Paul R. - You raise a good point.
I don't like the degredation into the question of legality or think it is likely to have any legs but I do see the problem with the licensing vis-a-vis your use case and perhpas ours. In our case, we probably wouldn't loose many users/domains by simply dropping EWS support if MAPI isn't ready to go. That would re-open the can of worms considering re-balancing what is hosted in SM and that opens the other can of worms of Standard vs Enterprise (we've always chosen Enterprise) and the sizing of the SM server.
I have a lot of confidence in what ST are doing vis-a-vis MAPI.
We've lost several thousand customers over the past few years over functionality with Outlook and have been considering whether to gamble the rest by offering MAPI in the early days even though we might pick up the add-on to develop confidence in it ourselves.
You raise a good point though. For the handful of users that use Apple systems we've added the EWS option and not really recovered the cost of the add-on although it does reduce support costs to offset that. I hadn't considered the effect of the new licensing because I assumed we would do both. An EWS option with a MAPI option on top of EWS (a cascading option) would be a nice touch and certainly fairer to somone in your position.
I think Ben G's idea about not tying the MAPI option to the server size would be good if possible too, especially given that it can be enabled/disabled at the account level but I think ST did comment that it was constrained by the way Microsoft license it. Given that ST are the only one, or possibly one of a very small group, who have moved forward with direct MAPI integration, maybe it would still be possible for them to discuss these many constructive ideas/obstacles further with Microsoft.
I think you both have good points worth consideration. At the same time, SM becomes somewhat unique as an alternative to our SPLA licensed Exchange servers and as long as it works, as I think it will, we'll run with whatever the plan is. If it doesn't work (fully supporting Outlook without exceptions) then I'm not sure I see the value in the Enterprise version at all but would likely still offer the Standard version. If the MAPI integration fails I don't think it will be for lack of trying or commitment of resources on ST's part. They have gambled a big part of the farm on it.
In a discussion outside ST I've seen some thoughts of replacing large licenses with smaller licenses or licensing up both Standard and Enterprise in different sizes. I suspect you could operate that way like the old split domain approach, especially with a plug-in filter like the old MxGuard used to do to shoehorn-in their product. You might even do it with a domain level rule but it sounds like more of a headache than it's worth at the scale we've been knocked to with SmarterMail.
These are early days and with positive input in this thread perhaps there is still an opportunity for ST to refine the licensing for use cases like yours. Maybe what's really needed is a single version of the server with functionality addon's but I'm sure the devolopment of the UI to configure it, and the portal though which to license it, would slow things down quite a bit and I wouldn't like to see that.
All that said, and taking into consideration the comments on the current status of the beta, I still think ST should take as much time as they need to get it right, not fast. Slow will result in more attrition of course but releasing it with some of the warts that plagued early releases of prior versions might change the future discussion entirely. Bringing additional features to an existing user base who then champion it is a different proposition from trying to find a new user base in today's market.
Let's keep it up-beat and positive while working together to drive the point home that ST might actually benefit from putting a little more thought into trying to cajole Microsoft into something more flexible.