 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / ATT Wireless / July 2008MobileMe | A new service for your iPhone and PC
MobileMe A new service for your iPhone, iPod touch, Mac, and PC Look for MobileMe in your Microsoft Windows Control Panel on your PC. >MobileMe >A new service for your iPhone, iPod touch, Mac, and PC > >Look for MobileMe in your Microsoft Windows Control Panel on your PC. Never sawe the value in paying for another email service, when it has peported reliability issues. GMAIL is free, and email can now be pulled via a POP client, or their web client is excellent. Does a marvelous job of SPAM filtering too. Originally Apple also provided AntiVitus, then dropped that a few years back. > >MobileMe > >A new service for your iPhone, iPod touch, Mac, and PC [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Originally Apple also provided AntiVitus, then dropped that a few > years back. I agree. Gmail is very powerful, especially if you checkout its new advanced features. >> MobileMe >> A new service for your iPhone, iPod touch, Mac, and PC [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Originally Apple also provided AntiVitus, then dropped that a few > years back. Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for coordinating changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, and address book. It's actually a great idea, but currently a little expensive at $100/year. > Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for > coordinating changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, > and address book. It's actually a great idea, but currently a little > expensive at $100/year. We "others" don't need a push client. Our computers are multitasking and fully capable of checking all those services on their own without the browser push crapware..... >> Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for >> coordinating changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > fully capable of checking all those services on their own without the > browser push crapware..... as is the iphone >> We "others" don't need a push client. Our computers are multitasking and >> fully capable of checking all those services on their own without the >> browser push crapware..... > >as is the iphone And yet despite being capable of doing so, it is artificially prohibited from this relatively simple task. >>> We "others" don't need a push client. Our computers are multitasking >>> and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > And yet despite being capable of doing so, it is artificially prohibited > from this relatively simple task. Please elaborate. >>>> We "others" don't need a push client. Our computers are multitasking >>>> and [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Please elaborate. Well, as I've been informed by no less then four application vendors who are creating Sync tools of various types, they simply cannot synchronize in the background. This isn't a problem if you're using the local application's interface, but if you're planning on keeping your Contacts list up to date, you need to his the Sync app once in a while. I'd sign up for the developer program if I could, but I don't have the niche hardware required, so unfortunately I haven't actually read the contracts myself. >>>>> We "others" don't need a push client. Our computers are multitasking >>>>> and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > niche hardware required, so unfortunately I haven't actually read the > contracts myself. Thanks, I remember now. > Thanks, I remember now. This just in...... http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9998577-37.html > Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for coordinating > changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, and address book. > It's actually a great idea, but currently a little expensive at $100/year. Especially since free alternatives exist, e.g. google calendar sync. I've never really understood the marketing froth about push services. If I want to go look at my contacts list, I have to open the app to look at it anyway. Same with calendar. Same with email; periodic checking is fine for me. >> Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for >> coordinating changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > look at it anyway. Same with calendar. Same with email; periodic > checking is fine for me. Well, there are people who use multiple devices. Let's say a PDA, laptop and desktop, perhaps a smartphone. And they want their changes updated on all of them but don't want to sync each manually because that becomes a monumental task to attend to everyday. Now perhaps they want to continue using a standardized program such as MS Outlook and don't want to switch over to Google calendar. People like that would appreciate a push service like Mobileme. Does google calendar actually appear on your devices or do you have to access the internet everytime you want to check it? If the latter, that would be a huge drawback to me anyway. If I want to check my appointments, I don't want to first have to access the internet. Just some thoughts. >>> Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for >>> coordinating changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > over to Google calendar. People like that would appreciate a push service > like Mobileme. I think zws is reffering to the "push" aspect rather than the sync aspect. For MOST people, scheduled "pulling" is good enough. With respect to synching calendar, contacts, and tasks, my mobile devices, desktop and laptop PCs sync Outlook Contacts and Calendar info with a Funambol SyncML server every few hours. Most of my e-mail accounts sync hourly (or two) on my mobile (on a 2G network like T-Mobile's or with the original iPhone, data and voice can not occur simultaneously- too much pulling and pushing increases the odds that a voice call can't get through because the phone is busy with data and the call rolls right to voice mail. I use one push e-mail account, but that's mostly used for my Visual Voicemail. I'd rather have a voicemail from a missed call immediately rather than 5, 15, or 60 minutes later. ;-) > Does google calendar actually appear on your devices or do you have to > access the internet everytime you want to check it? If the latter, that > would be a huge drawback to me anyway. If I want to check my appointments, > I don't want to first have to access the internet. There are plenty of Outlook sync plug-ins for Google Clendar and Contacts that work with desktops and mobiles. Goosync and Oggsync come to mind- they periodically connect and sync the device/PC to the Google cloud info. Another good example of a "poor man's Exchange server" like the Funambol software I use. Both also have the advantage of being more platform agnostic than Exchange. Exchange is great, but what if you want to sync that info with your Nokia Symbian device, or your plain old Motorola Razr? That's where Exchange alternatives like Google Calendar/Contacts, Plaxo, or Funambol start to shine. >>>> Mobileme is not an email service. It's a push- service for >>>> coordinating changes on all Apple devices at once, email, calendar, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > alternatives like Google Calendar/Contacts, Plaxo, or Funambol start > to shine. As usual, thanks for all the useful, and well-informed, information. On Jul 22, 12:57 pm, "Todd Allcock" <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote: > > Well, there are people who use multiple devices. Let's say a PDA, laptop > > and desktop, perhaps a smartphone. And they want their changes updated on > > all of them but don't want to sync each manually because that becomes a > > I think zws is reffering to the "push" aspect rather than the sync aspect. > For MOST people, scheduled "pulling" is good enough. With respect to Exactly what I meant. Typically I only have one device actually with me - two at most (cellphone and laptop). A half-hour, or even an hour or two of lag between when I input it on one device and when it appears on others is no big deal to me - there's no possibility of confusion because I'm not physically near the out-of-sync devices. > and voice can not occur simultaneously- too much pulling and pushing > increases the odds that a voice call can't get through because the phone is > busy with data and the call rolls right to voice mail. I thought a voice call would automatically kill an EDGE/GPRS session and take priority. In message <daa05f16-0318-4a12-ae89-9df687e8db57@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> >On Jul 22, 12:57 pm, "Todd Allcock" <eleccon...@AmericaOnLine.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I thought a voice call would automatically kill an EDGE/GPRS session >and take priority. From what I understand, a voice call will kill an idle EDGE/GPRS session, but if the session is actually transferring data at the very moment a voice call comes in, that takes priority over the incoming call. That being said, it's a moot point with 3G as 3G can handle both at once anyway. > > and voice can not occur simultaneously- too much pulling and pushing > > increases the odds that a voice call can't get through because the phone is > > busy with data and the call rolls right to voice mail. > > I thought a voice call would automatically kill an EDGE/GPRS session > and take priority. Sort of- it'll knock out an data session if data packets aren't actively being transferred at the moment, but during a packet transfer the phone is receiving data rathering than "hearing" the incoming call. The more often you're transferring data, like pulling e-mail, the more likely you'll miss a call. My phone polls four IMAP accounts, so I cut the frequency down from 15 minutes to every hour, because I was getting too many missed calls. >> > and voice can not occur simultaneously- too much pulling and >> > pushing increases the odds that a voice call can't get through [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > accounts, so I cut the frequency down from 15 minutes to every hour, > because I was getting too many missed calls. Wow...That's awful. The ROKR Z6m on EVDO never misses a call when transferring data. I can be watching Russian TV on the Linux tablet and the phone rings. When I answer the phone, the data stops until I'm done. If the server hasn't dumped me, which most do, the data even resumes after I hang up. The BT DUN stays connected and making a call doesn't recall for another IP, like a full disconnect does. Of course, when connected on BT DUN, the phone's other features are all inaccessible....MP3/Camera/etc. > > Sort of- it'll knock out an data session if data packets aren't > > actively being transferred at the moment, but during a packet transfer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > accounts, so I cut the frequency down from 15 minutes to every hour, > > because I was getting too many missed calls. > Wow...That's awful. The ROKR Z6m on EVDO never misses a call when > transferring data. Keep in mind we're talking about 2G GSM data, Not 3G. If you had been a big CDMA data user in the 2G "1X" days, you'd have had the same problem. > I can be watching Russian TV on the Linux tablet and > the phone rings. When I answer the phone, the data stops until I'm done. On GSM, 3G data and voice are simultaneous- data DOESN'T stop when a call comes in. > Of course, when connected on BT DUN, the phone's other features are all > inaccessible....MP3/Camera/etc. Really? Sounds like you need a multitasking phone! ;-) Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:g67s1t$4p6$1 @aioe.org: >> Of course, when connected on BT DUN, the phone's other features are all >> inaccessible....MP3/Camera/etc. > > Really? Sounds like you need a multitasking phone! ;-) Nah...doesn't matter. Sellphones are just MODEMS, right? > > Really? Sounds like you need a multitasking phone! ;-) > > Nah...doesn't matter. Sellphones are just MODEMS, right? To you, yes. To me they're very small laptops with modems in them! ;-) In DC this week- took a White House tour at 7:30 this AM, and the tour forbids cameras, phones, etc.- even personal grooming items! So I treked out of thehotel at 7AM with my family and WITHOUT my WinMo phone. I was lost without the damn thing for two lousy hours! I didn't know the time (I stopped wearing a watch five years ago because cellphones display the time!) I couldn't lookup the closest restaurants to grab breakfast after the tour, and had to actually stop and ask a local where the nearest Metro station was. Jeez, it was like living in the dark ages (the early 90's) again! I haven't felt this out of touch since my trip to Cancun in January (where connectivity exists, but I refuse to pay $15/MB for it!) ;-) > GMAIL is free, and email can now be pulled via a POP client, or their > web client is excellent. Does a marvelous job of SPAM filtering too. Nothing in a gmail account can be considered confidential.  SignatureScott Reverse name to reply >> GMAIL is free, and email can now be pulled via a POP client, or their >> web client is excellent. Does a marvelous job of SPAM filtering too. > > Nothing in a gmail account can be considered confidential. That goes for any E-mail account. Not just Gmail. "Kevin Weaver" <kevinkeithweaver@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:xQohk.6434 $cn7.1368@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com: > That goes for any E-mail account. Not just Gmail. Obviously, but in-house corporate email done right is usually kept in- house, though you should assume it can be read in house. Gmail is specifically mined for targeting ads. You KNOW its being read. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > GMAIL is free, and email can now be pulled via a POP client, or their > > web client is excellent. Does a marvelous job of SPAM filtering too. > > Nothing in a gmail account can be considered confidential. Nothing sent in plaintext can be considered confidential, because the backbone is tapped; if you have privacy concerns, use strong encryption. If you have anything that's really important enough to protect from "them", you also need to control the type of hardware and software your intended recipient will use to read the decrypted ciphertext (TEMPEST, etc). There has even been some very good work done in reconstructing screen contents by photographing the backscatter off a wall behind the monitor. zwsdotcom@gmail.com wrote in news:95d5f88a-5c93-4c81-9346- a923f228066c@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: >> > GMAIL is free, and email can now be pulled via a POP client, or their >> > web client is excellent. Does a marvelous job of SPAM filtering too. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > reconstructing screen contents by photographing the backscatter off a > wall behind the monitor. Laugh if you must, but many an intellectual property case has been decided upon the determination of just when an idea has been disclosed. Our IP attorneys always advise us NOT to use platforms like gmail for anything important, because they don't want to be put in that situation in a court room. "Reasonable Expectation" of confidentiality comes into play. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > >> Nothing in a gmail account can be considered confidential. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > upon the determination of just when an idea has been disclosed. Our IP > attorneys always advise us NOT to use platforms like gmail for anything I have quite a few inventions for my present employer currently winding through the USPTO (due to the 18-month lagtime only one as yet appears in the pub-app search). It worries me somewhat that the outside attorneys our IP dept uses to prepare the filings often cc's their gmail accounts with emails containing drawings, etc... but on the other hand, I get my bonus when the application is filed, not when (or if) the USPTO approves it, so...... But I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" could be argued very successfully for gmail. It is password-protected and can run over SSL. >> >> Nothing in a gmail account can be considered confidential. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > But I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" could be argued very > successfully for gmail. It is password-protected and can run over SSL. By definition, google scans for keywords for ad purposes. SignatureScott Reverse name to reply > > But I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" could be argued very > > successfully for gmail. It is password-protected and can run over SSL. > > By definition, google scans for keywords for ad purposes. True, but I opted in for that, and ONLY that, by signing up for GMail- a mindless bot searching for adsense keywords isn't the same as a pair of human eyeballs intelligently parsing the contents of my e-mail. >> > But I think "reasonable expectation of privacy" could be argued very >> > successfully for gmail. It is password-protected and can run over SSL. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >mindless bot searching for adsense keywords isn't the same as a pair of >human eyeballs intelligently parsing the contents of my e-mail. While true, Google is famous for unintentional information releases in the form of usability features due to the interaction between features. You can pull the "real name" of a contact rather then just their chosen Gmail "real name", determine whether someone is actually offline in chat or just set to invisible, etc. It's not impossible that now or in the future there will be some tricks discovered that will reveal address book details, or message content to some extent which can be exploited in such a manor as to reveal specific information. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.