The MobileMe disaster continues: Now it's not 'Exchange for the rest of us' anymore

I just received the following note that Apple sent to its sales force. In it, the company says that it will no longer use the "Exchange for the rest of us" slogan because MobileMe, unlike Exchange, does not really use push technology. This whole thing is unbelievable to me:

MobileMe Messaging Update

MobileMe messaging is being updated effective immediately. In order to set appropriate expectations with our customers, focus your sales discussion on "automatic sync" rather than "push." Additionally, we will no longer describe MobileMe as "Exchange for the rest of us."

When discussing the sync features of MobileMe, you may tell a customer that:

  • Updates between me.com and iPhone or iPod touch will occur in a matter of seconds.
  • Updates between me.com and Macs running Mac OS X Leopard and Windows PCs may take up to 15 minutes when MobileMe is set to sync automatically (Macs running Mac OS X Tiger may experience longer sync times).

As I noted previously, the distinction between "automatic sync" and "push" is sort of subtle and unlikely to affect most people. But Apple has a history of over-promising and under-delivering (Leopard's secret features, anyone?) and they get a total pass on this with the press. I don't get it, not now that the company is selling to a mass market. Microsoft would be skewered endlessly for doing something like this.

Exchange for the rest of us? More like "half-baked, partially-realized sync service that works better on Macs than it does on PCs, even though most  iPhone users have PCs." Granted, that's not much of a marketing slogan.

BTW ... speaking of the press and Apple, here's a great example of what I'm talking about. The New York Times' David Pogue, who, from what I can tell, writes an occasional column about digital cameras on the off weeks in which there's nothing Apple-related to discuss, appears to provide a well-rounded "review" of MobileMe in today's edition. But look at what's really happening here:

The magic is impressive. Make a change on your Mac, watch it appear on your iPhone and your PC. Add a new friend to the address book in Outlook Express on your Windows XP machine, and watch it appear in Windows Contacts on your Vista PC. Change an appointment in iCal on the kitchen Mac, and know that it will wirelessly sprout onto your traveling spouse’s iPhone four states away. And your Web bookmarks are the same everywhere.

OK, now let's pick it apart.

The magic is impressive. Make a change on your Mac, watch it appear on your iPhone and your PC ...

... up to fifteen minutes later. It's magic!

Add a new friend to the address book in Outlook Express on your Windows XP machine, and watch it appear in Windows Contacts on your Vista PC ...

... Again, up to fifteen minutes later.

Change an appointment in iCal on the kitchen Mac, and know that it will wirelessly sprout onto your traveling spouse’s iPhone four states away.

Notice that he switched from Windows to Mac on this one. There's a reason: On Windows, you have to pay at least $100 before you can sync calendars at all. There are only two Windows-compatible calendar syncing options available, despite the fact that Microsoft includes a free iCal clone in Windows Vista called Windows Calendar. Those two expensive options include Apple's own MobileMe service ($100 a year) and Microsoft Outlook ($110).

Now, granted, this is a MobileMe review, so he's talking about the very service you might be paying for anyway. But in carefully choosing his sync points above, Pogue is, in fact, also very carefully masking a huge problem with the iPhone and iPhone 3G: You can't sync calendars on Windows unless you pay extra for something else. This is why the phrase "Apple apologist" comes up with people like this. It's the appearance of fairness couched in what is really a promotion of all things Apple. Ignoring faults is a lie. Unless of course it's just ignorance. Which may be worse.

And your Web bookmarks are the same everywhere.

Are they now?

You want to know the truth about MobileMe on Windows? Here it is: Roughly 75 percent of all Windows users use Internet Explorer. And, sure enough, MobileMe syncs IE (and, cough, Safari) bookmarks. Neat. But the MobileMe Web interface—you know, the only way a Windows user can actually access the service's photo gallery, iDisk (without getting help), and help interfaces—doesn't work with IE, the browser that's used by most people on earth. In fact, Apple actually tosses up a nasty message when you try to use IE:

Cute, eh?

See, MobileMe only works with non-Microsoft browsers like Firefox and Safari. But get this: MobileMe won't sync your Firefox bookmarks at all. Crazy, right?

Kids, welcome to the halfway house that is Apple software running on Windows. You will never get the full meal deal unless you make the switch. And that, folks, is the unapologetic truth. The truth that reviewers like Pogue will never, ever mention, either because they don't know (i.e. they don't really use the systems that most of their readers use) or because they don't care (they're promoting Apple and its products).

Read it again:

And your Web bookmarks are the same everywhere.

So they're the same everywhere, if you use IE, in which case you can't access MobileMe. Or they're not the same everywhere because you use Firefox to access MobileMe and it doesn't support Firefox bookmark syncing. Curious that Mr. Pogue doesn't mention this. What does work, of course, is Safari: If you use only Apple products, everything works just fine. He does mention this:

Beware, though: you need the latest version of Firefox or Apple’s Safari Web browser to exploit all the features.

Except, of course, for bookmark sync. That won't work with Firefox.

Pogue even includes this insane little rah-rah sentence to explain away the IE stuff:

After all those years of being treated like an oppressed minority, it must give Apple some satisfaction to exclude Internet Explorer because it “has known compatibility issues with modern Web standards.”

Weird that every other Web site/application/service has no problem with IE 7. Weird.

Apple apologists will say I'm picking nits. But I'm not a Mac user, or a Windows apologist, I'm a Windows user. As, incidentally, are most iPhone users. As, incidentally, will be most MobileMe users. And when I discuss things like the iPhone and MobileMe, I do so from the position of someone who is part of the majority. And I'd like to know why it's OK for Apple to continually insult this majority crowd of its customers. Calendaring sync has been broken on Windows since the iPhone launched. It's still broken, unless you pay Apple $100 a year to fix it or happen to own Outlook.

Seriously, where is the outrage?

The magic is impressive. That's really all I'm saying here.

Discuss this Article 109

RaaJ
on Jul 20, 2008
@ Murdocdv: You are interpreting the incidents according to your predisposed biases. How about this? Microsoft has every right to dictate how you use their products. It is VMWare that was created to run a host of guest OSs. NOT the other way around. MS did not create their server OS to run on VMWare. [Parallel this with the Apple creating MobileMe to run on Windows PCs, consequently on its most popular browser - IE.] You mean to say that the burden of support falls completely on MS if you ran one of their products on a third-party platform not stated as one of prime platforms of the said MS product? You say MS is mistaken in warning people to make sure their virtualization product was obtained legally [thereby precluding the possibility of having to support pirated, hacked, buggy virtualization software which are popular in EMEA and Asia-Pac markets] and that MSFT's investment in training its support staff on third-party virtualization technologies [a secondary deployment platform at the moment] is paid for by increased support license cost? Every story has its other side, my friend.
johnpapola
on Jul 20, 2008
@Mike, "Now, care to compare Microsoft to somebody actually in the same business before trying to draw conclusions from comparing kiwi and bananas?" You're not all wrong there. Still, show me another large operating system and office suite company and I'll show you someone in the "Same Business". Oh wait. There are none. Hence the whole monopoly thing. Apple is the closest thing on the OS front and their business model makes comparisons to Microsoft messy. Intel is a solid comparison given it's market position, but their price competition with AMD does push down margins. So... here's a few other firms: Microsoft 29.3% Adobe 23% Oracle 24.6% IBM 10.6% Red Hat 14.7% Intuit 16.6% SAP 18.9% So software does have higher margins that hardware, which makes sense, but Microsoft's margins are by far the highest. And if you actually were to strip away the non-Windows and Office expenses and income, Microsoft's monopoly money from those two (or you could say three with Windows Server if you want) main products is staggering. As for your pathetic excuse for a dodge regarding Microsoft's patent FUD... you lose. You lose the rational debate game. Since when is extortion "standard procedure". This is straight out of the Mob's playbook. "Pay us, or something bad might happen to you". This is not the kind of tactic that the leader of the industry should be doing. They are the leader. They have the monopoly power. This is why Judge Penfield-Jackson concluded that Microsoft "behaved more like a thug in its dealings with competitors and customers". Read his finding of fact and educate yourself about the company you seem to blindly adore. Now, Apple was ALREADY IN LITIGATION with Microsoft regarding Microsoft's proven theft of QuickTime code inside Video For Windows. That wasn't some unsubstantiated, vague FUD. That was a real suit with specific code. Jobs, being smart and not an ideologue, believed Microsoft was better as a friend than foe and did the deal with them. The $150 Million chump-change was all ceremony for the press. This isn't an example with any relevance or use and if you knew the history, you'd know that. Google "Apple sues Microsoft over QuickTime". Most honest people believe that Apple had slam dunk case and that the 150 million (which was in non-voting stock and ultimately made microsoft more cash than had they kept the money in it's own stock) was a great deal for MS. So... you've rebutted nothing. You have cemented that you're too much of a hard-head apologist zealot to admit the sky is blue if a mac user points it out, which is sad. Microsoft's linux patent posturing was FUD. Simply google "Microsoft linux patent FUD" to have your denials crushed by reality and simple, basic research. And as for your own completely unsubstantiated allegations regarding linux... that's what they are. Allegations. Last time I check, we work in an "innocent until proven guilty" based system in the US. It's really very sad when a person like yourself can't find the courage to admit when they're wrong and agree on debate built on intellectual honesty instead of mud-slinging lies and slander. FUD is in Microsoft's DNA. It goes back to their early days of trolling the trade shows for what looked like a hot new software product and then issuing a paper release that they too had a product just like it "on the way" when no work had even begun and sometime no work would ever begin... just to hurt these potential competitors and chill the market for innovation by anyone else. This is just history. Learn it. Apple's ain't rosie either in different respects. But Microsoft's past sins fill books and your denial is sad.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 20, 2008
@Johnpapola yet again IBM and Red Hat are primarily in the consulting and services business these days, hence the lower return. Again, you come up with lots of personal attacks but little to no data. As for learning history, I've been in the PC business since the 1970s and lived most of that history. You, on the other hand, seem to get your opinions from listening to an echo chamber that just reinforces your misimpressions and shut out anyone who disagrees with those pre-formed opinions. Again, a fact or two would be nice.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 20, 2008
@ "Factless John" "It goes back to their early days of trolling the trade shows for what looked like a hot new software product and then issuing a paper release that they too had a product just like it "on the way" when no work had even begun and sometime no work would ever begin... just to hurt these potential competitors and chill the market for innovation by anyone else." Actually, that was VisiCorp who did that with their VisiOn product and it's the definition not of FUD but of Vaporware. It was Mark Ursino who coined the phrase describing VisiCorp's VisiOn "product" for that reason. You see, John, FUD and other words have actual meaning and not just "It's bad so I'll call somebody I don't like guilty of it"
johnpapola
on Jul 20, 2008
@Mike, Classic partisan hack response. Ignore the core point and attack on the fringes. No real rebuttal at all. It's clear that Microsoft's linux patent claims were deemed FUD by the entire industry. That you are denying that pretty much destroys the credibility you need to call Apple out on the same charge. There's no harm in admitting that FUD was and is a tool in Microsoft's arsenal. Your denial of it just makes you look like a shill. So don't go lecturing about the definition of terms like FUD when you clearly apply them selectively (only to Apple).
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 21, 2008
@Johnpapola No, the Microsoft claims were deemed questionable by the entire OSS community. Not "the entire industry" I suspect you're reading choices make that mistake as well. As I said, unless you think Linux was developed in a clean room, it's ludicrous to think they didn't infringe on MS patents. Now, do you think the Linux vendors who paid license fees should be able to sell their product because their license indemnifies their customers as opposed to the distros that are taking a gamble that Linux code is totally pure? What about Apple? What about Microsoft? And, again, it isn't FUD just because you don't like it.
johnpapola
on Jul 21, 2008
It's FUD because it was vague and unsubstantiated. They should have shown the code. Provide the proof and then accept the licensing fees. By not demonstrating where linux violates their patents, Microsoft was pulling a SCO (who I believe they helped keep alive with investment while their ludicrous suit dragged along). You are building an accusation with no proof. I'm not saying that linux doesn't violate the patents. It very well may. I'm calling FUD for what it is. Spreading FEAR among Linux customers about liability, uncertainty about the extent of the problem and DOUBT about the viability of Linux. Had they simply demonstrated the patent breaches, you'd be right. Instead, you're contributing nothing but unsubstantiated allegations based on assumptions. I don't know why you think that's reasonable, because it isn't.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 21, 2008
@john It would be FUD if it was "buy Linux and maybe we'll sue oneday and there's nothing you can do about it" What it was, instead, was "We're offering the same patent indemnity licensing that we offer to Apple and every other OS vendor and that we pay to other vendors" Of course, when Linux users are told they have to actually respect patent rights, they seem get a bit huffy. Now, some Linux distributions did license and their users are no more at risk than Apple users are. (Or than Windows users are) because their vendor licensed the technology rather than just whining about how unfair it is that when they get caught stealing they're not just told, "oh, it's ok in your case"
mjs42370
on Jul 23, 2008
Thanks for putting this under the spotlight, Paul. I am outraged that there isn't a free tool to sync calendar on the iPhone. I left a request at apple and hope others that are frustrated will do the same. If they get enough pressure they may rethink this when iTunes 7.8 comes out. Here's the link: www.apple.com/feedback/iphone.html

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use