Vista - Home users and syncing

Depending on whom one is talking to, it seems Microsoft feels that Outlook
is used by the workforce and either Windows Mail or Live Mail Desktop is for
the home user. If this is, in fact, true, does Microsoft actually think
that no home user has any want or need to sync with a pocket pc? I use my
pocket pc, probably, more than my desktop and thus, wouldn't consider a
system or program if I couldn't sync with my pda. So, as I know in the old
XP and Outlook Express days there was Intellisync, I have to wonder if
anyone is developing a program to enable syncing with either of the Vista
"home" e-mail programs, Thunderbird or anything but Outlook?

On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:50:43 -0300, TS Mathews wrote:
The dichotomy is actually along the lines of "free with the OS", and "fee".
MS Outlook Express was always a part of MS Internet Explorer, through
version 6, which was, in turn, a part of the Windows OS through XP. With
Windows Vista, MSFT included MS Internet Explorer 7, which has no integrated
mail client, and added Windows Mail, as the free email client.

MS Outlook was always a part of the MS Office suite, and also available as a
stand alone product; for a price.

Free means, "fewer features". More features means, "pay up".
I wonder if the makers of Intellsync are working on something? Have you
checked with them?

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:17zl10f21oakw.dlg@xxxxxxNothing shows on their web site, thus my query. It just seems odd to me
that MS seems to think either home users wouldn't consider paying for
something and/or we'd never want to sync a pda. Then again, when I think of
some of the default settings in various MS products, I really shouldn't be.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:21:46 -0300, TS Mathews wrote:
It isn't what MSFT thinks about home users that counts, it is what they
think about recovering the cost of adding the functionality. "Free" means
"no revenue" to offset the wages/salaries paid to the programmers, and the
cost of acquisition of the equipment on which the programs are developed,
and the cost of operating that equipment.

If you were in business, how much effort would you put into developing a
"loss leader" product which would garner no revenue?

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Regardless of how you put it, FREE is still a darn good price for what we do have. Nothing works perfectly all the time. There are alternatives out there and if no one wants to take advantage of them, it's not Microsoft's fault.

"N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:hy0yutknzyal.dlg@xxxxxx
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:21:46 -0300, TS Mathews wrote:
It isn't what MSFT thinks about home users that counts, it is what they
think about recovering the cost of adding the functionality. "Free" means
"no revenue" to offset the wages/salaries paid to the programmers, and the
cost of acquisition of the equipment on which the programs are developed,
and the cost of operating that equipment.

If you were in business, how much effort would you put into developing a
"loss leader" product which would garner no revenue?

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

"N. Miller" <anonymous@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hy0yutknzyal.dlg@xxxxxxI sure don't know where you read that I said anything about Microsoft
continuing to develope a loss leader. I simply said that a lot of the pre
release Vista hype was the new hot e-mail program coming with it. Now, that
product has turned into two and the MVP talk remains that Outlook is
designed for business users and the other two are for home users. So, I say
again, I'm amazed that either:

1. I doesn't occur to Microsoft that a "home" user would want to sync

or

2. A home user will not pay for anything.

On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 16:37:31 -0300, TS Mathews wrote:
Be amazed, then. The MVPs are just folk like you and me; except that they
have somehow jumped through enough MSFT hoops that they were given the "MVP"
title by MSFT. They can speculate as much as the rest of us.

My speculation is that MSFT does not want to undercut the value of a fee
based product, MS Outlook, by duplicating too many of the additional useful
features in a free product, Windows Mail/Windows Live Mail. The idea being
that, if certain features are sufficiently desirable, the user will pay to
get them.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum