Microsoft Pushing Push Email

[Ed Hardy]

Several wireless carriers and device makers have announced their support for Microsoft's push email system.

Read more at http://www.brighthand.com/article/Mi...ing_Push_Email

[JHoffy]

Where's Verizon in all this?... after all they are the only MS Treo carrier right now.

Jon

[wshwe]

Palm should handle Verizon since the only WM device sold by Palm is the Treo 700W.

MS is premature in pushing push email. It may be months before most WM 5 smartphones get MSFP. The fact that this announcement neglected to mention any dates was telling.

[eufreka]

I mean really, just HOW MANY TIMES are you going to play along as Microsoft re-Announces Push eMail for--what, the fourth!--umpteenth time?

So now, it's first half 2006...guess what, that puts it a YEAR after the "first" general announcement, last June...

Of course the carriers have to stand up at the podium and say they will support it--they have spent a year finally bringing devices to market (in some cases more than 3 months LATE) that were supposed to SHIP with MSFP!?!?!?

They certainly couldn't sell them now unless they "promise" to update them. Otherwise everyone (corporate) is waiting for the ones to release that already include it (and that would not be good for inventories).

I mean really, don't pretend to be a journalist if you can't stand up and ask Ballmer/Gates et al, "Aren't you a little embarrassed? After all, Symbian has been able to use direct push with Exchange 2003 for over a month or more already. What is the REAL reason for the repeated delays. What has this delay done to the lifecycle of WM5? Aren't these interim devices going to end up as 'too little, too late'? After all, they--apparently--won't support MSFP for more than a month or two before the next generation of devices come out in the second half of 2006. Aren't you worried about additional backlash from the thousands (if not tens of thousands) of early adopters who will finally wake up and realize that they are locked into, in many cases, 2-year contracts with outdated equipment?

[eufreka]

Originally posted by wshwe
Palm should handle Verizon since the only WM device sold by Palm is the Treo 700W.

MS is premature in pushing push email. It may be months before most WM 5 smartphones get MSFP. The fact that this announcement neglected to mention any dates was telling.

What was "telling" was that MS and Verizon proudly trumpted the EARLY release of the 700w...and not one tech journalist stood up and asked: "I cannot help but note the failure to include MSFP. Why in the world would you RUSH such a vital product out early by omitting its PRIMARY feature? Isn't that just a tacit admission that the ACTUAL release of an MSFP update to the 700w will be sometime AFTER Verizon's period of exclusivity has expired? And if that is true, doesn't that mean that the MSFP will be delayed until at least mid-2006? (See a TECH "journalist" could have asked that question a month and a half ago...not that they asked it at yesterday's press conference either.

In fact, non-journalists have learned (but I have never seen it reported) that Verizon Wireless Sales have been specifically TRAINED to offer FREE UNLIMITED SMS to any "direct push" buyers of 700w until such time as the updated firmware is made available.

Now, granted, I don't think that has ever been covered by a PRESS RELEASE so it is really no wonder that neither this site nor any other has ever officially reported on the issue...

That would actually form the basis of a great question for Verizon Wireless: "What revenue impact do you anticipate the blanket awarding of free unlimited SMS to 700w buyers will have? And, in a related question, what network impact have you modeled based on meeting your targeted corporate sell rate?

[Ed Hardy]

Originally posted by eufreka
I mean really, just HOW MANY TIMES are you going to play along as Microsoft re-Announces Push eMail for--what, the fourth!--umpteenth time?

Hmmm, you must have read a different announcement than I did. This one was mostly about carriers showing strong support for putting out a major system update. This is something that many people were concerned about, as carriers -- in general -- hate putting out system updates, and do it very rarely.

For example, if there's a single cellular-wireless Windows Mobile 2003 device that was upgradeable to Windows Mobile 5.0, I can't think of it.

Originally posted by eufreka
So now, it's first half 2006...guess what, that puts it a YEAR after the "first" general announcement, last June...

That's the way it works with carriers. Any new technology has to be carefully tested to make sure it isn't going to cause problems for tens of thousands of people. This inevitably delays the release of new products.

Oh, don't get me wrong, there's no doubt there's some hype going on here, too. But that's the way business works. And this was clearly a substantive announcement.

p.s. In the future, please keep in mind that there are coffees available on the market that taste just as good, but without all that caffeine.

[eufreka]

Originally posted by Ed
Hmmm, you must have read a different announcement than I did. This one was mostly about carriers showing strong support for putting out a major system update. This is something that many people were concerned about, as carriers -- in general -- hate putting out system updates, and do it very rarely.

Ahem, the announcement seems to be that sometime in the next 6-8 months, the carriers promise to release a MSFP update to their Windows Mobile 5 devices--some of which JUST went on sale THIS WEEK! Now, MSFP was also widely promised for late 2005--months before ANY of these devices had shipped. At the same time, some new devices that won't ship for several more months were also announced with the vague promise of MSFP inclusion. (Don't you agree that is a NON-story?)

A few softball questions to link the announcement to possible poor sellthrough might have seemed appropriate to some, but clearly not the "tech journalism" community. Also see my comments re MS and Verizon's "early" release of 700w...

Originally posted by Ed
For example, if there's a single cellular-wireless Windows Mobile 2003 device that was upgradeable to Windows Mobile 5.0, I can't think of it.[/b]

Well, again you touch on what I thought was a legitmate journalistic question that AGAIN--neither you nor others will ever ask: "Why does Direct Push require MSFP?" Answer: It doesn't. Windows Mobile 5 REQUIRES MSFP.

Microsoft is on the record that the Palm Treo 650 can be upgraded to support Direct Push. Heck, DataViz has been hawking a Symbian app for months that does Direct Push (do you think they snuck WM5 into a UIQ handset?)

So, why *won't* Palm update the 650? How come Symbian already supports Direct Push on CARRIER NETWORKS if "testing" is needed?

Originally posted by Ed
That's the way it works with carriers. Any new technology has to be carefully tested to make sure it isn't going to cause problems for tens of thousands of people. This inevitably delays the release of new products.[/b]

So contrast DataViz's Symbian solution with MSFP--as it relates to Direct Push. How do they avoid "testing" to prevent "problems for tens of thousands"? The issue is NOT MSFP--it is Direct Push availability. And that is NOT a carrier issue.

Originally posted by Ed
Oh, don't get me wrong, there's no doubt there's some hype going on here, too. But that's the way business works. And this was clearly a substantive announcement.[/b]

The ONLY substantive thing the announcement says is: "Hey, it is safe for y'all to go ahead and buy the 100,000 handsets we are just now releasing even though they DON'T include Direct Push (and won't include it for, say, another 6 months or so).

And the fact that you don't call them on THAT is what makes you part of the PR machine.

The journalistic headline is: Microsoft and Partners Announce Support for Direct Push Again--Still No Dates for Availability!

Originally posted by Ed p.s. In the future, please keep in mind that there are coffees available on the market that taste just as good, but without all that caffeine. [/b]

So apparently, Java is just one more thing you don't know enough about...

Maybe my expectations for the integrity and independence of your site (and others--like Gizmodo/Engadget, etc.) is misplaced.

Let's face it: I don't like my news any more decaffeinated than I like my coffee...

[PlasticMan]

eufreka its always good to hear from a comnplete and utter jerk and nothing that you say here makes me think you have any idea wht your talking about. you just seem to be ranting wildly. if you want people to listen to you be alot calmer. none of us are going to think your the only person in the world who knows the truth.

[pixelator]

I'm going to side with plasticman on this. Neither Ed nor Brighthand is biased in the way you're implying. He's just reporting the news without pushing his own agenda or interpretation.

BTW: Engadget is most certainly anything BUT unbiased. You can't read anything there without wading through pages of the contributors' personal agenda and slant.

I've been reading Brighthand for over 5 years - They make more effort to be even in their reporting than any other tech news site... So for as many posts as you have, your batting average is looking mighty questionable.

[eufreka]

Originally posted by pixelator
I'm going to side with plasticman on this. Neither Ed nor Brighthand is biased in the way you're implying. He's just reporting the news without pushing his own agenda or interpretation.

BTW: Engadget is most certainly anything BUT unbiased. You can't read anything there without wading through pages of the contributors' personal agenda and slant.

I've been reading Brighthand for over 5 years - They make more effort to be even in their reporting than any other tech news site... So for as many posts as you have, your batting average is looking mighty questionable.

Their "bias" is their unquestioning regurgitation of Press Releases as "news." Their "bias" is their unwillingness to ask challenging questions.

But, hey, it is okay for you to prefer Manufacturer PR to independent journalism.

And if you want to project attitude in order to ignore factual content, that is okay too.

But here is a post from Microsoft's You Had Me At Ehlo blog from last October:

This is by Ed Hott, the Director of Business Development for Microsoft Exchange with primary responsibility for the Exchange ActiveSync licensing protocol:

QUOTE: "All ActiveSync licensees have the ability to update their existing ActiveSync-enabled devices/applications to add Direct Push functionality. Palm is an ActiveSync licensee and can do this at their discretion." END QUOTE

There is more. It is not rant or bias--it is what MS itself said.

To this day, NOT ONE "JOURNALIST" (including Ed here) has picked up the phone and asked Palm about that statement and it's relevance to more than a million Treo 650s. (Which, despite their hatred of updates, Palm/Sprint has just updated for the 2d time SINCE direct push was announced; including just about 3 weeks ago.)

And what did that update include?

Updates VersaMail to version 3.1 to enhance stability and add improvements

So, again, call me crazy, but I would think a tech "journalist" would pick up the phone and call either/both Sprint and Palm and ask them why they DIDN'T go ahead and include the necessary http command extensions needed to support Direct Push--especially since they specifically modified the syncing of GMAIL (you know, like DataViz has done)?!?!?!?

He may not get an answer, and then that NON-ANSWER would be the NEWS.

Instead, it seems mostly they call to get on press junkets and stuff.