In this case I have to disagree. I've been using the web version of outlook for at least 8 months now and it is so much better than the rusty windows application.
At least for the Mac client, I think the native app, as slow as it is (possibly made worse due to corporate spyware), is better than OWA for several use cases:
1) searching mails is much faster locally
2) OWA zoom plugin requires re-auth every time SSO times out
3) most operations take 1-2 more clicks on OWA (marking meetings pub/priv, editing a meeting, etc).
On the other hand I've not had plugins working on my native Outlook for several months...
I went through a similar change then found the Mac Outlook client and have been using it for months. I had forgotten how great a stand-alone email app is.
I had hated Windows outlook for so long, I forgot that client apps can be good.
Here’s what I like:
1)
cmd+tab for quick switching between email and other stuff
2)
faster search using local storage (although I think this could be done in browser)
3)
Persistent login not affected by browser state/cookie/whatnot
4)
Keyboard shortcuts not mixed into browser shortcuts
5) speed
I think 4-5 could theoretically be fixed eventually in a browser app. But every single native wrapper over browser has had so much bloat that I suspect it won’t happen.
I also really like the native Mac mail app, but can’t use it with some email accounts due to security settings.
I don't question that their web-apps are good. I also didn't imply the native applications were any good.
But there is absolutely no reason for a mail client or calendar to use gigabytes of RAM and have significant impact on battery life. Which is bound to happen if you bundle Chromium et al. and run the webapps in it.
Yes, I know. My point was that it’s not like Electron where they ship Chromium with every app, it’s more like a browser tab in terms of resource consumption.
Totally agree. And also, chances are it won't be Electron, at least on Windows. These guys literally made the OS, they know how to use a native webview.
I have never liked Windows embedded webviews and don’t think they actually know how to use them well. They’ve always seemed like suckier interfaces than their native interfaces. I think their new control panel stuff is web controls and seem clunkier and slower than the old windows control pane widgets.
New Control Panel stuff is C++/XAML/WinUI, definitely not web controls.
The big trouble with Windows' embedded webviews in the past has been that they only updated once or twice a decade with Windows updates, so tied to very specific IE versions and often meaning applications that used them were stuck in specific versions of the web platform. The new "WebView2" from Microsoft is powered by Chromium Edge so it should be a lot closer to Electron in practice (though still, updated at user/system pace [just now on the much faster Chromium Edge cycle rather than the slower Windows cycle], not developer pace which is often the specific draw to Electron).
You should give the online version at https://outlook.com a try. I've been using it since the corona outbreak and it's actually better than the desktop version imo.
Just wanted to throw in https://apify.com/. I'm using it to monitor changes on different websites and automatically send an email to me with screenshots of the updated content. But you can do all sorts of other useful things with it!
I know a few people that are heavily invested into Uber here in Germany, with over 20 cars and drivers each. They will not be happy about this ruling.
Here is some context on how things worked thus far:
Since Uber is not allowed to dispatch directly to independent drivers (see the ruling from 2015), they instead partnered with rental-car companies that employ the drivers. So in theory, Uber would dispatch a ride to one of their partners, who then dispatches it to one of their drivers. In practice, however, everything worked just as you know it from other countries, with the only difference being that Uber would send an email to the business owner containing two links: one to accept the ride and one to decline. Whenever the business owner clicks accept, the driver would get a text message with the approval. But at this time, he already would have accepted the ride in the app and be on his way. So effectively, the business owners had zero control.
It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules. In addition, Uber has heavily subsidized rides with discounts of up to 50% for multiple weeks and generous hourly guarantees for their partners.
There's a taxi company in my city (EU, but not Germany) which doesn't go mad or cry for govt help, and instead provides experience very similar to Uber with its app, runs "full scale" licensed taxis and their prices are very close (and frequently lower) than Uber's. So that I prefer using their service, as they can drive on the bus lanes and in the old town.
"not Germany" may be the keyword: Taxis in Germany are part of the public transportation network and as such part of a regulatory system.
For example, they can't make up their own prices (neither higher nor lower).
There are few taxi companies with more than 20 cars, and most seem to gravitate around 3 cars. Such a company doesn't build "its [own] app".
If your entire operation is controlled by the (county) government, it seems to make sense to ask that government for help. But they didn't even do that: Courts are independent.
As someone who doesn't live in your city, if I were to visit, I'd rather not install another app, create another account, and sort out payment (including capturing receipts for corporate expense claims).
Uber has the advantage of being ubiquitous among a certain class of travellers - this obviously is not an insurmountable advantage, but it does mean I naturally tend towards using Uber when travelling unless there's a particularly compelling local alternative.
Everything else about your taxi service sounds good, and I'd be more than happy to use them, I'm just lazy. (And from other comments, I see that there's taxi company apps like FreeNow which seem to be gaining regional market share?)
> Uber has the advantage of being ubiquitous among a certain class of travellers
Which is funny because Uber's shtick is to complain about the evil taxi cartels, while statements like yours indicate that they're really the biggest of them all.
That marketing line was ridiculous. Uber is a multinational corporation fighting lots of small local taxi operations, but somehow they've managed to paint themselves as an underdog fighting a "taxi mafia".
>Uber's shtick is to complain about the evil taxi cartels, while statements like yours indicate that they're really the biggest of them all.
By rolling with an approved and expensed option, which eliminates certain amount of ambiguity, does not imply that Uber is part of a cartel; irrespective of it's licensing woes and/or impending banishment from multiple lucrative markets. At present, it does not even enjoy a majority position to form an alliance, let alone collude with locally competitive operators.
It's weird - the old taxi companies had their localised oligopolies by law, Uber and Lyft and so on have their global oligopoly through a few other means, not the least of which is their ability to spend billions of Saudi petrobucks on customer acquisition.
But the fact that they offer a fairly consistent experience certainly does help them.
Not only this but the fact that if I am in a country with a language I do not speak and with streets I cannot read (or will misread) I prefer to just click twice and wait for a blue car with plate HDGDH56DB. I don't need to speak, just hop in and out, the driver knows everything.
Locals are probably the majority of riders, but a majority by how much? Taxis are a high volume, low margin business, and losing purely the foreign business traveller market alone to Uber has got to sting.
If there are laws that your competitor is clearly violating, then defending your business is not "crying for help". The Taxi companies are just doing what they can given the legal framework that our government created.
> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules.
Apart from subsidies Uber might use, why aren't taxi companies able to compete? Is something stopping them from doing exactly what Uber is doing (Such as have good apps, pre payment etc.)? If that's the case, that they are bound from developing their own business by regulation - why is that?
One difference: regulated taxis are not allowed to cherry-pick as hard as Ubers.
Germany actually considers Taxis part of public infrastructure, even if universally outsourced. The assumption that profitable routes subsidize less profitable is deeply embedded in the system. It's similar to how no amount of free market ideology should allow emergency rooms to cherry-pick.
> Is something stopping them from doing exactly what Uber is doing
I should imagine "not wanting to lose thousands/millions every month whilst they pay for people to develop software, etc." is a big factor. Life is a lot easier when you can throw money at problems like Uber, especially if you're (unfairly) subsidising your service to drive competitors into the ground.
I think subsidies are the key here. Apps are dime a dozen; in Poland there are individual taxi companies with apps and pan-european networks with apps, all operating legally. I assume the situation is the same in Germany. But local taxi markets can't afford to continuously offer below-market price; they don't have the money reserves.
You are expecting market behavior in business that for decades was pure monopoly. We all know the answers to those questions.
In open market, taxi business in its current form would be dead long time ago. But not if you gave state-guaranteed monopoly on a service that many people simply need and have few other options.
Oh boy, I see I ruffled some feathers here, 10 downvotes within few minutes.
Where I live, taxi drivers need to purchase medallion from given municipality, a massive investment. You can't just slap a taxi logo on the car and start driving people. From customers perspective this is a monopoly since they are all the same, charge all the same, have all the same drawbacks and most people hated them. From customer's perspective, they are indeed a 'taxi company'.
Uber was the first competition to entrenched taxi driving business.
exactly that. i have lived in germany for years. this is the first time i hear that they are all small businesses with 3-20 cars. all taxis have the same color, and prices are fixed.
it looks more like a franchise than competing businesses.
i don't think a business should be allowed to offer services below cost, nor should it be allowed to break the law, but on the other hand, the restrictions that exist in some places make no sense. a rental car has to return to the main office after each ride ??? what kind of nonsense is that?
What if the law mandates that some services can only be provided in a certain way? If a simple label swap could give a free pass then why stop at taxis? "I did not steal that money, I was just providing a free surprise disposal service. Would it help if I sent a bill?"
i don't get what you are trying to say.
the question is, why does the law have these mandates? and do they really make sense? some do, some don't. as it is, we have a bunch of laws that are unnecessary and should be removed. would that help uber? i don't know.
> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules.
They're mad because it ruins their monopoly. Taxis are ridiculously expensive in Germany, also known to use tricks to charge you extra. I would never consider ordering a taxi here.
My experience from Berlin is quite different. Taxis were reasonably priced and service was good, didn't see any foul play. I was using the "MyTaxi" app to book rides.
Order a taxi during "peak hours": 5 EUR.
Then they charge you with an "approaching fee". Basically, they make you pay for the distance they traveled on their way to pick you up.
So last time I took one, I jumped in and was already charged for 21 EUR before the ride even began. The ride itself just cost 10 EUR...
In North and South America, and in other European cities (though certainly not all!), my experience has been that Uber is 99% of the time
1. better UX, and
2. cheaper
than taxis, _generally_. In Berlin, taxi service is generally professional/clean/fine, but it's quite expensive, and when I travel to other places I get quickly spoiled by the Uber experience/cost. I understand why they ban it here, but from an end-user perspective, really wish they didn't.
> It is no surprise that the Taxi companies are mad, because they are unable to compete under the current set of rules.
(Caveat that I’m going entirely off your comment, with no background info): the middlemen businesses sound like small taxi companies, where the bookings come from Uber rather than directly from customers. Why can’t the taxi companies compete by building an app that provides the booking part?
They do have an app, it's called "FreeNow" and works OK imo. The main reason Taxi companies are complaining is that there are different sets of rules for Taxi companies (that are supposed to operate in the public interest) and rental companies with drivers (which are not). E.g. Taxis have to wait at designated parking spots and are not allowed to drive around between rides.
I don't necessarily agree with their arguments, but I also don't think Uber should get a "free ride".
They can. Uber added nothing to market other than an app, which everyone was doing for every potential business at the time anyways.
Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about trampling about each and every law they could. To the point that they would break laws that they didn't even need to.
But asking for forgiveness when you have a ton of VC money is obviously better than not messing up in the first place.
Only good thing is thst, I hope, the market is seeing through these criminals (at best).
> Their differentiators though were primarily the crazy amount of VC money they were willing to lose and the fact that they had absolutely no qualms about trampling about each and every law they could.
It's nice to see European bureaucracy at work and actually enforcing rules. Seems like it's much more resistant to regulatory capture than the US where, looks like, you can just flaunt any laws if you have enough money.
Taxi companies do have apps "free now" (formerly "mytaxi") and "taxi.eu" that majority of them use. The functionality is more or less the same as with uber.
I'd be happy with FreeNow instead of Uber, if it was available outside of large cities. Many taxi drivers still refuse to sign up for FreeNow. I spoke to one taxi driver and asked her why she wouldn't use FreeNow and she mentioned something about the fees being too high. Of course, she only accepted cash, too. I was just glad that I wasn't getting yelled at for paying with a 50 Euro note.
There are still a few people that use it exclusively, but they're getting rarer each year. You can pay with cash almost everywhere though, so I can understand how this believe keeps getting repeated
Actually, those apps are very much a commodity. Everyone and their dog has one. However, users are price-sensitive, and apps need marketing - both of those concerns turn competition into money spending game; Uber has more money and exploits the international scale of their business.
Uber pretended to not be part of the transaction, while they were a) the public face to the customer, b) offering the ride at a given price, c) negotiated with a specific driver to fulfill it (and only then got the middleman on board to sign off on the transaction).
As usual for Uber they went for the sketchiest way possible to deal with regulations, as if they're looking for ways to argue about them in court as often as possible.
Their problem: no court (except one) in Germany makes law because we don't have the Anglo-saxon concept of case law.
This isn't about protecting the user from badly written and battery draining apps. Almost all of the mentioned manufacturers ship their devices with a long list of pre-installed and whitelisted services, including Facebook and other spyware.
As a developer myself, it is just annoying do deal with and just not scalable if you have to explain each user individually how to turn of these "optimizations" (if that's even possible).
It’s also not scalable if every app starts running background processes on an operating system without “virtual memory” - yes, I know there is a difference between virtual memory and swapping to the disk.
Even stock android does not guarantee that background services can run indefinitely, but Google at least provides clear rules what process may run how long in the background and under which circumstances it is killed. I have no idea why the manufacturers are allowed to blatantly break those rules and still brand their operating system Android.
Not really for prebuilts, most Dell or Asus systems will just have one PCIe slot, and if they have two they won't support Crossfire, not to mention they probably won't have enough 6-pin connectors.
