Folks: No weekly post from Eric on updates today—he’s travelling on business. He’ll be back next week.
I really want the next generation windows to upgrade their voice and music system. they need to upgrade especially for vocalists and musicians to work on their profession. Enhance vibration, soften it, depths, adjustment system, different types of controlling methods, rhythmic and etc. It may really help professionals, singers, musicians, more, even amateurs. To better the world of music and sound quality by computerizing the music methods. It will upgrade varieties the many people who like video recording their voice, And big music directors on the computer. It would be a big upgrade in the music society.
@Kenny Rawlins, I'm not necessarily saying that it's beneficial to everyone. I AM saying it's where they are pretty much all going and that, like moving from horse and buggy to the automobile, there's clearly a resistance to it born of fear---a somewhat irrational fear, in my opinion. Keeping with the automobile analogy, clearly one wouldn't have wanted to just embrace any old car upon giving up horse and buggy, but seeing which makers did it right, that's what you go with. And this is why I was so glad to see Apple, Google and Amazon all jump into the fray. Security concerns are high up on their radar in pushing to move everyone to the cloud (although I'm convinced Google is much more clueless/concerned about this than the others I've mentioned). It's also why I maintain they (Microsoft in particular) will be WAY more security concious (and capable) than any individual out there---in fact, being a bigger target I believe makes them more accutely aware.
You're definitely right that the users are sort of the slaves to the direction the vendors are going---but then, that's usually been the case regardless of the product or service. Although, those changes are often a result of a perception BY the vendor that the paying public seems to want to go that new direction. I think the cloud is a good example---users, as a majority, clearly have been driving the "be anywhere, access anything" train. The cloud is largely a response to that. It's now a competition in exactly how that works.
@ggreig, I couldn't disagree more on the issue of passing contact info. You may think you're "licensing" to me something, but you're not. There's nothing more than a "gentlemen's agreement". If I want to be a tool about it I could certainly be very cavalier about sharing any contact info I get from you or anyone else WITH anyone else. There is nothing---I mean nothing---stopping me from doing so. If you want to ultimately protect that, then your only truly secure resource is to not share it at all. I keep coming back to the two basic feature sets that all communication devices have in common: address books and email. Of those, email is almost exclusively cloud-based, when you boil it down. As I said before, you'd have to run your own email server, hosed in your own home in order to have any claim to securing your information in person. I'm betting you don't. Which means you are relying on whatever email service to secure your information. And, by having it there, you are exposing at least some of your contacts.
I think that if you are truly that worried about security you shouldn't be in the public eye at all. If the only way you will feel secure is manually maintaining things on your device and physically connecting to your computer, then you should be using any connectivity outside of those two devices at all. That's old thinking and that's going to severly limit you. But, you have that choice, obviously. And, unless Microsoft decides to regress and add something like ActiveSync back in, you'll have to choose a different platform as your mobile device. Personally, I'd hate to see it. I don't see the value in it, personally. You and I are going to have to just leave it at an impasse---neither one of us can be convinced of the other's case.
While you made some interesting points i completely disagree with the fact that since all of these tech giants are embracing the cloud means its beneficial to everyone.may be the it is for them but not all of the public,may be the not even the majority of users,but since the majority of users are already kinda addicted to their products they have no choice than embracing what these tech giants implement.
I suspect we could go on for ever here, politely disagreeing with each other, so I'm going to try to answer your last points then I'm out!
I'm not making a claim of any sort, that sounds a bit absolutist! I'm giving the grounds for my personal morality on this subject, and pointing out that in much of Europe and some other places like Canada, the law takes a similar stance with regard to how organisations handle data. Since we're mainly talking about individuals, not organisations, the point of mentioning that is to point out that it's not just my thinking; but if we drop all reference to the law, since it doesn't apply to individuals, I think the reasoning stands.
Your point about reasonable moral certainty is a good one, but it's not solely the respectability of the cloud service provider that has to be borne in mind. There's also how much of a target that provider is likely to be for malicious attack, or government snooping. Even if you think the second is unlikely in the US, what happens if the company is sold overseas?
As it happens, I don't see that the law and morality require different kinds of thinking, since the law is an implementation of a morality. It may not be one that you or I agree with in some areas - which is fine, sometimes the law is an ass - but the two aren't irrevocably separate. In this case, I think our law over here is right, but I think we'll need to agree to disagree!
Your case seems to be that I can't tell you anything in trust, because you will see fit to share it with whomever you like, without any reference to my preference regarding my data. And that's where we differ, I think: if I give you my personal details, I believe they're still my personal details, whereas you regard them as your data. If we use a software analogy, I'm licensing you to use my data; I'm not transferring ownership to you.
I'm not claiming I can provide better security than Microsoft; but if I trust Microsoft's software to protect it on my own machine, I'm exposing less surface to attack than if I also ask Microsoft to protect it in the cloud, where they're a bigger target (if their security was breached, then malicious attackers would be able to collect a lot more data).
I take your point about convenience, and I think it's an important one. Unfortunately I think that the convenience of the cloud is being used to encourage people to store data in a way that ultimately may not be to their own advantage, without informing them about the risks. When I say this, I'm thinking more of other companies more than MS, but I look to MS to try to get it right (that's right from my point of view, of course :-).
Ultimately I don't have a problem with the cloud, so long as it isn't the only way. If there's a way to avoid using it, and users are informed as to the difference, that's fine. What I'm concerned about is the pressure, implicit and explicit, to see it as the future, rather than a choice.
@Michael Stroh - Will you guys be using MS Connect. Question if a bug is found in IE 9 Mobile should the bug be filed in IE 9's Connection (Connect.Microsoft.com/IE) or somewhere else?
@ggreig -- very, very nebulous. "Fundamental respect" leaves so much up for interpretation that it's almost a useless term. What you are basically insisting upon is that if Alice is going to give Bob her contact info Bob has to agree to a limited set of places that contact info can be stored. I'm sorry, but that's simply unreasonable. And, I don't think there's a court in the land (unless it was maybe the 9th Circuit, which is full of a bunch of smooth-brained fools anyway) that would set that kind of precedence. If Alice is THAT paranoid then she shouldn't be granting ANYONE her contact info because the fact is that unless all of your devices are completely standalone, having no connectivity, you cannot guarantee the security of her info. Period. In a reasonable world we deal with all aspects in terms of Risk Management. We approach Risk against Benefit. If the vulnerabilities after applying countermeasures leaves us with a risk assessment that is lower than the benefits we receive from accepting the residual risk, then we press forward. What you're essentially saying is that you actually believe the countermeasures are so weak and residual risk from Microsoft is so great that you'd trust your personal setup more. Wow. If that's true, then I don't understand why you even exist in the public at all. There's just no point.
Ultimately, I think your concerns over this, as irrational as I may interpret them to be, are a bit different from most others' concerns, which stem more from the perception that it's more convenient to go back to the old Outlook/ActivSync process. Frankly, nobody has yet shown me that the old method is any more convenient that using the Connector. In fact, I maintain that the Connector is MORE convenient because it syncs up my email & contacts with ALL devices I use Outlook on. I was limited to two computers with the old method.
[Begin Philsophy Rant]
Woah Woah! Are you making a legal claim or an ethical (moral) claim there? Because you conflated the two at the end there so I'm not entirely sure. The law (needing to be applicable at all times and places where it has domain) has a lot of trouble with particularity so claiming it agrees with anything is a bit tough. That being said, I'll address the ethical claim.
Yes, Alice's privacy deserves more respect than Bob's convience. Analogously Bob has no right to put Alice's contact info on a billboard that he can see outside his window for his convienence. However, Bob taking precautions such that he has moral certainty (different from Epistemic certainty which is at best rare, if even existing) he has protected said information, allows him to store it in various locations. This is the same argument for why Bob can store it in his rolladex, PC, etc. He has reasonable moral certainty that it will not be breeched . So yes, Dodgy company Contesco would probably be out. But we're not talking Dodgy Company Contesco here, we're talking a large scale Fortune 50 company here that also seeks the protection of information (mostly for their own benefit) so I'd be willing to claim reasonable moral certainty on that one. So from a pure ethical standpoint, I'm not entirely sure how one could say that this particular instance of Cloud use is wrong.
Now for the legal claim. First IANAL, I'm a commenter on the philosophy of the law so legal advice this is not. But since the law needs to be ever applicable, they tend to assume that every company is dodgy until proven otherwise. (if you did it in reverse it wouldn't be a very effective law) So yeah, do what the lawyers tell you, but just because the Law says you can't do X because Y paper work hasn't been filled out yet, doesn't make it unequivocally wrong, just illegal (2 different things that occasionally overlap). But again, this is not random company X. It's a company with a Safe Harbor agreement. (Of course the law, being lovely and all Kantian at times may still say no.)
I agree wholeheartedly that blind embracing of the cloud is not good (legally or ethically). Hell, I'm not on Facebook because I don't have any certainty that they'll protect my information (they've let it leak far too many times), but I'm not sure you can jump from "I can't give info to dodgy company X" to "I can't use WP7 and Windows Live's services" without showing me how MS is equivalent to dodgy company X. (Granted, the law may see them that way, but the law is odd like that. Also I'm not sure they do this time.)
/End philsophy rant
Alice's right to privacy deserves more fundamental respect than Bob's desire to store his data with dodgy company Contoso, yes. Alice choosing to give Bob her contact details is not the same as Alice choosing to give her contact details to Contoso, and if Bob thinks it is then Bob is betraying Alice's trust (albeit usually inadvertently and harmlessly). And if "Bob" happens to be an organisation in Europe, the law agrees with me.
@ggrieg, your statement "I don't have the right to take that decision on behalf of the people in my address book" perplexes me. Are you trying to say that your contacts decide where you keep your address book? Do you really think they care (or have any similar consideration of your contact info)? Seriously? If they were that concerned, then they wouldn't let you HAVE their contact info in the first place. For example, I don't give my cell number out to just anyone---I simply don't want to be that accessible to everyone I know. Email or Facebook, that's another matter. But I'm more guarded with my cell. They can't "leak" what I don't give them. But where they store my contact info is absolutely no concern of mine---I don't have that right to dictate how they run their lives. As for personal security, I remain unconvinced that 99.9% of users have their systems more secure than, say, Microsoft's cloud services. I have a full blown network at my house, including a domain controller, web server, email server, etc., so you know I'm security conscious---and I am absolutely certain that Microsoft has got their security down much tighter than I can imagine getting mine.....they wrote the software, for pete's sake.
Here's the thing: if Microsoft (and all the other cloud players jumping in--Google, Apple, Amazon) is serious about pushing us into this new meme, security is NOT something they are taking lightly and are probably approaching in ways that, to those of us who grew up with a legacy approach to security, don't make sense.....but turn out to be ultimately more secure and less intrusive, less obvious.
On that point, @Michael Stroh, could you or one of the security experts, may jump on (or start a new post), discussing the security approach for the cloud, WP7, desktops and other devices? You folks frequently refer to the Exchange side of things, but the fact is most of us don't have Exchange servers setup and probably aren't going to move to Office 365 just to take advantage or "personal Exchange" unless it's free. So, given the concerns that some have voiced, I think some education on this would be helpful. I really suspect that the security is THERE, even for the most basic users, but that we don't see it because we think of security in legacy terms. Clearly, on-device encryption is something many are looking for, but, as an example, if the M$ approach is to not encrypt everything on the device, an explanation of why it doesn't make sense would be helpful. Have folks intentionally tried to hack into a WP7 device remotely to read data? Have folks intentionally tried to hack into the cloud services to read other people's info? What will allay the fears of those hypersensitive to security concerns?
(BTW, it doesn't matter why kind of security protocols you have in place, there is simply NO replacement for good physical security...leaving your device laying around from someone to pick upis YOUR fault, not Microsoft's)
Where is the source that MS's server data isn't encrypted?
Furthermore, the phone uses SDHC does it not? That's the whole reason that your SD cards can't be reformatted once put in a WP7 without the tools from card makers.
I thought most people were irked that you can't send and recieve encrypted emails.
I don't know about the synchronisation with Hotmail but the Sync with my Hosted Exchange Server IS encrypted using HTTPS. What many people are calling for is OnDevice encryption of the data so it can't be read from the SD card or built-in memory without having the necessary key.
I just looked it up and Windows Live Mail as well as the Outlook Connector should use SSL connections when connecting to Hotmail as well so I would be surprised if it was any other way with the ActiveSync-Connection to the phone.
But you're right in that the data on Microsoft's servers isn't encrypted.
You´ve made very strong points in your last comment,in fact i think you´ve said it all.
Just as you said,i also want to encourage people to start thinking deep into this thing.More to note is that windows phone has no encryption for now,so all the exchange which happens is vulnerable
There has to be a line somewhere, and your second paragraph nails it. It's about where responsibility lies. In my work life, using a theoretical cloud service would require me to establish that the cloud service provided the same level of protection to my users that I'm required to; that means (in the case of dealing with a US business) either ensuring they're signed up for Safe Harbor, or establishing a contract with them that would have the same effect.
As a private person, I feel the same moral responsibility, even though there isn't a legal requirement placed on me, and the boundary line remains the same. I know I'm in a minority here, but I also know that there are people who really care about their privacy/data protection boundaries - sometimes for very good reasons of personal safety - and while they may trust me with their details, I don't have the right to trust (say) Microsoft on their behalf.
As far as Microsoft's responsibility to recognise that goes; you're right, there's no obligation. But for what it's worth, I think Microsoft are more responsible about this sort of issue than other businesses (for example, their work on developing the "Private Cloud") and I'm hopeful that they'll continue to be borne in mind. I'd also like other people to at least think about this issue, though I think I'm fighting a losing battle there... ;-)
Thanks for your thanks; I've also appreciated your thoughtful points.
With all due respect (and I'm not trying to poke the bear too much here) the same argument could be made for nearly every storage mechanism. There's a chance your computer gets a virus, or stolen. Your phone could get dropped, pick pocketed/purse snatched, whatever. Heck even the humble roladex could get pilfered right off your office desk. I know people who work in advertising sales that have had their address books downloaded and pilfered by hyper competetive leaving co-workers. Cloud not needed! Data in any form is vulnerable to theft.
I suppose the counter argument is that in theory you control the security at your house/purse/desk, but I'm not really sure about that persay (but we could debate that until the death of the universe.) And it only applies if you have total control over your equipment at the very least (my work ran IE6 until 1 year ago, Yuck!)
I can understand and respect a reluctance to use cloud based storage, but I can also see how your reluctance doesn't necessarily translate into a duty to microsoft to provide something they (for whatever reason) aren't interested in providing. This phone was clearly designed to live in the cloud, I don't think they really ever hid that (although I'll conceede that their implimentation may have been poorly executed in this round.) In such case, said phone may not be for you. Similarly, an iPhone is designed to integrate into iTunes, since I choose not to use iTunes, it's clearly not for me.
On a related note, thanks for the well reasoned and calm discussion! I realize we stand at opposite ends of things here, unlikely to convince the other!
I don't use anything with a cloud-based address book. Not through concern for my own personal data; but I don't have the right to take that decision on behalf of the people in my address book.
Fair enough point I suppose. I made an unwarrented assumption. However I'm still confused by people who are willing to carry information around on their Mobile phone, but unwilling to put it in the cloud. If it's doucments, then presumably you never email them to anyone and if it's contacts and calander stuff, then I suppose there's a mild point to be made, but even then I'm unconvinced. Even if someone hacked in and stole your friends names addresses and phone numbers, they really wouldn't have that much else than what could be taken by stealing a piece of junkmail (or what's likely already posted on facebook). I'll also assume then that anyone who's angry at the lack of Outlook support doesn't use Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail or anything else with a cloud based address book? Really? Because you don't neccisarily have to sync with Hotmail (or live) persay. I've gotten good support syncing with my Gmail contacts, and I don't even use Hotmail's calender (I have it turned off in fact.) I use the Gmail one.
@Kenny Rawlins, I'm thinking that the addition of encryption might be the additional bit of safety net that would help mitigate the risk. If optional full encryption were integrated then it wouldn't matter if the cloud got hacked, they wouldn't be able to read the data anyway. Just a thought.
<sigh> There's just no getting some people off the old meme, though. In contrast, my wife - who is not the most tech-savvy person - had no problem undestanding the concept and she HAS an iPhone. Now that she has a Live account and all of her data works through there she's much happier....why? Because she's no longer forced to do everything on one machine. It no longer matters what kind of devices she's using when she wants to work with her info: smartphone, laptop, desktop. Freedom.
Thanks for input Michael....perhaps you could shed some light on the mindset of not having an app for syncing to your OWN software such as Outlook when the customer expects to buy Win7 phone and it have the ability to sync with MS own software. If I buy a MS Win hardware....I expect it to interact with the MS Software on my PC.
Why do I have to buy an iPhone or an Android to sync to MS own software, Outlook and MS will NOT sync.
Neither bright or intuitive.....and the mommies at the phone store will NOT understand, as I have seen in action when they simply turn and buy another product when told they cant do what they expect to do.
@TheSwamiofSuccess: The team is definitely aware of the great interest in having an official repository for feature suggestions--rather than just ad hoc comments on this blog. So hold that thought. :-)
In fact if MS were to get serious about the phone and devices...the Win7 OS would be updated to include a SYNC function in the OS system...not just an app. No kludge of getting a new email address from hotmail or live etc. I already have an email on my Outlook from my provider...not going to get 3 - 4 more to make this kludge work.
One button would ask us what we wanted to sync and it would be aware of the Win7 phone or whatever was hooked up via USB.
Its just MS mindset that holds it back.....again.
So what if YOU use this wonderful Cloud...we dont. We are retired and no longer interested in all the cloud stuff. Why cant they BOTH be available. Why would MS lock out the developers from making such an app to start with. Apparently the developers kit wont allow deep enough access to the OS for them to make one. Only the high level manufacturers have access. And HTC wont make one....I just asked and got reply from them. They are likely under the MS gun Not to make one. The likely are being forced by MS to push everyone to this nasty cloud.
So we will continue to shame MS to see if they might make one...or let someone else do it. Perhaps if we post to the Apple forums about it...they might try and get their iTunes to work with it.....heh.
Yeah you are right regarding the email third party thing,I personally don´t use third party apps for emails,infact my inbox on all my email accounts i always keep not more than 10 emails so IMHO i don´t even see the need to sync emails,even contacts.
Regarding Mesh and skydrive,if they are fused i wouldn´t ever request any USB connection for local sync,but till then the cloud for me is Kinda Useless,I´m one of those who doesn´t carry information i consider very vital on my mobile or even Sync it to the cloud(or even keep on a media which has access to the internet at all),So i just need sync my basic documents which i don´t mind going through the cloud,reason why i use Mesh for those so i can access them anywhere and which i don´t mind being hacked
Actually, @Kenny Rawlins, I'm not necessarily saying that EVERY person is more at risk relying only on their desktops, but I'm saying that most who claim to be so concerned with security and privacy of their information don't actually back that up with practices to match---they just feign the concern when the reality is that they just don't want to give up the old way of doing things. I see this time and time again in my work. And, surprisingly, many of those who DO actually engage more than the average amount of care use things like Carbonite to be able to provide recovery of data....which is just another implementation of the cloud. It's humorous, actually. I wonder just how many of these security conscious folks use no third party at all. I'll be you'd be hard-pressed to find that they are running their OWN mail server (which I am, actually....and it works well with my Live account so the connector is perfect even in this situation). So, in a way, I've interfaced my "cloud" with the one Microsoft is managing. The point is that if I wanted to be totally AR about securing my data I could STILL do it without needing stupid old ActivSyn by using only my email server and POP3/SMTP services. I could go a step further and run it up as an Exchange Server and have full task & note sync as well (though I have no use for tasks). So, really, if you use a third party at all for email, calendar, what have you, you ARE relying on an implementation of the cloud and you ARE trusting in the security of that third party. So, rather than lament a concept whose time is just about up, why not embrace the new paradigm and, better yet, be part of the evolution OF that new paradigm to fix what folks perceive as shortcomings? Believe me, for the briefest of moments, when I discovered there would be no local sync capability I was, like, "wait, what?" But now I see SO much more potential here and I already find that I can do more than I could before. And Mango plus updates to the Skydrive promise to kick that up a notch. If I have any complaint it's that Mesh still won't be quite integrated with the rest of the Skydrive in the way that it should. I can access what I need to from WP7 now, but it involves more steps than I think it should---something that so far hasn't been addressed in the roadmap for Skydrive.
You appear to be assuming that I'm in the States when I refer to data being held "in another country". I'm in the UK, where there are restrictions on companies transferring personally identifiable data to the US, because American data protection legislation simply isn't considered adequate to protect individuals' rights (from a European point of view). There are ways of dealing with that, such as the "Safe Harbor" arrangements, and I'm sure MS will have these in mind, but "the cloud" is not the simple answer many people seem to think it is. There are good reasons both for and against its use.
I think the idea of differing policies in different countries regarding the cloud idea is a great point.
All of you who are cloud fans,make me laugh when you say those who keep all on their desktop are are risk of losing all in case something goes wrong,,since they rarely backup.atleast if someone keeps his stuff on his desktop and loses everything its just him,whereas when the cloud goes down or gets hacked millions of lives get frustrated .
I know you guys will probably tell it will never happen because Microsoft is to conscious about security,bit remember that rules always get broken for better ones to be implemented and not vice versa.
I'm sure the US government and the UN were more certain about how secured their networks were than how certain Microsoft is about the cloud,but still they both got hacked.
So I believe having a centralized system will be horrible.
Its also just human that whatever you value most you feel ots only secured with you.people have very vital info others don't
Cloud storage would still be owned/run by Microsoft, a publicly traded company on one of the US stock exchanges (NYSE? Hell I forgot). Either way, even if the servers were located "in another country" the vast majority of use laws (Sarb/Ox as one quick example) still apply. So I'm not entirely sure what the concern is? Plus they have a vested interest in not giving out your data, as giving it out would be bad for business.
MS has shot itself in the arse before by building in far too much backwards compatability, so I'm happy to see this go the way of the dodo.
But more to the point (and more @Bill) "negative publicity?" Really? First off MS has an easy as hit counter the Outlook connecter. Sure it's not a "direct" sync, but have you seen what Apple makes you do yo sync your calender to an iphone on a mac? You have to use "Apple Calender" whatever the hell that is. And who knows where they're sending that data. (it would seem to connected to mobile me or icloud based on how I understand it).
Secondly your presupposing that a few upset customers do bad publicity make. Horrific assumption. Call all you want, but if MS sampled and only 1% of customers cared about it, they'd probably happily upset that 1% to do something that more people would like.
On the surface it does seem strange that they wouldn't just put in a shunt to allow this, but when you consider the complex ecosystem that MS is trying to build with WP7, I understand why it wasn't done.
@IAmTheWalrus, you're wasting your effort trying to convince folks like @Bill and @ggreig. They can't get off the old paradigm, so they will be left behind. Unless you're sitting with your desktop completely disconnected from the world, it's not any more secure than the major implementations of the cloud--in fact, it's more likely that they are LESS secure. Also, business and government typically rely on an Exchange environment, which is--you guessed--nothing more than an implementation of the cloud. Who cares about "two Facebook pages". I can create five Facebook pages dedicated to the wisdom of moving off of the Activsync meme. Windows Phone 7 is clearly not for everyone--and that's perfectly fine, that's why we have competition. If another platform satisfies a person's requirements, use it.
He still must have time on business. And is it me or has the info about mango we are getting already been said? Just that the second or third time it was in more depth?
Or am I just being an impatient teenager for mango?
Cloud storage is only the future if you're happy storing details about yourself and others on a server owned by someone else, and possibly in another country where different laws apply. Many people are happy with that, but a significant minority of personal users don't want to touch that concept with a barge pole, and in some countries it's legally problematic for companies to let their employees use cloud storage (because of the risk to their clients' details).
Cloud storage has its uses, and if you choose to use it, fine, but don't believe the hype.
@ IAmTheWalrus, I gotta agree. I used to be a hardcore user of Outlook with local .PSTs storing everything on my disks (backed up, of course). However, it is just too inconvenient when I'm on the go. Cloud storage is the future (and some places in the world, the present). The only major problem with cloud storage for phones: carriers and their data caps.
I'm curious.... is there a place to make "official" product enhancements/recommendations/improvements? I LOVE my Windows phone and I try to use it as much as humanly possible to improve my productivity. One of the things I do is dump my sales activity reports into a browser-friendly document, which I then send to OneNote. That's synced right on my phone, which lets me pull that report up on the go, which is AWESOME. But, what would be even better is if OneNote recognized phone numbers in my document so that I could just click on the number and call my prospect by clicking. That would be AMAZING. Any chance guys? Please?
@Bill, desktop synchronization is a carry over from the pre internet connected device days. How is synchronizing email/contacts/calendar from a server, something that "a lot of companies will never touch"? Exchange Active Sync is the de facto standard on all smart phones to synchronize email/calendar/contacts (for Enterprises using Exchange, and consumers using Gmail and Hotmail). The only reason WP7 support desktop sync at al is because people are still using their PC for storing assets like music, videos, and photos, although even that is rapidly changing as smartphone bandwidth improves and given all the disadvantages of local storage (difficult to manage, difficult to backup, no ubiquitious access across devices, etc.). I'm always amazed when someone says they have all their email and contacts stored on a hard drive on a single computer (that's probably not backed up) rather than accessible on mulitple devices and backed up online. That's as old school as old school gets.
Hey guys, since MS seem not to be able to write a program to allow us to sync our Wni7 Phone with our Outlook via USB, do you think we can get Apple to write one. They already have that capability with the iPhone and ITunes. But it seems to have eluded the MS programmers.
I see two Facebook pages set up complaining about the Win7 phone and its lack of USB sync and thought the nasty publicity might get them to move. Anybody have any inside touch with HTC , perhaps they could come up with something. I hear the Developers Kit wont allow the run of the mill developer to do it.
Ideas.??...since we will never ever use a cloud service for anything. And a lot of companies will never touch it either or allow their workers to use it either.