[wallinbl]

I'm having trouble coming up with valid reasons for Apple to not have released real support for Exchange. Seems like people everywhere are dying for it. Does their market research show something else? Is it just a jab at Microsoft?

(It's in the lounge because I'm not really talking about the iPhone as much as the business reasons for excluding Exchange support).

[Art Vandelay]

Blame Microsoft for it. MAPI is a closed protocol. MS won't even put it into Entourage.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Blame Microsoft for it. MAPI is a closed protocol. MS won't even put it into Entourage.

Is it a licensing issue - or they just don't want it on Macs?

[Art Vandelay]

They don't want it on anything except Outlook.

[mdc]

A few days ago I turned on IMAP on Exchange for a company because some users bought iPhones.
I tested it on my iPhone and it worked nicely.
All of the Mailbox folders and Public Folders were visible.

There isn't going to be any syncing of your iPhone calendar or contacts over the air, but you can sync your iPhone at work if you want to have your contacts and calendar in sync.

Email from Exchange to your iPhone is very possible, but not in a BlackBerry/ActiveSync type of way.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

Blame Microsoft for it. MAPI is a closed protocol. MS won't even put it into Entourage.

Um, since when? I've used Entourage with my former employer's Exchange server without a hitch.

In fact, there are a crap ton of tutorials on Google telling you how to do it.

I'm guessing Apple didn't include it because of licensing or so that Microsoft could release it as an application later - or because Apple wanted to be ornery about it.

[starman]

Shall I post screenshots of Entourage working with my company's Exchange server?

[Art Vandelay]

That's not MAPI, the native Exchange protocol. That's IMAP and has to be enabled for non-Outlook clients to have access. It does not give you full Exchange functionality that is present only in Outlook.

Take a look over on MS MBU's blog and look at all the comments on Entourage's so-called Exchange support.

OWA is a better Exchange client than Entourage.

[shifuimam]

No, that's Exchange and allows syncing of calendars, address books, and mail.

Perhaps my employer used some supersecret method of calendar syncing over IMAP, but I highly doubt it. From the tutorials I just glanced at, it even supports account delegation.

[osiris]

interesting... my company is planning a big move to Exchange in a year... well, not any more.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, that's Exchange and allows syncing of calendars, address books, and mail.

Perhaps my employer used some supersecret method of calendar syncing over IMAP, but I highly doubt it. From the tutorials I just glanced at, it even supports account delegation.

No, it's IMAP, LDAP, and WebDAV. It is not MAPI. It is not native Exchange support.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

No, it's IMAP, LDAP, and WebDAV. It is not MAPI. It is not native Exchange support.

Despite its progress, Entourage still isn’t Outlook. It works differently than Outlook and has some server requirements that you might not already have configured on your Exchange network. The biggest difference from Outlook is that Entourage doesn’t support Exchange's native Messaging API (MAPI) protocol. Instead, Entourage uses WWW Distributed Authoring and Versioning (WebDAV, which is also used in OWA) and LDAP on Exchange Server. Entourage 2004 uses WebDAV to synchronize calendars and contacts. To support Entourage 2004, your server must be running Exchange 2000 Server SP2 or later.

Interesting way of implementing it. Sounds like it would be doable to do that on the iPhone.

I wonder if this requires special configs on the Exchange server, or if it's all part of the default installation/configuration.

I stand corrected. Oh snap.

[starman]

Even if it isn't using MAPI, does it WORK? What are people actually missing?

The OP wants to know why APPLE doesn't support MAPI. That's kinda silly, isn't it?

[shifuimam]

I find it more interesting that Microsoft gets sh!t for not allowing MAPI to be implemented in software other than Outlook, when Apple's done an identical thing with their FairPlay DRM technology - they made it more or less impossible to play DRM-wrapped iTunes music on anything but Apple hardware and software...it's the same thing, in my book, and it's part of being a computer corporation - keeping a close watch on one's proprietary technology.

I'd say that even if it isn't using MAPI, Entourage provides decent Exchange support for Mac users. But Exchange is an enterprise communications and collaboration environment, and Macs aren't exactly designed for enterprise networks, no matter how you spin it. Macs make fine home machines, but they aren't really friendly to enterprise computing environments, and were never meant to be.

[Art Vandelay]

You can already access an Exchange server today with non-Outlook clients, such as Mail, Thunderbird, Entourage, provided that the required services are also enabled on the Exchange server.

So, yes an iPhone can access an Exchange server already if the Exchange admin has enabled the extra services necessary for non-Outlook clients to access it.

But no one will be able to natively access Exchange until MS changes their policies and support.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

I'm having trouble coming up with valid reasons for Apple to not have released real support for Exchange.

It's one less CAL you have to pay Microsoft? (hey, at least I'm trying.)

[nonhuman]

So it appears that the answer to the original question of what benefit is derived by having the iPhone not include native exchange support is: existence.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I find it more interesting that Microsoft gets sh!t for not allowing MAPI to be implemented in software other than Outlook, when Apple's done an identical thing with their FairPlay DRM technology - they made it more or less impossible to play DRM-wrapped iTunes music on anything but Apple hardware and software...it's the same thing, in my book, and it's part of being a computer corporation - keeping a close watch on one's proprietary technology.

Not quite the same scenario but for argument's sake, let's say it is. Apple doesn't cripple FairPlay on Windows? It's exactly the same. MS has never provided a true Exchange client for Macs that matches the capabilities of Outlook for Windows, even when there was an Outlook for Mac.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'd say that even if it isn't using MAPI, Entourage provides decent Exchange support for Mac users. But Exchange is an enterprise communications and collaboration environment, and Macs aren't exactly designed for enterprise networks, no matter how you spin it. Macs make fine home machines, but they aren't really friendly to enterprise computing environments, and were never meant to be.

Entourage provides mediocre Exchange support but it has gradually improved over the years. However, there are things that are either missing or don't work properly (i.e. Public Folders).

There is nothing inherent in a Mac that makes it harder or impossible to provide a true Exchange client.

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by starman 

The OP wants to know why APPLE doesn't support MAPI. That's kinda silly, isn't it?

Is it? There are plenty of products that communicate with Exchange. Use Google.

Exchange Connector - Real-time Synchronization of Outlook Calendars to External Databases
Evolution Exchange Connector - openSUSE
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...connector.mspx

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The MAPI/RPC protocol is proprietary to Microsoft, implemented using Microsoft's MSRPC variant of the DCE/RPC protocol.[1] Microsoft does not publish the details of the protocol to the public. However, it does license the protocol for a fee.

They would sell a metric ton of them if they'd license it or do what Evolution did. It's the whole reason I don't have one. There are hordes of executives around the country that would as well.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I find it more interesting that Microsoft gets sh!t for not allowing MAPI to be implemented in software other than Outlook, when Apple's done an identical thing with their FairPlay DRM technology - they made it more or less impossible to play DRM-wrapped iTunes music on anything but Apple hardware and software...it's the same thing, in my book, and it's part of being a computer corporation - keeping a close watch on one's proprietary technology.

That's not even similar. DRM is not very much like a communication protocol at all.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Is it? There are plenty of products that communicate with Exchange. Use Google.

Exchange Connector - Real-time Synchronization of Outlook Calendars to External Databases
Evolution Exchange Connector - openSUSE
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...connector.mspx

None of your examples are native Exchange email clients. iPhone can communicate with Exchange, just not as a native email client.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

That's not even similar. DRM is not very much like a communication protocol at all.

They're very similar. Apple's use of DRM restricts the ability to play songs purchased from the iTS to only approved computers. Microsoft's use of aggressive licensing restricts the ability to check your email via MAPI to only approved computers.

Yes, the underlying technology may be very different, but they both serve the same purpose. Both MAPI and FairPlay are designed to ensure that only certain people have access to certain information.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

None of your examples are native Exchange email clients. iPhone can communicate with Exchange, just not as a native email client.

I thought Evolution actually did, that they had licensed the technology to use Exchange properly?

[Art Vandelay]

From their website:

The Evolution Exchange connector uses the functionality of Outlook Web Access (OWA) to integrate with Exchange. Therefore, it is a requirement that OWA is enabled on the corporate Exchange infrastructure.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay 

From their website:

Ah, gotcha.

[wallinbl]

OWA is fine. It uses SSL, everyone has it on anyway and it will do contacts and calendar.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

They're very similar. Apple's use of DRM restricts the ability to play songs purchased from the iTS to only approved computers. Microsoft's use of aggressive licensing restricts the ability to check your email via MAPI to only approved computers.

There is no technical or legal reason why a communication protocol needs to be kept secret. DRM is all about secrets — that's just what it is. This isn't something unique about FairPlay.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Yes, the underlying technology may be very different, but they both serve the same purpose. Both MAPI and FairPlay are designed to ensure that only certain people have access to certain information.

Yes, but Microsoft didn't restrict MAPI because somebody demanded it — they did it just because it makes them money.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Um, since when? I've used Entourage with my former employer's Exchange server without a hitch.

In fact, there are a crap ton of tutorials on Google telling you how to do it.

I'm guessing Apple didn't include it because of licensing or so that Microsoft could release it as an application later - or because Apple wanted to be ornery about it.

Entourage does not use MAPI to access Exchange, it uses IMAP, WebDAV for calendaring, and LDAP for accessing the Exchange GAL.

Accessing Exchange mail via IMAP is painless as long as IMAP is enabled on the Exchange server, this works fine. It's the calendaring, delegate support, free/busy time, and all of the other Groupware functionality that is closed. Using a product like Evolution and its Outlook connectors, you can access Exchange's groupware functionality, but this connector is reverse engineered. It has been broken between Exchange releases, and likely will be again.

There is nothing Apple or any company can do to fully support Exchange without using reverse engineered hacks, this is entirely up to Microsoft. Even Entourage has had problems supporting all of Exchange's features, especially in multi-node Exchange environments. This is telling of how closed Microsoft has been with opening up Exchange a little more.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

OWA is fine. It uses SSL, everyone has it on anyway and it will do contacts and calendar.

And it is crippled on non-IE browsers...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I thought Evolution actually did, that they had licensed the technology to use Exchange properly?

No, their connector is reverse engineered, and like I said, Exchange upgrades can cause it to break.

[besson3c]

The good news is that there is worthy Exchange competition now...

Zimbra is looking quite nice these days, and was just bought out by Yahoo. Like Exchange, it doesn't scale particularly well, uses its own IMAP server, but it does provide a lot of functionality.

And... Leopard will also offer an Exchange alternative. It looks like iCal Server/Darwin Calendar Server will provide all of the functionality provided by Exchange to iCal, a company has always been able to produce an LDAP directory similar to the Outlook GAL, and of course shared folders is common feature of IMAP servers (including Cyrus and Courier-IMAP). The only thing that appears to be missing is an interface to create shared folders and assign permissions to them...

[Paco500]

Clearly other devices can support exchange functionality. Nokia and other symbian phones, as well as Palm have licensed the ActiveSync tech.

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/ev...wa_mobile.mspx

Apple could, I suppose, license this. Or perhaps DataViz or another third party could release the software.

At the end of the day, if it works, who cares if it's MAPI. Windows mobile devices don't even use MAPI to connect.

And I am another who will not be getting an iPhone- mostly because of this. I've no desire to carry two phones, and my job requires wireless sync with exchange calendaring- even more so than email.

[starman]

Lose points for a job dictating what you do.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

There is no technical or legal reason why a communication protocol needs to be kept secret. DRM is all about secrets — that's just what it is. This isn't something unique about FairPlay.

No, what is unique to FairPlay and the Zune's DRM is that it is completely locked to specific hardware and specific software. PlaysForSure is still DRM, but it's compatible with a huge selection of DAPs and software. Apple has deliberately kept the menage a trois between FairPlay, iTunes, and the iPod line as exclusive as they possibly can, because *gasp* it makes them more money. If Apple licenses FairPlay on other players, they lose hardware sales. If they make PlaysForSure compatible with their hardware, they lose music sales. It's a very well-calculated move on Apple's part, and it's ensured them continual huge profits from the iPod/iTunes marriage.

There's no technial or legal reason why FairPlay is exclusive to the iPod, or what the iPod is exclusive to FairPlay. Apple did it to make money. Microsoft keeps a close rein on how MAPI is implemented in order to make the most money - if they keep it limited to Outlook on Windows, they make money from the licenses for Windows, Outlook, and Exchange Server. It's essentially the same thing, and it's all driven by the desire in the business world to maximize profits as much as legally possible.

Yes, but Microsoft didn't restrict MAPI because somebody demanded it — they did it just because it makes them money.

And Apple restricted FairPlay because it makes them money. Apple restricted the iPod's compatibility with DRM because it makes them money. If this was about the RIAA wanting to maintain more control over digital downloads, PlaysForSure and the DAPs compatible with it would have tanked immediately. This, however, is not the case, because FairPlay/iPod was driven by profit, not legalese.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

Clearly other devices can support exchange functionality. Nokia and other symbian phones, as well as Palm have licensed the ActiveSync tech.

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/ev...wa_mobile.mspx

Apple could, I suppose, license this. Or perhaps DataViz or another third party could release the software.

At the end of the day, if it works, who cares if it's MAPI. Windows mobile devices don't even use MAPI to connect.

And I am another who will not be getting an iPhone- mostly because of this. I've no desire to carry two phones, and my job requires wireless sync with exchange calendaring- even more so than email.

Windows mobile devices use ActiveSync, which uses MAPI, no? ActiveSync costs money, and if Microsoft wanted there to be a product on the Mac that would properly support Exchange, wouldn't it make sense to offer ActiveSync in Entourage?

[pheonixash]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

No, what is unique to FairPlay and the Zune's DRM is that it is completely locked to specific hardware and specific software. PlaysForSure is still DRM, but it's compatible with a huge selection of DAPs and software. Apple has deliberately kept the menage a trois between FairPlay, iTunes, and the iPod line as exclusive as they possibly can, because *gasp* it makes them more money. If Apple licenses FairPlay on other players, they lose hardware sales. If they make PlaysForSure compatible with their hardware, they lose music sales. It's a very well-calculated move on Apple's part, and it's ensured them continual huge profits from the iPod/iTunes marriage.

There's no technial or legal reason why FairPlay is exclusive to the iPod, or what the iPod is exclusive to FairPlay. Apple did it to make money. Microsoft keeps a close rein on how MAPI is implemented in order to make the most money - if they keep it limited to Outlook on Windows, they make money from the licenses for Windows, Outlook, and Exchange Server. It's essentially the same thing, and it's all driven by the desire in the business world to maximize profits as much as legally possible.



And Apple restricted FairPlay because it makes them money. Apple restricted the iPod's compatibility with DRM because it makes them money. If this was about the RIAA wanting to maintain more control over digital downloads, PlaysForSure and the DAPs compatible with it would have tanked immediately. This, however, is not the case, because FairPlay/iPod was driven by profit, not legalese.

Yea, but Apple has atleast made iTunes multi-platform. I agree that's to make them some more money, but fact of the matter is anyone who owns a computer, can use it.
Not the same for Exchange. Unless you own a Windows PC, you're out of luck. Even when Microsoft makes money off Office:Mac, they don't include Exchange support. They are not happy with the money they make with Office:Mac, they want people to simply switch to Windows so they can make more money by selling you Vista for 500$. And then Office 2007 for the same price.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by starman 

Lose points for a job dictating what you do.

Lose points for being condescending.

I like my job and it provides for me and my family. In order to do my job, I need my schedule (which is very fluid, so needs over-the-air updates) on a mobile device. My company gives me a blackberry to accomplish this.

If the iPhone could handle this, I would get one. But I am not spending a good deal of my own money on what amounts to a toy as I can't use it effectively for work. My job is not dictating what I do, common sense is.

Perhaps gadgets define who you are as a person more than they do me- it's just not a big enough deal for me to worry about "losing points" over.

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Windows mobile devices use ActiveSync, which uses MAPI, no? ActiveSync costs money, and if Microsoft wanted there to be a product on the Mac that would properly support Exchange, wouldn't it make sense to offer ActiveSync in Entourage?

I'm not sure if ActiveSync uses MAPI or not- I don't really see that it matters. Nokia, Sony Erricson, Palm and DataViz among others all thought it made sense to license the tech for use on mobile phones to sell their stuff to enterprise customers. Apple didn't. It's a shame, but I'm hoping a 3rd party does it for them.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by pheonixash 

They are not happy with the money they make with Office:Mac, they want people to simply switch to Windows so they can make more money by selling you Vista for 500$. And then Office 2007 for the same price.

Exactly. And if OS X ever becomes a viable competitor to Windows in the world of enterprise business networks, you're almost guaranteed to have full Exchange support in Entourage. The market for MAPI in Entourage is quite small compared to the market for FairPlay/iTunes in Windows. If Apple hadn't opened up the iPod to Windows (recall that it was Mac-only at first, with medicore support through crappy third-party software in Windows), they would have lost hundreds of thousands of customers. If Microsoft doesn't open MAPI to Entourage, they lose a tiny percentage of their customers, since most Exchange users are in a business environment where they are already provided with Windows machines running Outlook. IT and computer businesses don't care about the end users like you and I - they care about the money to be made in corporate hardware or software contracts, and Microsoft has yet to find enough OS X customers wanting full Exchange support to provide it. They're just not losing enough money on it yet.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by pheonixash 

Yea, but Apple has atleast made iTunes multi-platform. I agree that's to make them some more money, but fact of the matter is anyone who owns a computer, can use it.

Unless they use Linux.

[wallinbl]

Well, at least there will be an API now. Someone can write ActiveSync support. Unfortunately, that will mean more money on top of the price of the phone.

[starman]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Unless they use Linux.

I think Apple knows that by not going to Linux they're not losing much money.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Paco500 

I'm not sure if ActiveSync uses MAPI or not- I don't really see that it matters. Nokia, Sony Erricson, Palm and DataViz among others all thought it made sense to license the tech for use on mobile phones to sell their stuff to enterprise customers. Apple didn't. It's a shame, but I'm hoping a 3rd party does it for them.

What I"m saying is that it seems clear that Microsoft does not want to license ActiveSync to Apple, not the other way around, or, they have made it prohibitively expensive just for Apple. Why else would Microsoft not even license ActiveSync to *themselves* for use in Entourage?

Honestly, even if Microsoft were to license ActiveSync at a reasonable cost to Apple, I applaud Apple for not buying, or even developing a more expensive version of OS X w. ActiveSync support. The world has suffered long enough with Microsoft's refusal to open up their protocols, and with Apple's strategy to build an OS around open standards, it doesn't make strategic sense to make an exception here. What we need is a worthy Exchange competitor, not simply something that ensures Exchange's continued dominance.

What do you think iWork is? While Apple and Microsoft may put on a nice public face and go on about providing people with options, let's not kid ourselves here, they are competing with Office. Should Apple have not developed iWork and just told everybody to go buy a copy of Office?

What about developing Safari? Should Apple have just adopted Gecko or bundled Firefox on all Macs? They could have done so without paying a competitor licensing fees. Are you against Apple developing Safari when far more sites work with Firefox, which has become the strongest and most viable IE competitor in terms of site compatibility?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by wallinbl 

Well, at least there will be an API now. Someone can write ActiveSync support. Unfortunately, that will mean more money on top of the price of the phone.

What API are you referring to? An iPhone API or an Exchange API?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

What API are you referring to? An iPhone API or an Exchange API?

iPhone.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The world has suffered long enough with Microsoft's refusal to open up their protocols, and with Apple's strategy to build an OS around open standards, it doesn't make strategic sense to make an exception here.

Apple's OS might be built around FreeBSD, but it's just as closed off and locked down as Windows - it's just as proprietary, and Apple takes it a step further by making it impossible - and flat-out illegal - to install their stuff on competitor's hardware. I don't call that open at all.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - until Microsoft is losing substantial profits by not opening up MAPI to Entourage, they're not going to do it. Likewise, unless Apple starts losing the majority of their customer base because they refuse to allow OS X on non-Apple hardware, they're not going to open it up, and until they start losing money on the iPod/iTunes marriage because customers get sick of the completely closed design (note that at least Entourage provides decent Exchange support but not full support, while FairPlay or OS X aren't even allowed by the EULA to work on other hardware), they're not going to change that model, either.

What we need is a worthy Exchange competitor, not simply something that ensures Exchange's continued dominance.

Lotus Notes and Novell Groupwise are still alive and kicking. Zimbra's starting to make headway in some circles. Exchange soundly kicks the ass of both Notes and Groupwise in usability and stability - I don't know enough about Zimbra to say anything about it yet. Until the Apple platform has a large user base in the world of enterprise, business-class networks and environments, there will not really be a big enough need for an OS X competitor to Exchange. Even if Apple wrote and sold their own communication/collaboration suite for OS X Server, the market share that actually uses OS X server is so impossibly tiny that it wouldn't even make a dent in the Lotus Notes and Exchange giants.

Should Apple have not developed iWork and just told everybody to go buy a copy of Office?

Quite possibly, yes. What's going to happen when a kid makes a presentation for a class and doesn't save it right, and it looks all funky in PowerPoint? What about when a student writes his term paper in iWork and makes it look all pretty with Apple's cheesy templates, and his teacher can't get it to open in Word? Do you think Apple will ever - I mean ever - release iWork for Windows? I wouldn't hold my breath on it. Why woud you justify Apple making a competitor to Office that is far more closed than Office, simply because it's a non-Microsoft product? If you want to talk about closed systems and proprietary technology, you have to look at Apple and Microsoft in an equally objective light, which puts both of them in the position of being guilty of a proprietary/closed system environment.

Should Apple develop a competitor to Photoshop, or should they tell everyone to buy Photoshop? Would it ever make sense for someone to actually try and squash the graphical design giant that is Adobe? Of course not. Industry standards are called such for a reason.

Windows is the industry standard client operating system for enterprise IT environments. Exchange is quickly becoming the industry standard for collaboration and communication in those environments.

What about developing Safari? Should Apple have just adopted Gecko or bundled Firefox on all Macs? They could have done so without paying a competitor licensing fees. Are you against Apple developing Safari when far more sites work with Firefox, which has become the strongest and most viable IE competitor in terms of site compatibility?

Yes and yes. As someone who does website design for fun, it's incomprehensibly frustrating to have a third rendering engine thrown into the mix on top of Mosaic and Mozilla. Why Apple didn't use the Mozilla rendering engine is beyond me - it would save a lot of headaches if they'd done so.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Yes and yes. As someone who does website design for fun, it's incomprehensibly frustrating to have a third rendering engine thrown into the mix on top of Mosaic and Mozilla. Why Apple didn't use the Mozilla rendering engine is beyond me - it would save a lot of headaches if they'd done so.

Oh, come on now. Let's just take this to its logical conclusion: Mozilla should be killed and everyone should just use IE. Because God knows competition is a bad thing.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Apple's OS might be built around FreeBSD, but it's just as closed off and locked down as Windows - it's just as proprietary, and Apple takes it a step further by making it impossible - and flat-out illegal - to install their stuff on competitor's hardware. I don't call that open at all.

Apple's higher level stuff is all closed, sure (i.e. their entire UI), but the underpinnings - the lower level stuff that makes things tick, and also, most importantly in this context, where the protocols reside is absolutely open with few possible exceptions. With Leopard now being certified as an official Unix OS (whatever that actually means) and with Apple finally releasing their kernel for Intel machines, I see no indication of Apple abandoning any of this.

Apple is only closed when it comes to protecting their higher level stuff, their point and clicky stuff.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - until Microsoft is losing substantial profits by not opening up MAPI to Entourage, they're not going to do it. Likewise, unless Apple starts losing the majority of their customer base because they refuse to allow OS X on non-Apple hardware, they're not going to open it up, and until they start losing money on the iPod/iTunes marriage because customers get sick of the completely closed design (note that at least Entourage provides decent Exchange support but not full support, while FairPlay or OS X aren't even allowed by the EULA to work on other hardware), they're not going to change that model, either.

I agree, I think that all closed models are a PITA to consumers and I can't think of any that I support.

Lotus Notes and Novell Groupwise are still alive and kicking. Zimbra's starting to make headway in some circles. Exchange soundly kicks the ass of both Notes and Groupwise in usability and stability - I don't know enough about Zimbra to say anything about it yet. Until the Apple platform has a large user base in the world of enterprise, business-class networks and environments, there will not really be a big enough need for an OS X competitor to Exchange. Even if Apple wrote and sold their own communication/collaboration suite for OS X Server, the market share that actually uses OS X server is so impossibly tiny that it wouldn't even make a dent in the Lotus Notes and Exchange giants.

Apple already has their own communication/collaboration suite for Leopard now, and Darwin Calendar Server runs on a variety of Unix/Linux OSes. The only thing I can think of that isn't covered is an interface for sharing folders and setting permissions on these folders.

There absolutely is room to compete with Exchange. Exchange, quite frankly, is a piece of ****. It scales quite poorly (although it has gotten much better lately), and the whole idea of sticking absolutely everything into a database - attachments, emails, etc. is just silly. Exchange is very I/O bound, and does not play nicely at all with any other email systems on the LAN.

The reason why Exchange (which, BTW, Microsoft didn't even originally develop) dominates is because it would be financial suicide to compete against Microsoft. If Microsoft wants a large business as their customer, they can undercut all competitors and they do just that.

Where there is most room for competition is in smaller business, the business that Microsoft doesn't really care about. Apple is also in a decent position to compete against Microsoft because they have a growing amount of financial resources. Apple's problem is that they write good software, but their server products are not enterprise suitable (although some might say that clusters of XServes are suitable, Apple's presence and newness still carries a heavy stigma that will take many years to combat). They did the right decision in making Darwin Calendar Server open source, I applaud them for that.

Quite possibly, yes. What's going to happen when a kid makes a presentation for a class and doesn't save it right, and it looks all funky in PowerPoint? What about when a student writes his term paper in iWork and makes it look all pretty with Apple's cheesy templates, and his teacher can't get it to open in Word? Do you think Apple will ever - I mean ever - release iWork for Windows? I wouldn't hold my breath on it. Why woud you justify Apple making a competitor to Office that is far more closed than Office, simply because it's a non-Microsoft product? If you want to talk about closed systems and proprietary technology, you have to look at Apple and Microsoft in an equally objective light, which puts both of them in the position of being guilty of a proprietary/closed system environment.

This problem all stems from file formats - not from the programs that create these files. These problems have been solved with the OpenDocument format. I don't know how robust the format is in supporting extended data in spreadsheets and presentations and such, but what Apple should be doing is devoting resources into making OpenDocument format the native iWork file format.

Should Apple develop a competitor to Photoshop, or should they tell everyone to buy Photoshop? Would it ever make sense for someone to actually try and squash the graphical design giant that is Adobe? Of course not. Industry standards are called such for a reason.

The problem is, there is no such thing as an industry standard file format that only works on a Mac or Windows platform - that is a Mac or Windows standard. There are *applications* that only work on one machine, but only highly specialized applications with very particular markets can get away with doing this. We've been writing up papers for how many years now? This computing activity is extremely commonplace, in fact, I can't think of anything more commonplace. Commonplace activities need commonplace file formats and protocols so that they can interact in diverse IT ecosystems.

Windows is the industry standard client operating system for enterprise IT environments. Exchange is quickly becoming the industry standard for collaboration and communication in those environments.

Not for running servers it isn't. Windows is the industry standard in business environments, that's about it.

Yes and yes. As someone who does website design for fun, it's incomprehensibly frustrating to have a third rendering engine thrown into the mix on top of Mosaic and Mozilla. Why Apple didn't use the Mozilla rendering engine is beyond me - it would save a lot of headaches if they'd done so.

I've made this same argument, mostly centered around the fact that Gecko is an open source rendering engine.

[OreoCookie]

KHTML is also Open Source and less bloated.

[besson3c]

Yes, I know that Webkit (which has forked away from KHTML) is open source and less bloated, in large part because there is no XUL layer (and the downside of this - Apple will constantly have to devote resources into Windows UI issues with their Windows version of Safari).

We've had these arguments before, I do understand why Apple decided to do what they did at the time. I just don't think it has panned out as well as they had hoped.