First of all, to the consumer, its of absolutely no relevance how large corporations work. That's the corporations problem. The thing in dispute here is whether or not we, as the consumers, are JUSTIFIED in expecting 2 Microsoft applications that do basically the same thing being able to share data. Whether Microsoft is a multi-national billion dollar company or 2 ppl in a garage tapping away at a computer, WE as the consumers would still have the same EXPECTATION. Outlook and outlook express ALREADY share data, so why did they leave out groups?
Microsoft is RENOWNED for keeping its file formats etc to itself. Yet funnily enough there are programs out there that can both READ and WRITE microsoft files(office etc). There are programs that can convert to and from various other formats including those used by Microsoft. So if programmers who have NO contact with the MS programming teams around the world as you put it can figure out how to get stuff like this done then why shouldn't we expect two teams (as you say) in the SAME company to not do the same?
There are examples of disparate teams all over the world working on different projects. Do you think all the Linux developers live in the same town? Look at SourceForge
http://sourceforge.net , thousands of projects , thousands of people working on them from disparate geographic regions. Heck , There are a number of software packages, some written by Microsoft (MS SourceSafe) itself that are supposed to allow distributive code development. In this day and age geographic location is of no consequence. I live in the Caribbean , yet being a software developer myself I work with systems and teams in the US, Finland and other Caribbean territories. THAT's the power of the INTERNET, information exchange.
Microsoft itself SELLS a Group Collaboration Tool called Microsoft Sharepoint (
http://www.microsoft.com/office/sharepoint/prodinfo/overview.mspx) which, in THEIR OWN WORDS
"enables enterprises to develop an intelligent portal that seamlessly connects users, teams, and knowledge so that people can take advantage of relevant information across business processes to help them work more efficiently"
or what about ANOTHER Microsoft Product, LiveMeeting (
http://www.microsoft.com/office/livemeeting/prodinfo/default.mspx)
which "enables you to collaborate online with colleagues, customers, and partners in real time, in groups of two or even thousands—with just a PC, and an Internet connection."
Why should we use these products when , as you would have us believe, it can't be done?
Also, its not as if its a huge amount of data that would be required to implement it either. All that would be needed is a document from the Outlook Express Team outlining the format of their Contacts Groups implementation. This document should already exist as part of their project documentation anywayz and the relevant sections should be less than 10 pages, if so long. So all they'd have to do is EMAIL it (probably using Outlook hehe) to the OUTLOOK Team for them to add their existing import filter. End of story.
What I don't understand is why you're making excuses for something like this when in truth the critique is necessary for better products to come forth. Who knows , maybe why its not possible is that no one at MS thought of it and it was an honest oversight; and those users who wanted it were content to sit on their laurels and say "oh, thats how big corporations are...".
The fact that we've accepted the mediocrity that Microsoft occasionally puts out has resulted in it taking far too long for them to come to an acceptable standard/solution.
Stop making excuses for mediocrity.
