Microsoft acquires Acompli
blogs.microsoft.com
blogs.microsoft.com
Does iOS present a warning to this effect when you add an Exchange account? If not, they should. I have an Exchange account set up from my university and don't recall ever seeing anything.
Also, didn't Gmail used to have Exchange support? If this is true, does that mean Google had the ability to remotely wipe any iOS device that was using Gmail through Exchange?
You'll see a warning when you set up mail for the first time. I think if the server has this policy you are forced to add a pin lock to your device.
If you don't remember seeing anything, then AFAIK your device cannot be wiped.
It's not a bad thing and can be used to potentially limit some damage. Of course, requiring a fully encrypted device with strong lockout policies that are hardware enforced (TPM) is the best. I've had my phone stolen and it was pretty nice to remote nuke it.
IIRC, Google offers this same feature if you connect it to Device Manager.
Your wife made a decision most people miss because they are so used to skipping to yes. And wouldn't it suck if your IT department wiped your entire personal device including those vacation pictures of your recently deceased grandma. This happens way more often then you know.
This total control decision is why a container approach (give power to wipe what is the container only) to enabling corporate data is one I favor.
[0]: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/smartphones/review-touchdow... [1]: http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/02/12/hands-on-nine-is-a-c...]
That's the bad news. The good news is this feature of Exchange also gives you the ability to remote wipe your personal device from Outlook Web Access (i.e. Exchange webmail) if it gets lost or stolen.
Is there a way to disable this, e.g. using Apple Configurator or otherwise?
The user enrollment process doesn't necessarily require giving permissions beyond mail/contacts/calendar access. But many organizations take advantage of the opportunity to use pre-baked profiles which restrict behaviors, auto-configure VPN with client certs, activate features like remote wipe, etc.
We dealt with a lot of this when building the ActiveSync module for the Inbox[1] sync engine, which works with all Exchange servers and offers a modern REST API. (ie: like Twilio/Stripe for email)
[1] Google stole our name last month. :(
Edit: Their business model was we-will-see-later, so being acquired should definitely have been one of the options.
"How is the Acompli mobile app free?
The full-featured Acompli app is completely free for everyone. Acompli is a well-funded company that will later make paid services available to companies."
http://recode.net/2014/12/01/microsoft-buys-mobile-email-sta...
The is something important in email for big ones, they do not want small ones there it seems. Just paranoid.
Before mobile era there was incredible mail <s>app</s> programme - Calypso. Dead before Google became IPO. No one wanted to support it after it was open sourced. Probably it would be better for it to be bought by some Microsoft. Outlook could learn UTF-8 in subject lines a bit earlier.
UPD: on a second thought. I can see mutt and alpine behave very similarly in terminal apps from iOS. Why, why people like GUI mail so much? Perhaps Calendar integration is the answer?
UPD: Yeah, lads, it was Calypso. Survived till v3.3, but never did better.
Sparrow
* The cost of acquisition is less than the cost of developing it themselves. * An aqui-hire. Microsoft wants to pick up the dev talent and skillsets at Accompli. * To prevent a competitor from getting them. Maybe there was other interest that would let a competitor move in on existing Microsoft products. * To continue to build its 'modern' image. There's a lot of additional branding to do if they do it themselves, buying Acompli gives them some nice press and puts the Microsoft brand in front of Acompli's users (which may not be Microsoft's traditional demographic).
Yes, or becoming a competitor, signalled by having users and getting more. "Strategic" aquisitions often seem absurdly high, unless seen as a threat to the future of the acquirer. You can be a threat without being fundamentally new.
Of course you are. Just reject the offer. You don't think Uber/AirBnB/Dropbox etc have received offers we've not heard about?
But stuff like Oculus is bought in its infancy - that is not desire to profit, but to control. FB could have acquired 20-30% of the company to provide them with liquidity.
Not really. Most startups don't want to sell that much equity to a potential partner/acquirer unless they have to.
I guess the only way it could happen is if it didn't look like a threat until far too late, such as totally different customers (e.g. third world), doing something completely different and no where near as good (e.g. markdown a threat to Word; iOS/android vs Windows)
Would it really cost over $200 million to clone Acompli?
User loyalty is a lot more expensive than lines of code.
I still use it because the combination of scheduling/archiving emails and auto-categorizing them as Focused or Other just works really well for my work email. I haven't found another approach to Inbox Zero for my work email that is this simple and effective.
I highly doubt it would cost Microsoft anywhere near $200M to build this themselves. I'm not sure what the motivation behind this purchase is. I'm not really loyal to the product at all, for instance. I'll switch the moment a more polished alternative comes out that has the same features.
On a personal level, I say "no thanks" to this. On a corporate level, people should realize that this violates many corporate infosec policies.
Of course have heard all the arguments against e-mail killers and why that won't happen.
Will it?
Here is a talk by him entitled the first million is the hardest. http://www.heavybit.com/library/video/2013-05-21-javier-solt...
btw, 200M? Wow..