Microsoft's push e-mail isn't really push?

Alexander Turcic · 06-09-2005, 04:11 AM

Is Microsoft trying to redefine the meaning of push e-mail? A few days ago the company's chief Steve Ballmer announced an Exchange Server feature pack to include "Direct Push Technology" - the delivery of e-mail to mobile devices without any action on the part of the user. At least one analyst, Yankee Group's John Jackson, has reason to doubt that Microsoft's new push email technology is really push at all.

In the case of Windows Mobile, the user's device checks back with the server at specified intervals to receive any pending e-mail deliveries. I digged a bit further and found this technical explanation from the Microsoft Exchange team:

Quote:

The [mobile] device issues an HTTP request to Exchange, which asks Exchange to report any changes that occur in the mailbox of the requesting user within a specified time limit. The URL of this HTTP request is the same as that of other AirSync commands ("/Microsoft-Server-ActiveSync") with some differing query string parameters. The body of the HTTP request allows the client to specify those folders that Exchange should monitor for changes. Typically, these will be the Inbox, Calendar, Contacts, and Tasks folders. Upon receiving this request, Exchange will monitor the specified folders until either the time limit expires or a change (such as the arrival of a piece of email) occurs in one of those folders, whichever comes first. Exchange will then issue a response to this request that notes in which folders the changes occurred. Of course, this will be empty if the time limit elapsed before any changes occurred. Upon receiving an empty response, the device simply re-issues the request. This loop of issuing a request for change notifications, receiving an empty response, and re-issuing the request for change notifications is called "the heartbeat." Upon receiving a non-empty response, the device issues a synchronization request against each folder in the response. When those complete, it re-issues the request for change notifications.

In the case of RIM (Blackberry), on the other hand, the network server is continually checking with the device -- which remains essentially inactive -- to see where it is. Obviously RIM's approach is less battery-intensive and faster to respond to new incoming e-mail since it is only reacting when the server initiates a connection.

[via News Factor and BBHub]

hacker · 06-09-2005, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alexander

In the case of Windows Mobile, the user's device checks back with the server at specified intervals to receive any pending e-mail deliveries.

Oh, you mean Microsoft rediscovered fetchmail? It does exactly this (well, without using the braindead HTTP request in the clear).

Boy, I'm amazed that they keep innovating like this!

doctorow · 06-09-2005, 09:49 AM

*EVIL GRIN*

How stupid do they think we are? RIM should sue them for misusing the label "push e-mail"!

hacker · 06-09-2005, 10:03 AM

Ahem... ALL email is "push email". Its just a buzzword to mislead customers into believing they have some new technology that differentiates their device from other vendor's devices.

There's a reason why mail components are called MTA and MDA.

More details here..

doctorow · 06-09-2005, 10:31 AM

Not really just a buzz word. It is specifically referring to the idea of having e-mails that have been received by a desktop or server mail system automatically transmitted to a PDA, laptop or other portable device.

rmeister0 · 06-09-2005, 10:48 AM

This is no different than how Outlook communicates with Exchange server.

Having to support 6 frekin' Blackberry users in my enterprise, I am really happy about this. The Blackberry Integration server is one of the worst architected pieces of crap I've ever had the misfortune of being inflicted upon me. I'd rather have a device that could communicate directly with the server.

doctorow · 06-11-2005, 07:41 AM

Looks like Ed Hardy from Brighthand liked your article, Alex:

Windows Mobile's Upcoming Email System Isn't Exactly Push... at least some credits would have been appropriate, don't you think? He is even pointing to the Microsoft Exchange team blog like you did.

Oh well....

Alexander Turcic · 06-11-2005, 07:47 AM

Hmm that's bad yeah. I didn't invent the article either, which is why I gave partial credits to News Factor and BBHub.

Perhaps they just forgot?

vadim · 06-21-2005, 11:45 PM

Well, it is well known, I guess, that Microsoft is much better at selling than at building. Apparently (and unfortunately), the US marketing community adopted the ancient Phoenicians maxim: "Either sell or be truthfull..." .
That is not to say that the quoted article is very clear by itself. The technology described there supposedly refers to upcoming Exchange SP2 but actually does not specify in which way it is different from the current implementation of ActiveSync. Nor does it tell exactly about this part where the device PERIODICALLY requesting the server to monitor new changes (how much it is different then from the scheduled syncs?). Besides, according to Microsoft in the current setup the server is initiating the sync by first sending notification to the device about new changes and only THEN the device initiate the sync. That makes sense. Then what's all this about device all the time sending requests to the server???? Whatever. It is also typical for Microsoft documentation.
And to those who as one of the members who posted a little bit earlier about Blackberry server been a nightmare I just wanted to let know - do not keep a very high hopes for ActiveSync. I have tested somewhat similar to Blackberry GoodLink and then ActiveSync (on Exchange 2003). It took me ~3hrs to set up and make to work and GoodLink - very detailed and simple documentation, works flowlessly (plus some nice features). I still after four days can not make ActiveSync work. That is manual and scheduled sync from device works fine (though took me some time to figure it all out) but this famous "push" update which is not really "push" just would not work. Period. Actually, seems like it worked in the beginning and then just stopped, which makes it even worse. Documentation is poor and superficial and try to get troubleshooting info. Good luck with that. ActiveSync troubleshooting tool gives me a message "could not access CDO.Message" when I'm sending control message. Very informative! Either the tool or the ActiveSync is a crap (more likely its a tool problem - after I run it I have to restart IIS to be able to sync at all, even manually!). And what about UNDOCUMENTED feature - UP-To-Date notification works only 12.5 hrs after any manual sync! If you do not sync manually from the device after that you get no notification! And it seems it is by design.
So do not tell me how ActiveSync will compete with something like GoodLink. You will loose more on air time charges and headaches than on GoodLink license fee by going with ActiveSync. Push it or pull it.

Colin Dunstan · 06-22-2005, 06:12 AM

If you are right, vadim, looks like we are still a long time away from a suitable e-mail push technology ;( Sniff.

vadim · 06-22-2005, 08:44 PM

You bet, Collin, I AM right. However, it is not all that gloomy. First, GoodLink provides a very well documented and supported technology which is truly "push" (I do not know how good Blackberry or anything else is). Second, at least partially, ActiveSync still works. That is not an Up-Date-Notification feature but manual and scheduled sync. Push or pull, as long as it works it is fine. One advantage of 'pull' technology it is easily controllable on the cell side. That is you can schedule your device to check for updates, say, every 30 min and then, on weekend, when you do not really care, you can change it to check every 2 hrs. If you have an unlimited data plan then it is not that important that you send a request to the server even every 5 min, so it is almost real time update.
However, what is true, you have to pay for it (sniff, sniff) - data plan fee with ActiveSync and data plan AND license fee with GoodLink.

Spawneh · 04-29-2009, 11:36 PM

I have been supporting Blackberry's for many many years, I have also Supported Good's Solution and am beginning to Support the Active Sync solution also.

Blackberry is true push and utilise's the Blackberry devices unique id or PIN to associate and send things to the devices, but none the less the server is doing the work with "Notify" messages from the exchange telling it when things change. Most Blackberry users will tell you,there email is always on the device a few minutes earlier than they hit the outlook client.

Good - was more or less an offshoot on Blackberry from my understanding some of the core members of Good's Design team were ex-RIM employee's so i'm guessing RIM are getting a nice settlement out of each Good subscription. Good again is a true push technology however and have some very good tools to troubleshoot and check if a device is still alive on the network.

Activesync
I personally don't regard this as a push service, to me it seems like an outlook client sitting on a mobile phone, nothing more nothing less. I did however believe there was an MS push service but I tend to believe this is just a coded SMS/TXT? which is sent to the phone telling it to go grab something new..

So overall yes there is a significant difference in the solutions and also with the devices which can be used for any given solution which ultimately means each business will need to choose the best for them.

thats my 2cents anyway

HarryT · 04-30-2009, 06:47 AM

There's very little point in adding a comment to a 4-year-old thread

.

JSWolf · 04-30-2009, 09:10 AM

So why keep it open then?

tompe · 04-30-2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's very little point in adding a comment to a 4-year-old thread

.

Why? If people want to continue the discussion there is a point.

06-21-2005, 11:45 PM	#9
vadim Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jun 2005 Device: Motorola220	Typical for Microsoft (and not only...) Well, it is well known, I guess, that Microsoft is much better at selling than at building. Apparently (and unfortunately), the US marketing community adopted the ancient Phoenicians maxim: "Either sell or be truthfull..." . That is not to say that the quoted article is very clear by itself. The technology described there supposedly refers to upcoming Exchange SP2 but actually does not specify in which way it is different from the current implementation of ActiveSync. Nor does it tell exactly about this part where the device PERIODICALLY requesting the server to monitor new changes (how much it is different then from the scheduled syncs?). Besides, according to Microsoft in the current setup the server is initiating the sync by first sending notification to the device about new changes and only THEN the device initiate the sync. That makes sense. Then what's all this about device all the time sending requests to the server???? Whatever. It is also typical for Microsoft documentation. And to those who as one of the members who posted a little bit earlier about Blackberry server been a nightmare I just wanted to let know - do not keep a very high hopes for ActiveSync. I have tested somewhat similar to Blackberry GoodLink and then ActiveSync (on Exchange 2003). It took me ~3hrs to set up and make to work and GoodLink - very detailed and simple documentation, works flowlessly (plus some nice features). I still after four days can not make ActiveSync work. That is manual and scheduled sync from device works fine (though took me some time to figure it all out) but this famous "push" update which is not really "push" just would not work. Period. Actually, seems like it worked in the beginning and then just stopped, which makes it even worse. Documentation is poor and superficial and try to get troubleshooting info. Good luck with that. ActiveSync troubleshooting tool gives me a message "could not access CDO.Message" when I'm sending control message. Very informative! Either the tool or the ActiveSync is a crap (more likely its a tool problem - after I run it I have to restart IIS to be able to sync at all, even manually!). And what about UNDOCUMENTED feature - UP-To-Date notification works only 12.5 hrs after any manual sync! If you do not sync manually from the device after that you get no notification! And it seems it is by design. So do not tell me how ActiveSync will compete with something like GoodLink. You will loose more on air time charges and headaches than on GoodLink license fee by going with ActiveSync. Push it or pull it.

06-22-2005, 08:44 PM	#11
vadim Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: Jun 2005 Device: Motorola220	Not all that bad... You bet, Collin, I AM right. However, it is not all that gloomy. First, GoodLink provides a very well documented and supported technology which is truly "push" (I do not know how good Blackberry or anything else is). Second, at least partially, ActiveSync still works. That is not an Up-Date-Notification feature but manual and scheduled sync. Push or pull, as long as it works it is fine. One advantage of 'pull' technology it is easily controllable on the cell side. That is you can schedule your device to check for updates, say, every 30 min and then, on weekend, when you do not really care, you can change it to check every 2 hrs. If you have an unlimited data plan then it is not that important that you send a request to the server even every 5 min, so it is almost real time update. However, what is true, you have to pay for it (sniff, sniff) - data plan fee with ActiveSync and data plan AND license fee with GoodLink.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Should ideas develop or do you push at them?	bthrowsnaill	Writers' Corner	14	10-18-2010 07:41 PM
problem with push notification	iPhoneExpert111	Apple Devices	3	08-09-2009 11:30 PM
Someone give me a push	charadeur	Which one should I buy?	109	12-11-2008 11:51 PM
Push my button!	vivaldirules	Lounge	24	12-18-2007 12:35 PM
Push vs. Pull	pixiepurls	Amazon Kindle	2	11-22-2007 05:42 PM

06-09-2005, 09:49 AM	#3
doctorow Guru Posts: 914 Karma: 3410461 Join Date: May 2004 Device: Kindle Touch	EVIL GRIN How stupid do they think we are? RIM should sue them for misusing the label "push e-mail"!

06-09-2005, 10:03 AM	#4
hacker Technology Mercenary Posts: 617 Karma: 2561 Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: East Lyme, CT Device: Direct Neural Implant	Ahem... *ALL* email is "push email". Its just a buzzword to mislead customers into believing they have some new technology that differentiates their device from other vendor's devices. There's a reason why mail components are called MTA and MDA. More details here..

06-09-2005, 10:31 AM	#5
doctorow Guru Posts: 914 Karma: 3410461 Join Date: May 2004 Device: Kindle Touch	Not really just a buzz word. It is specifically referring to the idea of having e-mails that have been received by a desktop or server mail system automatically transmitted to a PDA, laptop or other portable device.

06-09-2005, 10:48 AM	#6
rmeister0 Addict Posts: 270 Karma: 298 Join Date: Mar 2005	This is no different than how Outlook communicates with Exchange server. Having to support 6 frekin' Blackberry users in my enterprise, I am really happy about this. The Blackberry Integration server is one of the worst architected pieces of crap I've ever had the misfortune of being inflicted upon me. I'd rather have a device that could communicate directly with the server.

06-11-2005, 07:41 AM	#7
doctorow Guru Posts: 914 Karma: 3410461 Join Date: May 2004 Device: Kindle Touch	Looks like Ed Hardy from Brighthand liked your article, Alex: Windows Mobile's Upcoming Email System Isn't Exactly Push... at least some credits would have been appropriate, don't you think? He is even pointing to the Microsoft Exchange team blog like you did. Oh well....

06-11-2005, 07:47 AM	#8
Alexander Turcic Fully Converged Posts: 18,171 Karma: 14021202 Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Switzerland Device: Too many to count here.	Hmm that's bad yeah. I didn't invent the article either, which is why I gave partial credits to News Factor and BBHub. Perhaps they just forgot?

06-22-2005, 06:12 AM	#10
Colin Dunstan Is papyrophobic! Posts: 1,926 Karma: 1009999 Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: USA Device: Dell Axim	If you are right, vadim, looks like we are still a long time away from a suitable e-mail push technology ;( Sniff.

04-29-2009, 11:36 PM	#12
Spawneh Junior Member Posts: 2 Karma: 10 Join Date: Apr 2009 Device: none	I have been supporting Blackberry's for many many years, I have also Supported Good's Solution and am beginning to Support the Active Sync solution also. Blackberry is true push and utilise's the Blackberry devices unique id or PIN to associate and send things to the devices, but none the less the server is doing the work with "Notify" messages from the exchange telling it when things change. Most Blackberry users will tell you,there email is always on the device a few minutes earlier than they hit the outlook client. Good - was more or less an offshoot on Blackberry from my understanding some of the core members of Good's Design team were ex-RIM employee's so i'm guessing RIM are getting a nice settlement out of each Good subscription. Good again is a true push technology however and have some very good tools to troubleshoot and check if a device is still alive on the network. Activesync I personally don't regard this as a push service, to me it seems like an outlook client sitting on a mobile phone, nothing more nothing less. I did however believe there was an MS push service but I tend to believe this is just a coded SMS/TXT? which is sent to the phone telling it to go grab something new.. So overall yes there is a significant difference in the solutions and also with the devices which can be used for any given solution which ultimately means each business will need to choose the best for them. thats my 2cents anyway

04-30-2009, 06:47 AM	#13
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	There's very little point in adding a comment to a 4-year-old thread .

04-30-2009, 09:10 AM	#14
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 76,354 Karma: 136006010 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	So why keep it open then?

Advert

Advert