I think I need to clarify some history behind Webtop.
The project exists since early 2000, and the main focus has always been “the web desktop”, that is: eliminate the need of installed software and rely mainly on the web desktop.
All of this, while outlook web was not an option, and while Zimbra was developing a similar software on the other side of the planet.
Webtop has been used by Sonicle and its customer for all these years, as a web solution, in a moment where all the cal/card standards were still being designed and implemented, and only imap was the real available standard.
For this reason we developed our internal contact/calendar solution, and its webtop services, while mail service relies on imap since the beginning.
Upon arrival of the new devices we had to make a decision on how to support these devices, and we found active sync was the best solution becasue it’s supported by every platform.
We quickly found that the imap implementation on active sync has many problems, so we deliberatly decided to disable imap support from active sync, and let users access mail thruough direct imap clients on their devices.
Now, during the last year and more, we’ve teamed with Nethesis to bring Webtop on their NethServer.
What happened is that we found a completely different view, where people still want to use their preferred clients, so actually it’s not Webtop vs Sogo, as it looks like nobody is using the Sogo interface, but just the cal/card interface to its data, and then the imap server for email.
So now, looking at the table from @kisaacs:
support for cal/card standards : this is something we’re working on for WT5
no support for imap in active sync: may be activated by commenting out some piece of code in z-push
legend #1 needs to be verified, I will discuss this with the team
Please also note that active sync support in both sogo and webtop is brought to you via z-push, so I strongly believe that imap via active sync on sogo will suffer the same problems we had on webtop.
Also keep in mind that Outlook wants to talk Exchange protocol, while active sync is a subset of the protocol: as always M$ doesn’t want others to enter their business. AFAIK the full Exchange protocol is not open.
I would also say that we expected more feedback on the web interface, rather than support for third party clients, because that is what we want to develop more, having and adding features and services not available on installed clients.
For example: what are you missing on the web interface that makes you still want to use another client on the same data?
Hope to have shed some light on the project, that is not just a market decision