Comments on: Why Did Microsoft License Exchange ActiveSync to Apple?

By: linqunfeng

linqunfeng — Thu, 20 May 2010 02:53:16 +0000

The Polished/Brushed stainless steel case's simple, cheap replica yet elegant design makes it a perfect wholesale replica match for any occasion. The Blue stylized dial is pleasure to read, swiss replica and show off. For those always on the go, the Deployment clasp removes the hassle from wearing a timepiece. Whether heading into the office or out to the tennis courts, the sturdy Deployment style will never let you down. Standard to this timepiece is the helpful Date display atretail replica. So if you want to buy watch replicas for your lover, please but it.

By: Jimmy Lewis

Jimmy Lewis — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 21:10:42 +0000

I have always wondered about this. Getting my Mac i was already confused as to why the supported mainly entourage instead of outlook and exchange. I bounce back from mac mail to entourage from time to time but i want my exchange and outlook back darn it. Good writeup on this. Very informative.

By: Steve Murchie

Steve Murchie — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:52:08 +0000

Or this maybe? http://www.infoworld.com/d/mobilize/apple-betrays…

Don't have an opinion myself – not following the story, but found the InfoWorld article interesting.

By: 为何微软将 Exchange 的 ActiveSync 授权给苹果？ - 数码

为何微软将 Exchange 的 ActiveSync 授权给苹果？ - 数码 — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 18:02:09 +0000

[...] Feld；原文链接；译者：Ye [...]

By: Jeff

Jeff — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:40:44 +0000

It's a bummer Apple didn't build in native syncing for Exchange Tasks and notes. I have found the iMExchange app to be a great alternative. For a free (read-only) version, iMLite Viewer does the job as well for quick access stuff.

By: AdminID

AdminID — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:07:04 +0000

From AppleInsider:

In order to keep up with Microsoft's changing client strategy, Apple has pursued multiple efforts to deliver Exchange support for its clients. For the iPhone, Apple licensed the rights to implement a compatible Exchange Active Sync conduit with Exchange; it did not license any Exchange Active Sync software from Microsoft. Apple owns both the iPhone and Snow Leopard software that talks to Exchange.

The client applications Apple has upgraded in Snow Leopard to connect to Exchange, including Mail, Address Book, and iCal, use WebDAV to talk to Apple's own Snow Leopard Server applications. Because Microsoft only supports its new Exchange Web Services API under Exchange 2007, Snow Leopard's new Exchange support requires a modern version of Exchange. The iPhone's EAS works with older versions, including Exchange 2003.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/09/05/ins…

By: @tjcook

@tjcook — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 03:24:43 +0000

Perhaps that was part of the 'deal' between Microsoft and Apple–"If you want Exchange on OS X it has to be 2007". I think your concept of Microsoft seeing the life cycle of exchange extended through use cases like your own companies has a lot of legs to it.

By: AndyA

AndyA — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:09:46 +0000

I think we should consider the cloud portion of this. Apple's need for Exchange Sync is obvious – a critical component of bringing the iPhone into the Enterprise mobility space. Adding the native aspects of Snow Leopard gives the desktop link to Exchange – this gives stickiness to Exchange as Brad points out, and makes Macs more relevant in the enterprise. But what was Microsoft getting out of this? I would speculate that this directly coincides with the launch of MobileMe. When the new iPhone came out with ActiveSync, it was directly tied to the update from .Mac to .Me. This too syncs with Exchange (when corporate firewalls allow). I think it's a pure revenue deal – I bet MS gets a piece of iPhone licenses plus MobileMe memberships. I wonder if there is more lurking behind the MobileMe service… maybe even MS Exchange servers…

By: @frankm

@frankm — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:47:00 +0000

You are thinking of this as if Microsoft has a single, corporate strategy. I think today Microsoft is esentially the General Motors of the software industry, with each division doing what is right for them but doesn't necessarily fit into a coherent corporate strategy. When your focus is on revenue from anywhere in anyway, (why else would they want to so badly to get into advertising but to increase revenue?) the only option is to grow in any direction possible.

By: Brad Feld

Brad Feld — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 15:59:07 +0000

Re: Google Apps – yeah – we were mostly focused on Gmail. However, I typically use the free Google Docs for a lot of stuff I do and find it to be more than adequate. Of course, most of what I do is write email anyway – who needs redlining for that?