New Outlook STILL doesn't support shared contacts

[HCHTech]

I was setting up a new computer for a client recently and decided (poorly) to use New Outlook for his M365 email just because I figured it would work by now. Main employee email works right away, shared company email worked fine, 2 shared company calendars worked fine (just like normal, you get an invitation that you accept), Even the new addin for Sharefile worked to my surprise, but the last step, of course, the shared company contact list, didn't work. When you click on the sharing invitation , you just get a blank dialog - no way to accept it.....and no way to get access to the contacts. Some quick searching later....sure enough, not supported. MS's suggestion? Go back to classic Outlook. Awesome. I think I'll give it at least another year before trying again.

 

[britechguy]

I wish I could say I were surprised, but I'm not.

I'm constantly getting questions about whether or not Outlook (new) is now a fully viable replacement for Outlook Classic, and for a home or small office user the answer is almost invariably, "Yes." But as soon as you get into an "advanced environment" where some of the far more sophisticated but far less frequently used features are in use, the answer is, "No."

I think that Microsoft set the sunset date for Outlook Classic to 2029 because they knew it would take them that long to port all of the features that are powerful, but arcane, in Outlook Classic to Outlook (new). If Outlook Classic were to become unavailable tomorrow, the outcry from those who do things like triggering VBA scripts on specific messages when they arrive, and many other things, would be deafening.

 

[HCHTech]

Yeah, I'm not really surprised, either. Even the smallest office with 2 employees can benefit from shared resources, though. That doesn't seem like that advanced of a feature, and should have been higher on their list. Especially since shared calendars already work, it seems odd that calendars work and contacts don't. There should be a lot of overlap in the sharing code (said the guy with about 15 minutes of development experience ).

 

[callthatgirl]

Contacts are far away from being finished, so yeah, go back to Classic.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I've shifted to company wide external contacts in the GAL, away from a shared mailbox for contacts.
But yeah, I wish MS would bring back the ability to launch just the address book in New Outlook. So far, can only search in the people icon, or..after hitting the "To" button when creating an email. Rather have the full function of opening the global address book.

 

[Wend]

Man, I ran into the exact same wall last month. It’s wild that they’re pushing "New Outlook" so hard when basic features like shared contact lists are still totally broken. I spent an hour troubleshooting a similar blank dialog issue before realizing it's just not natively supported yet. I ended up rolling my client back to Classic as well, it’s the only way to stay sane if they rely on a shared address book. Definitely sticking with the old version for the foreseeable future; New Outlook still feels like a glorified web wrapper that isn't ready for actual business workflows.

 

[britechguy]

It’s wild that they’re pushing "New Outlook" so hard when basic features like shared contact lists are still totally broken.

That really depends on context. I'm not arguing your point about it being totally broken, but shared contacts are not used by anywhere near to "everybody."

Also, and still not letting Microsoft off the hook, there's a reason why Outlook (new) is still considered a work in progress and where the finish line is still over 3 years away. Outlook (new) is still missing a huge number of advanced features that Outlook Classic has had for years, and I imagine getting many of those into Outlook (new) is what the next 3 years is going to be focused on.

Outlook (new) is not ready for prime time in many large corporate (or other large entity) environments.

 

[mmerry]

Sorry, but have to make a joke. Maybe New Outlook is being coded completely by Copilot and it just does not understand.

 

[britechguy]

Heck, Outlook (new) has reverted to "not ready for primetime" with Gmail. It worked quite seamlessly with Gmail from the early days up until about a year ago. Suddenly, it seems to lose the OAUTH token for Gmail with shocking regularity, and Microsoft has acknowledged, if memory serves, that the fault lies entirely on the Outlook side.

Outlook Classic holds on to OAUTH for Gmail with a death grip. Outlook (new) did for a long while, too. But over the last year or so I cannot count the number of times clients (and I) have had to step through OAUTH again for Outlook (new). What's even more galling is that recently you have to do it not once, but twice, in rapid succession for things to "stick" for as long as they can stick. Then, at some point in the not-too-distant future it's "lather, rinse, repeat." This is something that Microsoft has got to get a handle on, because Gmail dominates the email world and they want Gmail users to use Outlook as much as possible.

 

[HCHTech]

This is something that Microsoft has got to get a handle on, because Gmail dominates the email world and they want Gmail users to use Outlook as much as possible.

I've never reached the conclusion that MS wants Gmail folks to use Outlook. You might be right, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of their development meetings - haha. I've always been of the belief that MS and Google "merely tolerate" each other, and the best experience for the user lies in using the native interface for each. I have 2 separate Gmail addresses in Outlook (Classic) and it mostly works ok, but I know what to do when it doesn't. The average user doesn't have that luxury.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I've never reached the conclusion that MS wants Gmail folks to use Outlook. You might be right, I'd like to be a fly on the wall in some of their development meetings - haha. I've always been of the belief that MS and Google "merely tolerate" each other, and the best experience for the user lies in using the native interface for each.

Agreed.

Outlook developed from the Microsoft email client for Post Office..that evolved into Exchange....Outlook was first and foremost created for a business/enterprise grade business email system. POP/IMAP support sloppily added as an afterthought in later versions. Microsofts "home" email client was...back in the day, Outlook Express..designed for POP/IMAP. Evolved into Microsoft Mail. For the residential user.

I've had a GMail account since Google released it as a beta in the first year out...never configured it in Outlook, always just used it as Google intended....web browser based.

 

[britechguy]

Well, there is Outlook (365 and standalone Office versions) and there is Outlook for Windows (which replaced the Mail, Calendar, and People apps). The latter, which now shares a UI with the former, has always been targeted at the residential market and is meant to be used as the old 3 apps always were, and things like Windows Live Mail, etc., were before those.

All of the things that predated the current professional and "home" (as in Outlook for Windows) versions of Outlook did not and could not automatically sync Gmail mail, calendar, and contacts - only mail. Both now do this, natively.

If the above is not a pretty darned clear indicator of Microsoft's thinking about Gmail (residential or otherwise) I don't know what could be. They realize it cannot be ignored, and should not be ignored.

BTW: I've always accessed my Gmail accounts via the web interface, but also have them set up in Outlook and Thunderbird, too, as so many of my clients (and particularly those who are blind or low-vision) elect to use email clients. I don't routinely read and write via those email clients, but other than the (relatively) recent hitch with Outlook (new) losing OAUTH over and over again, I've never had any issue with Gmail and Outlook. And definitely not in Outlook Classic. I've never had trouble with IMAP in Outlook. Any modern email client has no choice but to handle IMAP with grace. Other than Microsoft (and business who are running their email ecosystem) the rest of the world is on IMAP. Heck, even Microsoft email services like hotmail, outlook.com, etc., allow IMAP access.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Yes we've debated this countless times. For many..most..rez users...Outlook does fine with their IMAP accounts.
For business users, is where one of the many drawbacks of using residential grade email surfaces....larger mailboxes...with GMail....it will blow up. One day Outlook will decide to get crank with Googles proprietary version of IMAP (it is NOT a standard version of it)...and Outlook just tanks. I maintain my position that business users should expect to have large mailboxes...thus...why business grade email systems (Exchange, Lotus Notes) have ZERO problems with large mailboxes. Residential mail setups will gag on large mailboxes. Wrong tools for the wrong job!!!

Other drawbacks, where is the calendar actually saved? Where is the address book actually saved? Where is your signature actually saved? Where is the nickname cache actually saved? With O365...if I have an end user get a new computer, sign in once...BAM..it's all back in mere seconds because all of that is saved in the mailbox!!! residential email systems...have fun cobbling that nightmare back together, bill bill bill...where was the money saved? Oh..did they want to back up those things too? Heh...yuck!

Microsoft has disabled insecure protocols by default ...starting a while ago...SMTP Auth and IMAP and POP....not enabled by default anymore for obvious security reasons. Some legacy tenants might still be found that have those enabled, else you have to intentionally lower your security settings by enabling those insecure protocols. IMAP does not natively support MFA....(of course POP and old SMTP auth don't either). And when slapping customized MFA approaches on top of IMAP, it's still slice through by hackers like a hot knife through butter. Security wise..Google thankfully doesn't even have IMAP enabled by default for Google Workspace tenants...they lean on OAuth2 for that.

 

[britechguy]

Yes we've debated this countless times. For many..most..rez users...Outlook does fine with their IMAP accounts.

No, I wouldn't say we've debated it. There have been lots of flat statements about IMAP that are, in fact, incorrect around here.

IMAP works with Outlook. It's always worked with Outlook. It works for any grade of email with Outlook if one chooses to use the protocol. It does not work as well or seamlessly with Outlook for all functions as Exchange. It is not as secure as exchange. All of these things are true.

OAuth is now used as the default for Google IMAP authentication and has been for some years, and for ALL Gmail accounts.

It doesn't matter what you like or prefer, or what I like or prefer, what matters is what's actually present "out there in the field." IMAP has had an almost equal footing in the email space overall as Exchange has for many years, and shows no signs of disappearing.

Copilot (Thinking Mode): [What are the various email access protocols and what proportion of the market share is held by each? What users typify each of those market shares?]

You seem to want me to be saying that IMAP and Exchange are equal in all ways, including security, which is an assertion I am not making and never have made. What I want people here to stop claiming is that Outlook "doesn't work/doesn't work well" with IMAP. It does, and always has.

I am not discussing business grade versus residential grade. We all know that most large entities have used MS-Exchange for years if not decades.

Outlook supports IMAP and must support IMAP if it is to remain a viable email client as the world exists right now. It's that simple.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

What I want people here to stop claiming is that Outlook "doesn't work/doesn't work well" with IMAP. It does, and always has.

I am not discussing business grade versus residential grade. We all know that most large entities have used MS-Exchange for years if not decades.

I'll maintain that Outlook does "not" work as well with IMAP as it does with its native Exchange support.

First..I'll acknowledge that IMAP is widespread, widely used, and will continue to be widely used for quite some time. It has a large market share. It came out before POP3....it lost market share to POP3....and then it regained market share as the limitations of POP3 quickly encouraged its demise in the early days of broadband.

And I'll acknowledge that it's OK for residential users. Realizing some limitations. But I don't work on residential users, don't want to. So those limitations it has...don't cause me any loss of sleep.

For business email...are where its limitations really surface and get many spotlights pointed on it. Many of which I noted above in my prior reply. Those aren't my opinion..they are factual limitations..in the business environment. Once one gets used to "all features working" of an Exchange environment...the limitations of IMAP combined with Outlook...are indeed...limitations...thus the clear and true statement..."doesn't work well". (refer to my list again in prior reply).
*Outlook doesn't work well with large mailboxes on IMAP services. It blows up. This is a limitation for a business. The opinions or preferences of some IT people to "not allow large mailboxes" isn't the debate, that's just an opinion. The facts are...Outlook will get cranky with mailboxes on IMAP once they reach around 20 or 25 gigs or more. Outlook works GREAT with mailboxes well beyond that...up to 100 gigs....if on Exchange. IMAP..does not. There is one limitation.
*Another limitation of IMAP....address books with Outlook Classic...."on this device only". Because it's stored in a local file, not in the mailbox...Exchange keeps it in the mailbox...so when doing computer migrations...or..an end user has multiple devices...each one is like a separate island. Brings back the days of POP3. Say a computers hard drive blows up...where did my address book go? If on Exchange..it's nice and safe. Stays with your account for the life on your account, because it's stored in the mailbox...thus equally accessible from all/any devices you have.
*Calendar..same as address book
*Signatures...same as address book
*Ability to send and receive large email attachments...which..a business should be able to do. Yes other online web based file sharing platforms are around ...but still for a business the need to send and/or receive file sizes larger than 25 megs is very common...

And security wise, I cannot lock down and secure a businesses email platform with any IMAP based email....as I can with Microsoft 365 Business Premium. ...and yes that's a different topic so I won't derail down that road...

 

[britechguy]

I'll maintain that Outlook does "not" work as well with IMAP as it does with its native Exchange support.

My only comment is I did not claim "works as well" with IMAP, but "works well." Even I will instantly state that Outlook, or any email client that supports Exchange, works better with Exchange when Exchange is an option. But it's not always an option in the customer base that I happen to serve. And given the customer base you serve, and the restrictions (and that's not a criticism or snark) you place on them as part of service provision, they always have Exchange.

I've never had a moment's difficulty with Outlook Classic and IMAP for residential and micro business clients. My main bone of contention has been the repeated statements that Outlook "is not designed to work with" IMAP. It may not be optimized for IMAP, it certainly isn't, but any email client that wishes to remain viable in the marketplace as a whole is, and must be, designed to work with IMAP (and the limitations of IMAP are about IMAP, not the email client).

I don't think we really have any argument, to be honest.