|
|
 Mobile Windows News |  Podcasts |  Videos | Search | Forums | Site News |
|
Push technology in Windows Mobile 2003 : The Lie Revealed December 24, 2003 [General] | By anonymous 1.  Updated: info about sending SMS messages over e-mail at US carriers added. Microsoft claims, that one of the new features of Windows Mobile 2003 powered devices (Smartphone 2003 and Pocket PC 2003 Phone Edition) is the push technology. Contrary to the pull technology which requires the device to poll the server periodically, in order to get latest e-mails, the push technology works in this way that Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 "pushes" the information to your cell phone exactly then when this information (emails, appointments, tasks, etc.) arrives to the server itself! Sounds good? But it is a lie! Why is it a lie? Because in reality Microsoft´s solution doesn´t offer push technology - as it is found in RIM Blackberry. Microsoft´s "push technology" is based exclusively on SMS messages being sent from Microsoft Exchange Server 2003 to Microsoft powered cell phones. Upon reception of such SMS the cell phone is pulling the information from the server. The real push technology, as this one realized in RIM (Research In Motion), doesn´t use SMS messages at all! Using SMS as implementation of push technology is a big mistake however, because in most countries SMS messages are too expensive, too costly, and nobody will use it, because cost of such implementation would be 100 (!) times bigger than this one of RIM Blackberry solution! Windows Mobile department of Microsoft is very detached from the reality. One reason of this detachment is concentration on the CDMA technology (local cellular standard used mainly in USA and Canada) and total negligence of the global GSM standard - present in almost all countries and having over 90% market share globally. As a proof here is how Jeffrey Paul from Microsoft explains the SMS debacle: However, with WAP push services, these are binary WAP messages, which are not supported on CDMA. So that is why Exchange AUTD uses SMS. CDMA has a tiny market share globally but Microsoft is developing cell phones having, above all, CDMA in mind! This is a big mistake. On the other hand Microsoft employees live in illusory reality, not having much to do with real business cases, reality where Microsoft pays all their SMS bills, as this example shows: Smartphone 2003 devices support email push in conjunction with Exchange 2003. Works beautifully. My Pocket PC Phone Edition 2003 was chirping happily last night while I was at dinner, getting updates shoved to it when new mail arrived. ... reveals sincerely happy Neil Enns from Microsoft! But he fails to notice, that this solution is not valid economically for most people and most enterprises! * * * * * On the other hand RIM (Research in Motion) in latest months has signed agreements with SonyEricsson, Nokia, PalmSource and even with HTC (currently the biggest manufacturer of Microsoft powered cell phones). These agreements prove that there is more to "push technology" than just "A special SMS message alerts the inbox to sync." as Jeffrey Paul from Microsoft puts it. Using RIM Blackberry costs some low flat rate price of around 40 dollars monthly. Implementing the same with Microsoft´s unreal "push technology" would cost in most cases over 400 dollars monthly. mobile professionals ... This is our target market today. ... said Derek Brown from Microsoft, but the fact that Microsot doesn´t offer real push technology, denies this claim! Microsoft should correct this problem as soon as possible, either by implementiong its own RIM-like solution, or by licensing it from RIM, and Microsoft should bring this correction into software updates for Windows Mobile 2003 devices. If Microsoft will not do it in first half of year 2004 then the very market that Microsoft is targeting - the enterprise market - will be overtaken by competition (that in most cases just licenses push technology from RIM). Update: we have just learned (thanks Dustin Smith!) that some carriers in USA are not charging when an SMS message is sent to the SMTP address of the phone (i.e. e-mail address like: 12345679@mobile.att.net). AT&T Wireless for example is charing for sending SMS text messages from the device to another, but not charing if these SMS messages are sent through e-mail (i.e. SMTP). This is how the Exchange 2003 AUTD works, it just sends an SMTP message to the SMTP address of the device instructing it to launch an ActiveSync session (happens over GPRS or CDMA data side). This is different than a subscriber using their phone to send an SMS text message to another subscriber which usually incurs text messaging costs. While the subscriber would be charged for the amount of data transferred while the ActiveSync session happens, in the majority of cases (in USA) they would not be charged for the actual sending of the SMS message (really just a control message) to the device to notify of new mail being received. Therefore you can see that in USA not ony flat rate data plans are available (GPRS, CDMA 1x, EDGE) but also they have ability to send SMS messages from Microsoft Exchange 2003 to Microsoft powered cell phones for free! This may be convenient situation for American people and companies, however in most countries outside USA, including Europe, due to high (greater than zero!) prices of SMS messages, the unreal "push technology" from Microsoft, based only on SMS messages, is unrealistic and practically not applicable at all! * * * * * Disclaimer: while we sympathize with Microsoft´s efforts in cell phone industry, we are however interested in long-term success of Microsoft powered cell phones (Microsoft Smartphone and Pocket PC Phone Edition), that is why we are revealing problems, rather than hiding them... Several websites that are being run by so called MVPs (Microsoft Valued Professionals) are not allowed to publish such information, but we, being an indepentent publication, can do it! Watch msmobiles.com regularly for more revealing stories about Microsoft powered cell phones! You will not find such stories elsewhere because either people are totally anti-Microsoft and understand Microsoft technologies only superficially, or are restricted by Microsoft and cannot publish such stories. We can.  Post your comment (free registration is required to post, but if you register you can edit your posts later) [ 2 Comments ]
   |
| ||||||
| Mobile Windows News | Podcasts | Videos | Search | Forums | Site News |
