Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Corporate IT Hanging Up on Apple's iPhone

Posted by Zonk on Wed Jun 20, 2007 04:26 AM
from the no-soup-for-you dept.
WSJdpatton writes "iPhones can be used for email, but many businesses don't plan to sync them with internal systems used to power Blackberries and Microsoft mobile devices. Employees eager to use the cool new gadget, however, may pressure IT departments to support iPhones even if it means incurring more costs and changing policies. The WSJ reports: 'Incompatible technology has become an increasing problem for businesses as hand-held email and phone devices are evolving into minicomputers that can do such things as download music, take pictures and surf the Web. In the past, businesses have been unwilling to support certain devices, like those with cameras, for instance, because of concerns employees could use them to document company secrets. But these tensions would be magnified if the iPhone is as popular as Apple is hoping and some analysts expect.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nevali (942731) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:34AM (#19576365) Homepage
    "Businesses probably shouldn't rely on proprietary communications technology, because people will bitch and moan when they discover that it is, in fact, proprietary"

    Film at 11.
    • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

      Businesses probably shouldn't rely on proprietary communications technology

      Are you talking about MS, Apple or RIM?
      • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)

        by nevali (942731) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:47AM (#19576433) Homepage
        MS, to an extent, but mostly RIM.

        I could be wrong, but I was under the distinct impression that the iPhone would do POP3/IMAP4, just like pretty much every other phone released in the past 12-24 months.
        • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)

          by rbanffy (584143) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @06:24AM (#19576963) Homepage
          One of the key functions of RIM-style e-mail is that the server tells the phone that it has to download something instead of the phone polling the server if there is something to do. It is useful if you need to be informed of something immediately after the e-mail arrives instead of waiting until the next scheduled contact.

          With reduced cost per megabyte, higher data rates and increased battery life, this is becoming less and less relevant. I am completely happy with my IMAP, mainly because, when I really need to know, my server sends me an SMS that arrives in less than 10 seconds.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            It's not something that has to be inherently proprietary, though, and complete reliance on it is silly (even if you provide a push-notification mechanism, it's still sensible to provide POP or IMAP-based access as well). If people want to pay data charges for continual access to their e-mail, let them.

            Realistically, why isn't there an open standards/source-based push e-mail system out there? Strikes me as an odd part of the chain to be missing.

            I wonder if Kannel does something like this, actually...
          • If I'm not mistaken, the iPhone does IMAP push-mail
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        There's nothing wrong with having well supported proprietry kit, if you're already bound in, just make sure you've got a good handle on the bed you've chosen to lie in. We run exchange here, that means I can sync all my mail and appiontements to my windows mobile device (which I happened to already own). The standard device of issue here is the blackberry. It works well, the firm knows how much it costs to run, upgrade, support and what they get out of it.

        As people move from one firm to another, Crackberry
      • Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Saint Fnordius (456567) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @06:25AM (#19576967) Homepage Journal
        Apparently the WSJ author means MS Outlook lock-in, but I'm willing to wager Lotus Notes was meant as well. Many IT departments hang on to it as a way of defending their little empire. Unix and Mac users in fact liked to joke that part of why Windows took over the corporate world lies in how much support it needs, and so choosing it meant ensuring the company would still need you and even give you some underlings.

        John Gruber over at Daring Fireball has nailed better than I could here [daringfireball.net].
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        In fairness, an awful lot of Windows administrators are just as clueless as the Linux "I've got {Red Hat,SuSE,Ubuntu} installed on an external drive on my computer at home and can add users through the GUI tools" wannabes, and just as hard to find really clued Windows sysadmins.

        Because Windows already has more than enough traction in corporate environments, the barrier for Linux (or anything non-Windows, in fact) adoption is pretty high: you still need to support the Windows systems, and you can't very well
  • by ozmanjusri (601766) <`moc.liamtoh' `ta' `bob_eissua'> on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:35AM (#19576371) Journal
    Companies who've locked themselves in to a proprietary email system can't change when a new (and potentially better) product is available.
      • by Professor_UNIX (867045) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:05AM (#19576527)

        Companies who've locked themselves in to a proprietary email system can't change when a new proprietary product is available.
        iPhone just uses IMAP and POP3 for downloading mail. How on earth would you consider that proprietary. The proprietary mail systems are idiots who use Exchange without IMAP support enabled or use Blackberries.
        • by Helvick (657730) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @12:33PM (#19583085) Homepage Journal
          My day job involves creating processes that allow our enterprise to securely build, deploy and manage configurations to mobile devices like mobile phones and blackberry. What I need to do (as any other systems admin does) is to create a repeatable, secure and reliable method of taking control of a physical device, securing it (so data and credentials on that device are safe and my enterprise can authenticate both the device and the user later) and configuring it. When you want to do that for 20000 or more users on five continents over 80 or more cellular providers you really want to be able to fully automate the process. That requires an SDK and a reasonably complete manageability API at the OS level that is available to you.

          Otherwise the option is to go manual. Apart from the near impossibility of getting a user to reliably communicate a device's identity (ie a hardware device ID\Serial number\IMEI number) back into a configuration database you cannot seriously ask normal end users to poke around in config dialogs, changing and tweaking settings and expect everything to work. It can be done but your support desk overhead becomes criminally expensive. I haven't even begun to discuss the difficulties involved in effectively securing the authentication protocols used for your end users services - what are we proposing? Cached user names and passwords? X.509 certificates and mutual authentication? OTP's? If so how do you configure both ends so that you preclude man in the middle attacks and credential stealing?

          Why do we need to authenticate the device? Well what happens when a user loses a device or its stolen? That happens on average twice a day for us worldwide BTW. We revoke the device's access and then provision the user with a new one. To do that we need to be able to auth the devices too. We could get away with not doing that but would end up having to cancel user accounts to remain secure.

          The closed nature of the iPhone precludes the above and that is the reason enterprises are saying that it is not suitable. I think it's going to be a great consumer device and, yes, I want one too but we aren't going to see support and adoption in large organisations that care about security until they provide the tools to manage the platform correctly (or just open it up). If Apple come out with comprehensive configuration subsystem using (for example) OMA-DM via SyncML then things would be looking up.

          Exchange support would be nice but it's not critical at all even for monocultural Microsoft shops. Anyone can write a gateway interface between Exchange and anything else if they want to. It may be proprietary but it isn't closed. That's a very important point here.

      • Companies who've locked themselves in to a proprietary email system can't change when a new proprietary product is available.


        Yeah, those darn proprietary open standards that are supported by most calendaring and email systems! I hate having to pay my IMAP tax every time I check mail, and I hope nobody finds out I'm using a pirated LDAP specification! The CalDAV group keeps sending me an invoice for $0 every six months, it's going to bankrupt me!
  • by richlv (778496) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:36AM (#19576375)

    The WSJ reports: 'Incompatible technology has become an increasing problem for businesses

    if so, why don't we seen businesses demanding open standards used when they make the buying decisions ? is this uninformed people being in charge or what ?
    incompatibilities are biting businesses for awfully long time, but we still have .doc floating around, proprietary communications protocols (like for syncing) and whatnot...
    • One reason is that most businesses have to comply with Sox, PCI, etc..... Many Open Source software has just not been certified by the compliance bodies and won't necessarily pass an audit. To most organizations, being compliant/passing an audit is far more important that user convenience or flexibility.

      Even if certification of the technology/software/app is not required by the compliance body, proper documentation is. A good deal of off-the-shelf commercial solutions come with that documentation, or at lea
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      if so, why don't we seen businesses demanding open standards used when they make the buying decisions ? is this uninformed people being in charge or what ?

      Almost. It's uninformed people who've grown up in an all-windos world, don't understand anything else and were just recently taken to that really nice (and expensive) asian restaurant by that really nice microsoft sales guy with that reaaallly nice assistant (the one with the big tits and the tight-fitting clothes).

      Buying decisions in corporate environments - not just IT - are very rarely based on any objective reasons, though the good salesman brings in a slide or two with some that can be used if the nee

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        closed source does not imply closed standards (even though they are much more common in there).
        even though we are seeing attempts to demand open formats from all vendors (like odf initiatives lately), there are many more areas where closed or half-closed communications and data exchange protocols are used. it would be perfectly fine for customers to request complete documentation on data formats that the product they are purchasing is using (to store/transmit their data !).

        if they are not doing this, then w
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Active Directory and Exchange Server work very well for many, many companies out there. They get support from the vendors, and they work seamlessly with the client software (usually Windows with Exchange). LDAP is great, but IMAP doesn't offer the same functionality as Exchange does.

            LDAP and IMAP are supposed by Active Directory and Exchange Server, all you have to is enable them (or, "not disable them", depending on what means was used to set the system up in the first place). It's not an either or scenario, and that's true in a lot of cases.

            Exchange isn't "poorer quality" - it's very good at what it does.

            Exchange and Outlook are really, really bad at dealing with large amounts of mail (compare with Mail.app, which manages several gigs worth of mail seamlessly). It's pretty poor quality mail server and client combination really. The calendaring s

  • security risk? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by farkus888 (1103903) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:39AM (#19576385)
    while I do question its usefulness as a real business tool compared to a blackberry, I think the security risk question is overly hyped. I think having web access so I can use a personal webmail account to send whatever I want out to anyone I want unfiltered by IT or corporate security[different from network security] is a bigger risk to my employers trade secrets.

    I also think that there really needs to be an open standard for interaction with the servers these devices need to talk to so that one server can talk to anybodies pda/phone. I know I don't want to implement different software for each different model of cell phone.
  • WTF. Corporate IT is fucking weird. The iPhone is POP3/IMAP and SMTP

    What's so "nonstandard" about that?!
    • What's so "nonstandard" about that?!

      The corporate "standard" is Microsoft Enterprise Windows Email Exchange Protocol Vista Ultimate Edition 2007, not one of those pesky "open" standards that anyone can implement. Only communists use POP and IMAP, you know.

    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:00AM (#19576503)
      And the Calendar is what? The Contacts/addressbook is what? The Todo list is what format? The notebook is what format?

      This is actually a big issue. It's physically easier for me to sync my two phones manually, that is, to manually write down and type in contact details between my addressbook, my business and personal phones.

      Thankfully to the developers, there is OpenSync: http://www.opensync.org/ [opensync.org] . Pain in the arse to set up at the moment but very much going in the right direction.

       
      • by hab136 (30884) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @09:57AM (#19580087) Journal

        And the Calendar is what? The Contacts/addressbook is what? The Todo list is what format? The notebook is what format?

        Calendar - iCal/CalDAV (open standard, same as Mozilla's Sunbird)
        Contacts - vCard, open standard
        Todo - iCal again
        Notebook - on the iPod, the notebook is a directory of regular text (.txt) files - I imagine iPhone will do the same.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Like it or not, the corporate IT e-mail "standards" are Lotus Notes/Domino and Microsoft Exchange now.

      Blackberries and Windows Mobile Smartphones already work with those standards, but the iPhone does not.

      I'd imagine those features will be on the long list of improvements for iPhone 2.0, though, along with a lower price and more storage space.
  • by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice @ g m ail.com> on Wednesday June 20 2007, @04:46AM (#19576423)
    Seriously, an IT department should support a set list of systems, not everything a user brings to work and wants to use - thats how costs spiral out of control (as noted in the FA) and also how IT eventually gets blamed for the cost overruns et al.
    • by vertinox (846076) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @10:14AM (#19580355)
      Seriously, an IT department should support a set list of systems, not everything a user brings to work and wants to use - thats how costs spiral out of control (as noted in the FA) and also how IT eventually gets blamed for the cost overruns et al.

      Well that is fine and dandy... until the CEO gets an iPhone for Christmas.
        • by dn15 (735502) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @06:04AM (#19576821)
          This is an honest question, then: What makes a Blackberry OK and an iPhone not OK? They'd both allow outside access to corporate communications, but one is doing it via an open standard and one is doing it with a proprietary protocol. Perhaps I am just naive about this, but to me if a company does not trust an employee with the information it sends to their inbox, it should seriously reevaluate either whether the employee should be privy to that information at all. It's not as if they can't print it out in the office and take it home, or write it down with a pen and paper.
  • by water-and-sewer (612923) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:27AM (#19576641) Homepage
    I don't see how a long-standing industry fact, i.e. that corporate IT departments are unable/unwilling to support an infinite range of hardware options until there is reason enough to do so - gets turned into an inflammatory article dissing the iphone. The fact is, not too long ago IT departments weren't interested in dealing with Blackberries either. When the workers realized how useful they were the IT departments were convinced the new challenge was worth it, and life went on.

    I don't see the iphone becoming a corporate toy immediately, but if enough corporate-types adopt the iphone (presumably because it's useful or makes their lives easier) then IT will come around.

    Thanks Zonk for the predictably inflammatory headline. Might I suggest something like, "Corporate IT departments would rather commit suicide than support non-Windows hardware." You're already only one step away.
  • I hear... (Score:4, Funny)

    by niceone (992278) * on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:46AM (#19576731) Journal
    I hear they'll be releasing a version more targeted at Corporate IT - called the itPhone.
  • by jcr (53032) <jcr@mac.STRAWcom minus berry> on Wednesday June 20 2007, @06:10AM (#19576845) Journal
    iPhone works with POP and IMAP. They found a couple of IT drones who hadn't bothered to find out what was involved in supporting the iPhone, and just assumed that they'd have to jump through the same hoops that RIM requires.

    -jcr

  • Daring Fireball (Score:5, Informative)

    by LKM (227954) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @06:13AM (#19576869) Homepage
    John Gruber has an article about this, [daringfireball.net] for those interested.
  • by toupsie (88295) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @07:02AM (#19577309) Homepage
    The reason I don't want to support an iPhone is that there no method for me to brick the device like I can with a Blackberry. Or at least no method that Apple has promoted. So when an Executive is out having a little too much to drink and leaves their mobile device in the cab, it can be locked away from prying eyes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Exactly. People crying about the iPhone supporting POP3 and IMAP are obviously not working in a corporate environment. Getting mail to the phone is the easy part folks. Getting mail to the phone in a way that doesn't drain the battery instantly (push), and in way where the mail can be locked and secured in an instant.. That's the tricky bit. The Blackberry is a good device, but -and make no mistake- Blackberry Enterprise Server is the key to RIM's success. I busted out laughing during last year's keyno
  • CEO (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @07:40AM (#19577647) Homepage Journal
    Let's face it, in most companies it'll work like this:

    If the CEO gets an iPhone, the IT suddenly has a high priority action item to make sure it works with the corporate messaging system.

    If any VP gets an iPhone, the IT will have a low priority action item to get it working.

    If anyone else gets an iPhone, they'll be told it violates the corporate IT policy and they need to use something else for corporate messaging.
  • by Bill_the_Engineer (772575) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @08:16AM (#19578251)

    The iPhone must already must be a success. Otherwise, why would their be so much effort to distribute so much FUD?

    Why would I not be able to check my corporate email with an iPhone? According to Apple it will have the Safari web browser built-in, and I could browse the web. I could even check my email using the corporate outlook website (which BTW is one of the only ways to check mail away from the office). And I don't have to ask permission on what device or web browser to use to access the website.

    People must be envious of Apple users lately. I can't go a day without reading an article here on slashdot that was spawned out of obvious envy for the platform. I can't blame them since nothing generate page hits like a good old-fashion holy war. Oh and don't get me started on how many "I'm not buying an iPhone" comments that are being posted (even more as I type this comment!).

    So you're not buying an iPhone... I don't care. I'm not running out to buy one either, but I'm sure there are people who are and more power to them. Now if I was really into IPods, I might consider purchasing an IPOD with 8GB it would put me back $250, and to buy a new unlocked phone with bluetooth is $250.. or I can get a iPhone for the same cost (of course I would have a stupid 2 year contract). Sure it's a flimsy argument, but who am I to tell other people how to spend their money. Personally, I think the iPhone is a fine product in its own right, and probably worth every penny. At least more likely than any of the $999 and higher mobile PC spawned from Sony or (gasp) Microsoft's Origami project.

    Besides I wasted similar amounts of time and money on a Zaurus, Palm Pilot, PSP, and other gadgets that I thought would be fun to have around. I don't remember anyone being as vocal about not buying any of them. Hell, the Zaurus was recommended solely on the premise that it ran Linux.

  • by 0xdeadbeef (28836) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @08:22AM (#19578359) Homepage Journal
    There is a class of software called "device management" [wikipedia.org] that functions like the provisioning software you'll find on most corporate PCs. It does things like

    Automatic deployment (or revocation) of software and configuration settings.
    Encryption of sensitive data.
    Remote kill switch if it is lost or stolen, and "self-destruct" if there are repeated failed access attempts.

    The iPhone, due to its lack of support for third-party software, has none of this.
  • Non-smartphone (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Second Horseman (121958) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @08:36AM (#19578639)
    There's a reason why products like RIM's Blackberry are popular with corporate. They WORK. It just works. Little support need, no messy configuration by the end user, it just works. Lose a device? The administrator can wipe the device remotely. On-device encryption. Integration with corporate email and corporate IM software. Ability to communicate device-to-device via IM without relying on the corporate backend systems. And actual push email. Not sms-triggered, or any other goofy stuff I've seen over the years.

    To support corporate, Apple needs to provide a proper SDK so the companies that make multi-platform mobile syncing software can write to it. There's no other way to deal with the calender and contact list syncing and other features.

    But, once again, Jobs' Stalinist view of technology (it'll set you free, but only in the way he defines freedom) isn't going to bend at all. Remember, it's not about working well with others, folks, it's about what YOU want, and the universe should reshape itself to you, and anyone who tells you differently is just trying to keep you down (geez, maybe a Scientology comparison would work as well). Unless you work at Apple, and then it's about what Steve wants, of course.
  • push email (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Stu Charlton (1311) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @08:50AM (#19578875) Homepage
    Historically, the Blackberry Enterprise Server (or a Desktop Redirector) was needed because BlackBerries ran on the Mobitex network. So, you'd basically use BES to mount your exchange server, securely route email through a proprietary protocol to BB's central servers, which would then distribute it to the wireless network.

    I'm not 100% on how the current GPRS/EDGE or CDMA systems work, but I believe it's the same centralized model, which is why BlackBerry has network-wide outages from time to time.

    It seems that this model has been hard to replicate because programming plug-ins for Exchange and other corporate email systems isn't exactly child's play. It's not THAT hard, but many of these mobile device companies don't know how to build teams to create software like this (otherwise, why haven't they?)

    Apple and Yahoo! , on the other hand, are adopting the draft IETF Push-IMAP standard, since GPRS/EDGE devices basically can ride on an IP network. It eliminates the middle-man of BES.

    The roadblocks I can see here are:
    - it's not a ratified standard yet, which means single-source implementations will be the only guarantor of interop
    - supporting Exchange, Lotus, etc. with a plug-in that doesn't kill their native IMAP functionality
    - ensuring that the Push-IMAP exchange is secure

    This latter point is important -- many corporate email systems are *not* available over the Internet, they're only on VPN. I gather they only added BlackBerries when they were demonstrated that it would be a secure transmission to the central RIM servers & device itself.

    But, in the end, it's quite likely they'll make this happen by late 2008.
    • by rolfwind (528248) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:00AM (#19576505)

      There are a number of phones that come standard with the features loaded in the iPhone.
      Yet another person mistaking a feature check list as an all comprehesive judgement on a phone, regardless of feature usability, convenience, or UI.

      Give me a break, there are enough valid criticisms on the iPhone but don't give me this bullshit. My run-of-the-mill phone can play music, but I never use it for that -- it's too much of a hassle. And Windows Mobile sucks. It really does. Maybe that's not objective, but it's my final conclusion.

      There are features I wish it had, there are things I think Apple could have done better (Cingular) but to say the iPhone is a been there, done that device is missing the mark by a wide shot.
        • It seems obvious to me that the point was that the iPhone's appeal lies in its style, UI, etc., rather than in a laundry list of features.

          Yup, Apple has redefined how you make a product. It's not about the features it has, but rather those it doesn't have.

          What makes the iPod attractive is that it's not durable, doesn't have replaceable batteries, FM tuner, and for a long tmie couldn't play videos (everybody swore it won't play video since that's kinda the benefit of using an Apple product). The shuffle does
          • by dn15 (735502) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:56AM (#19576775)

            Yup, Apple has redefined how you make a product. It's not about the features it has, but rather those it doesn't have.

            That's one way of looking at it, and certainly a valid perspective. But the other way of looking at it is that Apple makes devices that do very specific things and they aim to be the best at what they do. In the example of the iPod, since you brought it up, I actually own a video-capable iPod but I have never used the feature except once or twice for the novelty when it was brand new. Likewise, I have no desire to listen to the radio -- that's exactly why I use an iPod. It can do a number of other things I don't need, and don't really care about. I like it because it's very good at its primary function of being an MP3 player and does so in style. The rest is fluff and I couldn't really care less about it.

            As for the points you make about the iPhone, I agree it's unfortunate that there is no true SDK for third-party software. The rest I consider superfluous. Java, Flash, GPS, those tiny qwerty keyboards? Those are the last things I'd look for in a modern phone. If it allows me to efficiently work with my mail and calendar on the go and occasionally access the web, that's what I want and what I think the majority of users want. Any site that requires more than this I wouldn't even want to try using on a phone-like device.

            What I am arguing against is not being feature complete, but rather feature creep. I want the devices I use to be capable of doing the tasks for which it was intended and do them well. It seems to me that piling on other secondary features just diminishes the product's ability to perform its primary functions. Devices that try to do everything tend not to be very good at any of those things. Honestly, I think it's just a red herring to claim about things like a lack of GPS and Java on a cell phone. Those are not central to its function of being a portable communications device, and don't matter for most things.

            Lest you think I am trying to make myself feel better about blowing money on an iPhone, I'll say right now that I'm not getting one because they're too expensive. I just like the philosophy of having a clearly defined set of tasks for a product and sticking to that, making sure that it is best at what it does. :)

            • those tiny qwerty keyboards? Those are the last things I'd look for in a modern phone [...] If it allows me to efficiently work with my mail and calendar on the go and occasionally access the web, that's what I want

              how do you plan to work efficiently with your mail on the go without a qwerty keyboard?

              Sure a tiny one is a hell of a lot slower than a full size keyboard, but it's a hell of a lot faster than typing on a standard phone.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                how do you plan to work efficiently with your mail on the go without a qwerty keyboard?

                I don't need a qwerty keyboard to read email.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            First of all, a couple of inaccuracies in your comment:

            The shuffle ... doesn't have sequential playback ability.

            Yes, it does.

            iPhone is great since it doesn't have ... 3G camera and mobile internet.

            Maybe you meant "3G mobile internet and a camera"? It certainly does have a camera, and it does have mobile internet over GPRS and WiFi.

            Other than that your points are largely valid, although I think you missed the point of the comment you replied to. Loading devices with features without thinking of

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            You are probably trying to be ironic, but removing features is not exactly the worst idea a cell phone manufacturer might have, given the current state of smartphones. My P990i's feature list spans pages upon pages, yet most of these features are useless since they are so obtuse, confusing and complicated. The iPhone has a lot less features, but I trust that I will actually be able to use them without crashing the damn thing, reading the manual, or spending half an hour going through menu items.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            "Yup, Apple has redefined how you make a product. It's not about the features it has, but rather those it doesn't have... iPhone is great since it doesn't have SDK, keyboard, 3G camera and mobile internet, doesn't have Java, and again doesn't have replaceable battery, doesn't have GPS. Safari doesn't have Flash, unlike many other phones, which is a great thing."

            "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

            Antoine de Sai

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                The iPod does not work like the iPaq at all. You don't use a stylus to write or tap on the screen, you type with your thumbs. The difference is that you type on a keyboard shown on the screen instead of on actual little buttons. The people who have used it say it takes a bit of getting used to, but works pretty much like an actual small querty keyboard.

                By the way, I've used a Palm and a P800 for a long time, and I enjoyed the text recognition very much. Not as good as an actual keyboard (which my P990i has)
    • by dave420 (699308) on Wednesday June 20 2007, @05:26AM (#19576637)
      Or use Exchange, and then not have to make any sacrifices at all. Businesses don't want to lose the competitive edge they have, so cutting back on functionality, especially functionality as important as group calendars, is a deal-breaker. Exchange isn't re-inventing the wheel, it's clearly better than the solution you suggested, functionality-wise at least. I'm not trolling for MS or anything, it's just that companies don't give a rat's ass about F/OSS (often to their detriment) - they look at feature lists.
    • The same was said about the Mac GUI, the Mac 3D accelerated interface and the iPod.

      apple's going the right way about this. It's a clear, color screen that has an easy to use interface and can be used with a single hand.

      The revolutionary part is that it's easy.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Indeed this is a huge shortcoming of iCal, but the new version in Leopard supports group calendars [apple.com] synchronized over WebDAV, which is a big step towards corporate competitiveness. The Leopard release of OS X Server is supposed to include a WebDAV server [apple.com], too:

          iCal Server uses open calendaring protocols for integrating with leading calendar programs, including iCal 3 in Leopard, Mozilla's Sunbird, OSAF's Chandler, and Microsoft Outlook using an open source connector. These open standard protocols include CalD