheive a similar support experience. BB, Apple have achieved this level of support and I suspect (but cannot prove of course) that Android will give similar support, it is high time MS get on the ball and you know it JN.

"The jury is still out on Android for it to really be considered. We still have relatively no clue about the features and capability of those devices. One of the things aside from the technical capability of the hardware and OS, it the level of developer support. That also remains to be seen how many developers will be on board."

That would be why I mentioned the following qualifiers:

"...and shows promise for interoperability, stability and application support"

"I do think that they should have done a better job by now. On the same token though, look at how they are getting slammed by all of the anti-trust groups out there while Apple sails by doing the exact SAME thing but no groups are hounding them."

By all logical conclusion then it is NOT the same thing. Apple has had their own crap to deal with in the past (Itunes exclusivity, batteries, etc). The nature of the OS really hasn't been one of them.

As for your second point, what you are missing is the carriers. I think MS hands are tied on this one. Apple did it right by telling ATT that they wanted nothing to do with ATT futzing with the iPhone. Until someone on the WinMo side does the same thing, it will be business as usual.

The jury is still out on Android for it to really be considered. We still have relatively no clue about the features and capability of those devices. One of the things aside from the technical capability of the hardware and OS, it the level of developer support. That also remains to be seen how many developers will be on board.

I do think that they should have done a better job by now. On the same token though, look at how they are getting slammed by all of the anti-trust groups out there while Apple sails by doing the exact SAME thing but no groups are hounding them.

However, this whole lack of support deal that they are doing with the WM OS is unacceptable. There is absolutely no reason on earth, in this day and age, why the WM OS platform support should be so much less than the Desktop OS platform support. For craps sake they went ahead and added an Auto Update feature in WM 6 that NEVER updates the OS. What gives MS???

In addition, what on the "currently" good green earth are you waiting for with WM 6.1 release. Your holding up mfr. software updates and new device releases.

This is the kind of behaviour that seriously needs to be addressed by MS. Personally if Android winds up comming out before WM 7 and shows promise for interoperability, stability and application support, I'm out.

the NetFront browser is so much better than PIE. I wonder why Microsoft does not try to make their pittiful excuse for a browser better?

I'm using NetFront browser on my HTC Vogue, and really love it. Can't wait to try the new Opera browser to see what thats like. And still running a cooked rom of Windows Mobile 6.1 and running great.

Correction to my comment that the NetFront browser didn't have the capability of browsing history. It does, its just hidden in a menu in the bookmarks function.

Thanks Phys for clearing that up. I personally don't use IMAP for my two personal accounts which I have forwarded to my hosted exchange account. I do have a Yahoo addy that I manually pull email from using POP3. I don't use Outlook for that account anyways.

Well, there goes Dave's argument. :)

Dave,

Well balanced show. (With the exception of sound balance) >;P

Just to note though, I don't know about IMAP, but I use POP3 and I get HTML on my Wing. I also do not have issues with duplicate deleted emails. Whenever I delete an email from my device, it is deleted from my POP3 server so I do not wind up getting deleted items from my device in my Outlook Inbox or Deleted Items folders.

I just have the accounts configured to "Delete off the server" for the "When deleting messages:" option in "Advanced Setting".