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

mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola Calling Leopard a Service Pack is at worst equally as false as saying it has 300 new features.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@snakedoctor1 The point is that IE has those AJAX features, has had them longer than anybody else and the standard was based on IE. So, yes, they work fine. Even here, the only complaint is that the LiveScript/ECMAScript/JavaScript implementation in IE 7 is slower than in FF3 or Safari. Since everybody else's code seems to work at a reasonable speed on IE, perhaps the reasonable assumption is that the problem lies in Apple's bloated scripting code...
johnpapola
on Jul 17, 2008
@Mike, Um... You do realize that you can be right to criticize the "300 new features" list as silly and wrong about leopard being a service pack at the same time, right? Because that's what you are. 300 Features was dumb and hyperbolic marketing (though not technically false). Leopard was also a significant OS release that provided sweeping improvements, fundamental new APIs, major new functionality and UI changes. Only partisan hacks play things black and white and construct false dichotomies instead of rational arguments. Similarly. Microsoft can both be the originator of many of the AJAX base technologies, IE7 can support many AJAX features and yet IE7 can be a browser with poor support for modern web standards that Firefox, Safari and Opera now support more fully. Given that IE8 entire push is to make it "more standards compliant"... that inherently means that IE7 lacks in that area. Why are you trying to dispute that? More hackery?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola Saying "poor support for modern web standards" is hyperbolic as well. The "Modern web standards" that define "Web 2.0" are the two that make up AJAX and those are supported fully in IE and have been for years. So, a few questions to cut the hyperbole and try to see what you actually are talking about... Which standards are "modern"? Which ones effect MobileMe? Why do everyone else's "modern web 2.0 applications" work fine despite this supposed insurmountable failing? If "FF, Safari and Opera" all support these "Modern Web Standards" how come they render pages differently? Why don't those rendering "quirks" matter to Apple?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola The difference between my saying "Leopard is a Service Pack" and Apple saying "Leopard has 300 New Features!" is that I'm not asking you to spend $129 based on my statement.
johnpapola
on Jul 17, 2008
@mike, First, I assume you're backing away from the silly Leopard jabs and going to honest debate. Much appreciated. I honestly have no clue about what constitutes standards compliance and what matter and whatever. I'm a director, not a web guy. I've also made it clear that I think Apple should do what it takes to make me.com work in IE7. I also, however, can appreciate their effort to fight IE's dominance and proprietary standards in general. Listen, I think it's a fair statement for someone like myself to make, even in technical ignorance, that IE7 is not as standards compliant as the competition. Microsoft's own moves with IE8 prove that fact. Their change of course regarding the default engine in IE8 also further confirm it. Of course few sites are going to forgo IE7 support. It'd be suicide for your business to buck the trend. But this is Apple. They're big and have a vested interest in moving people off of IE. They can afford to take the risk with me.com and see if it makes a difference. Microsoft has spent it's existence spread FUD about competitors as a core strategy. Apple, perhaps, is doing the same in the name of an open web that won't leave the mac in the cold. If you want to get into the nitty gritty of Apple's message, it's probably a mix of technical and strategic issues at work. They're clearly pushing an open-standards approach to Rich Internet Applications because they see the threat of a company like Microsoft or Adobe dominating the future of computing with proprietary plugins like Silerlight and Flash. If this strategy bothers enough of their customers, they'll fix it, just as they've licensed exchange from Microsoft and actually gone onstage touting Exchange as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Apple is not nearly as ideological a company as people like Paul (and probably yourself) make them out to be. They're just the most disciplined tech company on earth regarding their messaging.
Snakedoctor1
on Jul 17, 2008
"Which ones effect MobileMe? Why do everyone else's "modern web 2.0 applications" work fine despite this supposed insurmountable failing? If "FF, Safari and Opera" all support these "Modern Web Standards" how come they render pages differently? Why don't those rendering "quirks" matter to Apple?" IE7 works with me.com, its just slower.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola The problem isn't that you don't know hich "standards" are "modern" because there is no definition of what that means. This is purely Apple using FUD to push sales. Is IE7 100% standards compliant? Nope. Neither is Firefox or Safari or Opera. Is IE8 more standards compliant than IE7? You bet. Is FF3 more standards compliat than FF2? You bet. Is IE7 less standards compliant than Safari? It depends on which standards you care about counting as "modern standards" and which you say are "too new to expect to be implemented" and it also depends on who is reading the spec. I know of several spec items that are implemented differently in "standards compliant" browser in totally opposite ways because the spec is vague and the two teams read it differently. As others have posted, IE7 works fine with MobileMe but the site runs slowly since it is a VERY slow page with a lot of script on it. That's not an standards compliance issue. For Apple to say it is means they're flat out lying to cover their slow code by hiding behind meaningless finger pointing. Oh, and in case you do think that the scripting is a standards issue, remember that the ECMA 262 Scripting standard was submitted by Microsoft and Microsoft's JScript implementation was the basis for the standard.
RaaJ
on Jul 17, 2008
While I haven't yet played with the iPhone and MobileMe (will buy the first and try the second shortly after Apple fixes their inevitable first round feckups), but I am interested in knowing what thingamazings Me.com is doing that are more sophisiticated than what Google Gears or Google Documents does - something that seems more feature-rich and complicated than what Me.com says it does. Someone please shed some light. @JohnPapola, Your "partisan hack" tirade is getting, well, tiresome. You admit yourself that you have no idea what "modern web standards" IE7 is breaking, yet you continue to parrot Apple's catch phrases that 'IE7 has known incompatibilities with modern web standards." Hey, if Apple says it invented Time itself, that must be true. Right? To quote your own words "iPeople getting their panties in a twist." Hahaha.. that perfectly describes what is happening here.
wdowell
on Jul 17, 2008
I just hope Apple continue to build this Mobile me mess until it fits the description it was announced with such trademark style. I mean, i've gone and signed up now, the first day, expecting it to work beautifully from day one. Silly me. Yes they've apologized, but hang on: did they REALLY apologize? I didn't see much apology. I just saw words about things being rocky, and a thirty day extension. Sounded pretty firm to me rather than a groveling apology (Similar tone to the one Steve Jobs wrote when the iPhone reduced in price). Yes, i can wait 15 minutes but I would prefer it to be as good as it was advertised and sold to me like. (And yes, things were "subject to change" in the usual legalese). BUt the bowser stuff REALLY infuriates me. Again, i hope this is sorted out properly. I have to hopes 1) Apple sort it all out 2) Google come out with free versions (or even paid) of their calendar, contacts being pushed, along with email. (All the initial partnership with Yahoo and Google seems to have been ditched now, so why wouldnt they?!)
Dipsh t Admin
on Jul 17, 2008
John, I would suggest calming down. Your postings are starting to sound very partisan and hackish, just as much as you so deride others doing. And needing to use expletives and gross stereotypes, and not answering questions, you are spiraling down in to that territory that you so hate, turning in to the Apple Waethorn. Flying off the handle and caring so much about this blog. John, I respect you, I really do, but you need to calm down and take that "chill pill". I know you don't like hearing these things, but take a step back. Your starting to sound just as crazy as you accuse Paul of being. Now who's the crazier one? In reality, I suggest you maybe start posting to your own blog again and start monetizing it. At least you can make some money while voicing your opinion, which you will just as easily be able to do, just like Paul does. Just my 2 mouse buttons if you will. ;)
murdocdv
on Jul 17, 2008
@mikegalos@msn.com Does MobileMe use a lot of JavaScript? Absolutely. Does it perform acceptably, even well, in Firefox or Safari. It does for me, Mac or Windows. Internet Explorer 7 does not execute JavaScript as fast as either FF or Safari, and I believe its performance running MobilelMe borders on unacceptable. Apple clearly says IE is going to perform slowly in their warning, its not an obscure "technical reasons". The only ones responsible for choosing to use that much JavaScript is Apple. But it is also not fair to call it a VERY slow page just because IE, regardless of whether Microsoft created XmlHttpRequest and standardized Javascript, can't run as fast as other browsers. That IE 7 is a slower javascript interpreter than FF 3 or Safari 3 is a fact. As for what web standards were important to Apple using the SproutCore framework that they felt compelled to show the warning, unless you are building SproutCore-based Web apps or have inside information, we aren't going to know. But a big clue might be the list of changes being made to IE 8 to be more HTML and DOM standards compliant: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/04/10/html-and-dom-standards-compl... Yes, that is the IEBlog. Again, we can't know at this point what, if anything for real, prevented Apple from fully supporting IE 7. I don't think anyone is defending the decision to not fully support IE 7 at launch, again they should if they want to attract the most customers. But you refusing to acknowledge that there even could be reasons, and that IE 7 already does all it does well enough for most, is dishonest. If IE 7 was good enough, IE 8 wouldn't be coming. And that is not a Microsoft slam, it's the state of software. BTW, just as a comparison, the latest version of Windows Live Hotmail has been out for a couple years now right? In Safari 3, you still see the old interface. No warning on logon, and only in options do you see this: "This is the classic version of Windows Live Hotmail This version works better with your browser. The full version of Windows Live Hotmail runs on Internet Explorer 6.0 and higher (make sure you check the system requirements before you install it). The full version also works on Firefox 2.0." If Apple is indeed playing "browser hardball", then you could draw the conclusion they aren't the only one. I would suggest instead that Microsoft had to prioritize development efforts, just like Apple has done at MobileMe launch, and they have prioritized correctly. Remember, the only subscribers to MobileMe were Safari and Firefox users on the Mac until the end of last week, I know what I would be making sure works right first if I were building MobileMe's Web apps.
kalewallace
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola @daveinla I love the posts from you guys that are usually longer than Paul's post. I'm a mac user but am dumbfounded how you two look over the fact that Apple doesn't answer to the same standards as Windows. Yeah, Apple is the "David," the little guy, the comeback kid. Woopdee doo. They promise and promise, and in the end, the user's are usually shortchanged. As "few" users as Apple has compared to Microsoft, they should have much better deployments (keep in mind the same thing happened with the 3G activation) and keep the features they promise. And doesn't support IE7??? WHAT? Holy crap, that's a ball-sy move. If you really hate Paul and his articles that much, go read something else. I like having a mac but if I'm associated with the iCabal (and it really exists) you might be finding an iMac on eBay.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@mordocdv Of course there are some key differences between Microsoft's support of Safari for Windows and Apple's support of IE7 Microsoft provides a functioning solution for Safari where Apple does not offer IE for MobileMe Microsoft is only partially supporting a browser with a miniscule market share (1% or less), Apple is vocally not supporting the top browser in the world Microsoft doesn't blame anyone else for their not giving full support for Safari. Apple tries to blame Microsoft for their choices. Microsoft doesn't tell users to switch browsers. Apple puts download links to their browser and the partially supported Firefox. Aside from that, maybe there's a point. But not much left.
tayme
on Jul 17, 2008
@jp - "He claims to be even-handed" Again...I ask...when has Paul claimed to be "even-handed" or unbiased. I think that I have asked that about 5 times this week and nobody has been able to point me to a place where Paul has claimed this. Please do so... --tayme
tayme
on Jul 17, 2008
Many people have posted that they have tested me.com with IE7 and have found NOTHING that does not work. If that is the case, then this is a very direct case of FUD...and FUD that is being spread by Apple...not just the fans. --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@tayme Even if it had compatibility issues with MobileMe, Apple's message is still FUD by pretending it's a vague IE problem that makes it incompatible with Web 2.0 apps besides MobileMe. This is, either way, the most blatant FUD marketing I've seen in years. If MobileMe really DOES work with IE7 then it's even worse but either way, it's pathetic.
tayme
on Jul 17, 2008
@mikegalos - Actually, I consider the I'm a Mac/I'm a PC television spots to be FUD as well. The thing is, I have 2 Macs in my house, along with several other computers running several other OS's. I like Apple products...but do not consider them to be as "customer friendly" as those that Paul has satirically coined the iCabal. @jp - I agree with dipsh!t Admin...Please do not continue down the road to Waethorness. I used to respect him...and I still do you - for now. --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@tayme I wasn't saying this was the first or only case of FUD since the IBM mainframe days just the most blatant one. On a non-FUD but amazingly deceptive example, during the OS Wars, IBM did a checklist ad that had features and check mark columns for OS/2 and Windows 95. They'd put big groups of items in one row. In one case, they had something like seven utilities in the list. Six were in both platforms (like notepad, mail client, web browser) and one was an obscure OS/2 specific one. They had a check mark in the OS/2 column and none in Windows implying that Windows didn't have these uitlities when it had all but one. Their excuse was that they said "a, b, c, d, e, f AND g" and since Windows didn't have "g" they were right in implying it didn't have any of them because AND was clearly understood to mean all or nothing.
millsi80
on Jul 17, 2008
And despite all the annoyances, the press don't give them any heat AND the iSlaves still go out and buy this sh*t! Unbelievable!
Dipsh t Admin
on Jul 17, 2008
I think the biggest problem with the IE7 fiasco, is not does it or does it not support it. That can either be a stupid move, or whatever, really doesn't matter. If they don't want to support it, that's fine. I wasn't in their target audience anyway, so I really don't care. What does roil me and I'm guessing many others is the language that is used by Apple. Some on here talk about how Paul and other commenters are childish and the like. However, Apple is known to be quite childish, and the language of the text was certainly worded in a way to spread FUD. However, unlike some, I don't feel offended by it. There are many other solutions out there. For what it's worth though, going to me.com now, they have toned down their language and made the page the way that it should have been, without the snark (snarkiness being another thing that some one here complain about Paul's and others usage, but totally ignore it and embrace it when Apple is snarky). It now says: "We recommend the following browsers.To make use of rich web applications in MobileMe, we recommend one of the following supported browsers:Safari 3 or later (Mac / PC) Firefox 2 or later (Mac / PC) Update your browser now to access your email, calendar, contacts, and more at me.com" Much better, the way it should be, even with a "don't show this again" check box. And I would imagine that Opera users would get the same window. As far as I'm concerned, this particular problem is solved.
DRWAM
on Jul 17, 2008
What's shocking to me is the overreaction it has caused with you all. I look at it and think that it is pretty benign, while fanboys call it FUD. Pa-lese. If you hate Apple fine, but pick a legit gripe for crying out loud. More and worse FUD has been spewed by all of you and Steve Jobs didn't sue you [yet anyway]. Protest the war or something important for gosh sakes. Respectfully, getta life gang, Doc
johnpapola
on Jul 17, 2008
dip, Sure thing. Calming down... To be honest, this blog is on it's way to losing me as a reader. A quick look at the blog, and you really get the sense that Paul has jumped the shark. It's all apple bashing and Vista praise, which makes it just-another-zealot-blog. That's a depressing thing, and I'm not sure what's prompted Paul's moves. Oh well. At least his podcast is really good. I don't think I can stomach another post about marketshare that involves such obviously ludicrous "analysis" or another shocked "where's the outrage" umbrage fest. bah. What a shame.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola Horrors. A Windows blog praises the best Windows client OS ever released. Will this madness ever cease? Here's a final marketshare post before you leave: More copies of Windows Vista are sold every 40 days than all the working Macintosh computers in the entire world. Bye.
johnpapola
on Jul 17, 2008
@mikegalos, I'd really love to know what your point is. Are you saying "macs suck"? Are you saying that I suck for preferring macs? Are you making the tired, hackneyed, intellectually bankrupt argument that Microsoft marketshare is "proof" that it's better. Apple's stock performance and revenue growth sure doesn't suck. The iPhone is clearly superior in version 2.0 to Windows Mobile at version 6.1 and Paul would and does agree. So what are you trying to prove? I may be long-winded, and I may get passionate about the discussion, but I stay on the topic and don't fly off into this kind of broad-strokes condemnation of any platform. Windows Vista is a fine OS. I think Leopard is better. It's certainly better for the work I do in broadcast media. I think you just have some kind of mac-bashing ax to grind. That's weird and sad.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 17, 2008
@johnpapola My point was your particularly whiny post about how awful it is that Paul praises Vista was ludicrous. As was your threat to leave if there was another market share discussion. Guess that was an empty bluff.
tayme
on Jul 17, 2008
I think that it boils down to a few simple points... - Vista is a good OS...a vast improvment over previous iterations of Windows. This is to be expected. - Leopard is a good OS...a vast improvment over previous iterations of OS X. This is to be expected. -Microsoft is a successful company that has had many mis-steps along the way - illegal monopoly, Windows ME, X Box 360 reliability, etc. - Apple is a successful company that has had many mis-steps along the way - poor management in the 90s, System 9, 3G iPhone and mobileMe release. You see, they are not so different, even though they are completely different. Much like us humans that roam this planet.... --tayme
DRWAM
on Jul 18, 2008
Well said tayme. Agree on all points. Now lets have some info and less bashing. Believe it or not, I don't really go to any other site except macsurfer, which really has mostly 'Apple too friendly links'. I like to get the info here as it is usually well written and easy to understand, but this is becoming superapplebash.com Woops, I always go to the blog to pick your brains, so thanks again. I just don't get a lot of response from forums asyou first youo to find the right one, and pray for a smart response. So remember, the community makes the blog work. Doc
johnpapola
on Jul 18, 2008
@Tayme, good post. unfortunately, the voices of zealotry are beginning to overrun this comments sections. It makes sense, given Paul's posturing and pandering to the Apple-basher crowd. Oh well. Whatever it take to drive traffic, I guess. Just look at the "iTunes is unreliable" post. The next line is that it's actually very reliable on his laptop, just not on his tower. How is that anything other than trolling for links and traffic. If an app is stable on one system and unstable on another... could it be the machine and not the app? Maybe one that claims to be a truth-teller should check that out before making proclamations. Or throw up another crowd-please headline for the hacks. meh. I mean, just look at this new entrant, mr. Galos. Hackin it up in every apple-related article. The echo-chamber is coming to this site very fast. I hope Paul enjoys it.
murdocdv
on Jul 18, 2008
@mikegalos@msn.com I hope you accidentally mistyped my handle, otherwise that was just childish. "Microsoft provides a functioning solution for Safari where Apple does not offer IE for MobileMe" True Microsoft offers the "classic" version of Hotmail, while Apple with IE 7 says there are issues, but lets you try it anyway. You can't try the full version of Hotmail in Safari. I don't know what you would want Apple to do to "offer" IE. "Microsoft is only partially supporting a browser with a miniscule market share (1% or less), Apple is vocally not supporting the top browser in the world" Safari has 1% or less of all browsing traffic? What's your source? How many times do I have to say I disagree with Apple not fully supporting IE 7? It's a mistake, but there are possible explanations. I can't see how "vocally not supporting" is telling you if you want the best experience use these other two choices, and then let's you try it anyway. It does not take much parsing of the Hotmail statement to read classic as "old and busted" and full as "new hotness" if you want to, but I hadn't ever considered that until re-reading it nine times to try and understand your points. My point is really pretty simple. As I have said, it is fairly obvious the MobeleMe browser support decision making goes something like this: What OS are all existing subscribers to MobileMe using? Mac OS X. What are the top browsers used Mac OS X? Firefox and Safari. What browsers should we make sure work with all the MobileMe Web applications at launch? Firefox and Safari. Do both those browsers also work on Windows? Yes. Check-off cross-platform. What about Firefox bookmarks sync? Next version. What about IE? Wow, IE7 Javascript performance stinks compared to FF 3 or Safari 3. Is that it? No, there are HTML/DOM/JS stuff that works the same in FF and Safari, but works different in IE 7. What should we do? Launch date isn't moving, ship without complete IE 7 support, let people know the situation, and fix it when/if we get time, it's costing us subscribers, or check if IE 8 is the answer. "Microsoft doesn't tell users to switch browsers. Apple puts download links to their browser and the partially supported Firefox." Untrue. Microsoft tells you to download IE, and provides a link, for the full Hotmail experience, no link to Firefox though. But that is beside my point. The point of the Hotmail example was to show, least anyone forget, that *if* Apple is playing browser hardball, they certainly haven't been the only ones, and they may not even be playing hardball, like I don't believe Microsoft was/is with Hotmail. If, a huge if, there are any Windows users outraged at MobileMe's incomplete IE 7 support, this should be a reminder that incomplete browser support happens in all kinds of web applications, chill out or don't use MobileMe. This is hardly the first and it won't be the last time that a new Web application at launch has had to constrain the browser support matrix.
murdocdv
on Jul 18, 2008
Possibly even better than filing a bug with Apple, here is the MobileMe Customer Service and Technical Support form: http://www.apple.com/support/mobileme/contact.html I have sent them a request to fully support IE 7, I suggest any other MobileMe subscribers that want full IE 7 support voice their concern as well.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
@murdocdv (Sorry about theprevious typo, the subconscious is an odd thing) Note that the primary point of changing .mac to .me was making it cross platform. Note that IE is by far the dominent browser on the target platform Note that Windows is the dominent platform for iPhone users Note that Safari on the target platform (Windows) is less than 1% by the last numbers I saw. Note that Apple pulled the FUD dialog for one more reasonably worded once they started to get bad press about it. Of course, the FUD campaign is yet another way Apple shows that they're neither ready for the mainstream nor much concerned with competing on the facts. Kind of like: the "Buy a Mac because Windows users have cooties" series of TV ads the "Safari really is an update to iTunes" deceptive opt-out download the "MobileMe is an update to QuickTime" control panel debacle the "Microsoft ActiveStink" reference in the last keynote representing Windows computers in their OS as an old monitor with a blue screen of death.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
@murdocdv Would you be happier if Microsoft put up the followig dialog? Safari for Windows is not fully supported Safari for Windows has a history of known security flaws which affect system security with Web 2.0 applications such as Hotmail. You can use Safari for Windows, but you will not have access to all Hotmail features and will risk security incursions. For the best Hotmail experience, please use Internet Explorer 7 or Firefox 3. (Get Firefox) (Get Internet Explorer) (Continue)
murdocdv
on Jul 18, 2008
@mikegalos@msn.com "Of course, the FUD campaign is yet another way Apple shows that they're neither ready for the mainstream nor much concerned with competing on the facts." Are you serious? That is comical if you actually believe that. Companies are constantly sowing FUD against each other, that is part of competition. Perhaps you need a history lesson. Here is a quote from Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear%2C_uncertainty_and_doubt "Microsoft soon picked up the art of FUD from IBM, and throughout the 80's used FUD as a primary marketing tool, much as IBM had in the previous decade. They ended up out FUD-ding IBM themselves during the OS2 vs Win3.1 years." As for your rewriting of the hotmail browser disclaimer, what was wrong with the original? There is one improvement in yours though, a download link to Firefox.
tayme
on Jul 18, 2008
For those that care...Apple has not relpaced the IE7 splash with a kinder, gentler version. I still get the FUD splash on my Vista machine. On my XP/IE6 box, I get the toned down version. --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
@murdocdv There you go again making accusations against Microsoft without providing anything to back up your accusations. I just gave concrete examples of Apple's childish and FUD behavior and your response is effectively, "It's OK that Apple does it because they all do it and even if I can't actually show an example you should take my word for it." No deal. Either show the FUD you're talking about or apologize. (Oh, and the Wikipedia page that you linked to showed as an example a Microsoft memo saying not to use FUD marketing and a quote from an essay on open source that didn't cite any either but did the same "Hey, they must do it" assumption.)
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
@tayme That's sad that Apple continues to act like a spoiled 4th grader. Do you know which dialog they user for Opera, Safari 2 or Firefox 2? (3 other browsers not supported?)
johnpapola
on Jul 18, 2008
@Mike, Yep, that's it. Apple's acting like a 4th grader by using the exact same strategy that Microsoft has used forever. The same strategy of exclusion that the currently use with OWA, probably one of the biggest web apps in use in business. Or hotmail. The same strategy that has underpinned they're push for developers to employ IE-only tech to limit browser competition. Only, unlike these IE-only strategy plays, Apple allows me.com to render in IE7. It's simply amazing to me the way Microsoft Apologists/Apple bashers like yourself see the world. Microsoft uses every trick in the book to achieve dominance. You people celebrate that dominance as proof that your platform is superior. Then you scorn Apple for using comparable tactics to advance their own agenda (one that happens to be more open-standards and cross-platform). You lambast itunes/ipod lock-in, yet say nothing of the fact that Windows Media DRM isn't on the Mac, despite the Mac's very sizable consumer share (Mac users are estimated to be 15 to 20% of the US consumer installed base... numbers that Paul has said he agrees with). So choice is great, so long as it's YOUR choice. And what's the funniest thing of all? None of you partisan trolls would ever consider Apple's products or services. You don't use the stuff, or want to use it, and yet your feign outrage and are SO opinionated about it. Get a life. I'm passionate about my tools and my platform. I could care less what you people use, or what Microsoft does... so long as it doesn't interfere with me. Microsoft pushing "silverlight" on the web may interfere with mac users some day. The day that silverlight becomes dominant and all of the sudden the Windows version runs better than the Linux and Mac versions. There's every reason to believe that "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" is alive and well deep inside the strategic core of Microsoft. It's just a matter of them gaining a dominant position with something besides Windows and Office for that strategy to re-emerge. So long as they're the internet underdog, "openness and interoperability" will be the buzzwords in Redmond. I hope I'm wrong. I hope Microsoft has changed. I hope they have the confidence in their good products to retire the Windows "moat" strategy. But it's what made them who they are... and old habits die hard. Mike, you're an Apple-basher. And this faux outrage over Apple's "FUD" is silly.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
@johnpapola You're taking after murdocdv so much I'll just say the same thing. There you go again making accusations against Microsoft without providing anything to back up your accusations.
murdocdv
on Jul 18, 2008
@mikegalos@msn.com You are asking me to apologize to Microsoft for what? Pointing out the disclaimer they have had in Windows Live Hotmail for over a year. Stating they have used FUD throughout their existence. That made my week, funniest damn thing I have read. I certainly didn't say take my word for it, I just believe everyone knows how to use Google. Here are some recent examples: Ballmer says the first gen iPhone "$500, fully subsidized, with a plan, it is the most expensive phone in the world". Completely untrue, as plenty have been correct to point out, even though the iPhone 3G acquisition price is cheap now, closer to other smartphones, the TCO over the contract price makes it more expensive, along the same lines as other smartphone TOC was last year when iPhone 1 launched with cheaper TCO. http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/18/steve-ballmer-laughs-off-the-iphone-d... Ballmer claims that Linux violates 235 Microsoft patents. No lawsuits have been filed, the claimed infringed patents are unspecified. http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/108806.asp?source=rss Microsoft's Aaron Greenberg equates buying a Wii with a Karaoke Machine. Also says a Wii is for "nine year old gamers" and it's a "novelty", and eventually Wii gamers need to "graduate" to Xbox 360. http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=19304 Mike, if you have gotten it in your head that I am a Microsoft basher, your dead wrong. If this is purely about you Apple bashing, you are seriously misguided. If you care at all about technology, as I do, you don't want either Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, or CompanyX to dominate any market. As a consumer, you want them competing against each other to produce the best products. Just because I use a mix of Microsoft, Google, Etc. and Apple products, and nothing to hide more Apple products lately, doesn't mean that can't or won't change down the line. All empires fall. I believe the next inflection is going to be the Cloud OS to all your devices. If this is Live Mesh, MobileMe (rocky start excepted), the Googleplex, or again an unknown, I won't care what company as long as the service meets my needs.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
murdocdv, You still haven't shown the supposed equivalent. You accused Microsoft of a long time history of FUD and din't show any. You presented a few individuals at Microsoft as the equivalent of official Apple marketing campaigns. So, again, show your work...
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 18, 2008
Oh, and before you includ Balmer's statements, show how they're not accurate and were designed to spread Fear, Uncertainty or Doubt. They seem pretty fact based to me. Unlike the Apple FUD based on vague claims which is a necessary part of FUD.
johnpapola
on Jul 19, 2008
Mike, if you don't think an unsubstantiated claim of 235 patent violations by Linux is FUD, you're really on another planet. That is the DEFINITION of FUD. REAL FUD. Not this Apple warning, which is a strategic statement of fact. They were putting out this statement to businesses in order to scare them away from linux... or at least into buying their licensing arrangement with Novell. FEAR: Linux violates 235 of our patents. Translation: If you use linux, your business could be liable for millions in license fees that you haven't anticipated. Be afraid of Linux! UNCERTAINTY: We won't actually say which 235 patents it violates. We won't actually provide any information about this statement. Translation: Our patent cloud hangs over all things Linux. Avoid it all if you want to be safe. DOUBT: We aren't filing any suits now (probably because we're not convinced we could win)... but you've been warned. And now, hopefully, every purchasing decision involving Linux will be tainted by unsubstantiated doubts about the future liability. How can you possibly deny this? I'll dig up a bunch when I have the time. This stuff is all so part of the open history of Microsoft, you need only digg through the discovery in US vs. Microsoft. Or read "Broken Windows". Or have been alive and able to understand speech and text for the past 20 years.
tayme
on Jul 19, 2008
@jp - Yes, MS was convicted of illegally using their monopoly to harm competitors...but they have paid for that. In fact, they are starting to get a little respect from the US DOJ now...and it is the EU that is after them...in my opinion, in a money seeking witch hunt. As for "The same strategy of exclusion that the currently use with OWA, probably one of the biggest web apps in use in business. Or hotmail." I just used Safari on my Mac to connect to and retrieve my email from Hotmail with no messages or problems of any type. I do not use OWA for my corporate email, so I cannot test that. I did connect to www.mesh.com and was able to add a folder and upload a file, but could not add my Mac to the mesh...the only message that I recieved regarding that was "The Live Mesh extender is not currently supported on this device." And then a couple of Coming soon messages for Mobile devices and Macs. --tayme
johnpapola
on Jul 19, 2008
@Tayme, How exactly has MS paid for it? They weren't broken up. Their grip on the PC market hasn't remarkably changed. They still have the profit margins indicative of monopoly pricing power (30% vs. Intel's 17%, Apple's 14%, HP's 7% and Dell's 4%). The DOJ gave Microsoft a slap on the wrist and all the fines in they've had to "endure" are made up for in one quarter of monopoly-enhanced profiteering. I hope they are a more ethical company now then before, but the proof is in the pudding.
tayme
on Jul 19, 2008
@jp - How exactly has MS paid for it?" You answered your own question. What do you want them to do? Voluntarily pay fines that were not levied? Not only did they pay the fines that were levied, but they also paid many class action lawsuits in various states for things like somebody deciding that we paid too much for MS software....I am sorry, but in my opinion, those kind of suits are frivolous at best and socialist at worst. Come on, you are better than lowering yourself to the level of basing your arguments on fanboy statements that have been floating around on the net for years. you did not respond to the part of my post regarding the actual testing of your claims that I did, proving that your post was incorrect. I realize that you are a fan of Apple, and that is fine...but over the last week, you have let Paul do exactly what he is attempting to do with his posts...egg you on. You might consider ignoring him for a while...see if that changes anything. --tayme
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 19, 2008
@johnpapola "They still have the profit margins indicative of monopoly pricing power (30% vs. Intel's 17%, Apple's 14%, HP's 7% and Dell's 4%). " Gee, there's a higher profit margin in software. Now, care to compare Microsoft to somebody actually in the same business before trying to draw conclusions from comparing kiwi and bananas?
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 19, 2008
@johnpapola "How can you possibly deny this? " Deny that offering companies the option of buying a license that immunizes them from potential patent litigation for using software that violates patents is FUD? Of course I can. That's standard procedure in this industry. For example, Microsoft paid Apple a huge fee to buy exactly that kind of contract. And Apple paid Microsoft fees for the same thing. Now, when Apple said to Microsoft "we're preparing to file patent suits against you but are willing to negotiate a licensing deal" was that FUD? Either both are (and all the licensing deals in the industry are) or neither of them are. But, then, you probably think that all the code in Linux was independently developed by unemployed devs who had never seen the equivalent commercial source code while working in their parents' basements at night. I hate to break it to you but a fair number of chunks of code in Linux had already been shown to be commercial code "donated" by developers who decided the code they had access to at work would be really useful in Linux. When found, that code is generally removed to avoid just such lawsuits.
murdocdv
on Jul 19, 2008
@mikegalos@msn.com Look we get it. For you, Apple is the worst company there is. The IE 7 warning dialog on MobileMe is the "canonical" example of FUD, nothing since the heady days of IBM marketing their mainframes even comes close to this dialog. Microsoft has never used FUD. Any examples of MS FUD are actually just a use of facts. Also, Microsoft altruistically offers a way to license all their patents to any user of a competitors product, just in case that competitor violated any MS patents. Nothing to fear if you don't license, Microsoft may or may not sue you. Who doesn't like litigation? Virtualization, perhaps you have heard of it? VMWare is the market leader. Finding market share numbers is hard, but a ChangeWave survey puts VMWare's share at 70%, Citrix at 26%, Microsoft at 22%: http://www.changewave.com/freecontent/viewalliance.html?source=/freecont... Let's assume its close, in the ballpark. Have you read Microsoft's standing policy on supporting their products in a virtualized environment? http://support.microsoft.com/kb/897615 If you use a third-party virtualization product with any of their products, you better hope the 3rd-party product was acquired the correct way, you have MS Premier support, or you could be on your own. Read what VMWare has to post to explain to customers if running a Microsoft product in their products is supported: http://www.vmware.com/support/policies/ms_support_statement.html Let's say I am a company looking to virtualize. I think VMWare, and I consider MS because I have a lot of MS server product. Why is support important? It's ITs safety net, their insurance policy. How is Microsoft's 3rd-party virtualization support FUD? F - If we have a problem with SharePoint, you mean we might not be supported? Well, how did we acquire VMWare? Do we have vendor or MS Premier support agreements in place? U - Let's say we try to get support from Microsoft, you mean I am most likely going to have to build either another virtualization environment using Microsoft VM software or a *physical* environment to prove it's their stuff and not VMWare? D - Wow this sounds like a lot of work. What if we went with MS VM products? You mean we just call MS? Why are we even considering VMWare? If the SharePoint cluster goes down at 3 AM, you want to be building a physical environment to prove to MS its that product instead of VMWare? So the volume virtualization server product, VMWare, gets worse support, and maybe no support, compared to Microsoft's fully supported 3rd place virtualization products. Now before you Hulk out and say Apple blah, blah, blah, save it. The only reason I have continued to answer you was to try and educate you on how absurd your claim that MS does not use FUD is. I know very well Apple's business model and their current virtualization position, and at least on the latter, the situation sucks.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Jul 19, 2008
Microsoft's 3rd party virtualization story is insanely good. Sorry. Compare it to the supported statements on VMWare or any other virtualization engine. If you are putting together a large virtualization system you DO have to do prep for it. It is NOT a trivial thing and requires a lot of planning no matter who you are using. The fact that it's usually easy doesn't mean you don't have to update all the normal server side stuff like backup plans, scaling plans, load balancing, geolocation, etc. (You know, the stuff Apple blew in the iPhone 3G launch) You do also have to check your licenses. Virtualization isn't a license to bootleg. Or do you think Apple wouldn't care if you bought one copy of OS X and installed it on 300 VMs on 100 clone servers?

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