Corporate IT Hanging Up on Apple's iPhone 380
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.'"
Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Film at 11.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you talking about MS, Apple or RIM?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
RIM does not have a monopoly on this feature. Have you ever heard of Push IMAP [wikipedia.org]? It's an open protocol that $YOUR_HOSTING_COMPANY probably already runs on their mail server.
From the link
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As people move from one firm to another, Crackberry
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Insightful)
John Gruber over at Daring Fireball has nailed better than I could here [daringfireball.net].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Summary of the article. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me rephrase that for you:
Companies who've locked themselves in to a proprietary email system can't change when a new proprietary product is available.
Re:Summary of the article. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary of the article. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
is incompatibility a problem ? (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:2)
Because if they want something that's not available in the open-source world that is available in the closed-source world, even if that's a support contract, software, whatever, then as a business the temptation is to go for the closed-source alternative just to maintain a competitive edge.
I don't think that's the whole picture, as business make crazy decisions even without good cause.
They use Active Directory and Exchange, but not LDAP and IMAP - even when it's easy to enable them and when there are lots of people in the company who would love to have even read-only access to some of the data so they could build and run an integrated platform. They choose poorer quality more expensive software, rather than hiring someone competent to develop something superior (and at less cost) using open
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As far as the Outlook is concerned, it bogs down with large amounts of mail (especially in the one folder) and is god awful at searching large volumes of mail (and if you can't search it easily and quickly, it's rather pointless holding on to mail) - it's Outlook (rather than Exchange) that I've found poor to be dealing with large amounts of mail in one folder (e.g. an archive folder for a mailing list, or group of related lists). I tr
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they see a sleeping dog that will do the same thing to them? I haven't RTFA, I was just wondering if it propoganda from Apple, or from one of their competitors?
Re: (Score:2)
if so, why don't we seen businesses demanding open standards used when they make the buying decisions ?
Because businesses are interested in the real results of improved productivity and profitability, rather than the typically nebulous feel-good advantages of "open standards".
is this uninformed people being in charge or what ?
Quite the contrary. It's just they're more informed about the _business_ than the _technology_. Which is to say, nearly the complete opposite of the average Slashdotter.
Businesses demanding open standards. (Score:2)
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 ? .doc floating around, proprietary communications protocols (like for syncing) and whatnot...
incompatibilities are biting businesses for awfully long time, but we still have
That's a myth. There are certainly dedicated Microsoft vassals who stick to the all Microsoft strategy quite deliberately for cost reasons and it probably works for them although the lock in also has some severe downsides. There is however, also quite a large group of businesses who deliberately distance them selves from Microsoft or whom Microsoft never succeeded in assimilating for the very practical reason that in the 'server' systems (using the term loosely here) market, unlike the Desktop computer mar
I think this is something new (Score:2)
Until now, there hasn't been the need. When IT equipment was bulky and or expensive, firms could just make sure all their infrastructure used the same supplier. Then as handhelds started to arise, everything had to be compatible with Windows, since everyone want
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, Informative)
incompatibilities are biting businesses for awfully long time, but we still have
Most businesses have no need for open standards because the current ones are nearly universal and work well enough to get the job done. I have yet to have a client that cannot open
security risk? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...wtf. iPhone is completely standard. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's so "nonstandard" about that?!
Re:...wtf. iPhone is completely standard. (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
BS. Everyone knows communists run on Macs [cerebralsynergy.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not MS standard as in compatible with Exchange.
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/excha nge/2007/evaluate/clients.mspx [microsoft.com]
Look at the chart in the link. Even some versions of Outlook are incompatable with some versions of Exchange.
Only Outlook 2002/XP and 2003 are compatible with all the versions of exchange listed. Everything else is incompatible with at least one version.
So what versions is the phone compatible with?
Re: (Score:2)
if this is the future of IT, stop the fucking room, i want off.
No, it's a *big* problem with mobile devices (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just a guess though.
Re: (Score:2)
The calendar, todo and notes support CalDAV/iCalendar, open standards. The address book supports LDAP, an open standard.
Re:No, it's a *big* problem with mobile devices (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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.
And so they shouldnt... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's one thing to officially "support" a client and quite another to block it from accessing your system entirely. That is what many of these corporate IT groups apparently do because they don't even offer IMAP access to their server which seems ludicrous to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And so they shouldnt... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you wanted the same level of intranet access to be available on the iphone, you'd need to set up an internet facing IMAP serv
Re: (Score:2)
IT budgets spiral because most people running IT departments and teams are not very good at it (and the result is that solutions take too long to implement, cost too much and don't work well). I don't think a case can really be made that it's because "they try to support too much", I've not known many IT departments that have a problem saying "that software is unsupported".
Re:And so they shouldnt... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well that is fine and dandy... until the CEO gets an iPhone for Christmas.
message to those Exchange admins (Score:2)
How long has Blackberry been around? (Score:2)
The iPhone isn't designed as a corporate product - yet. It *should* prov
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
reasons for blackberry's success (Score:2)
Sure, WinMo devices et al can do some form of live mail and calendar etc, but
Why must we continually re-invent the wheel? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's called IMAP. Over SSL (or a VPN tunnel for outside access). You can even set up Exchange to support IMAP, and bingo - basic email access works for more or less everyone. Of course, you lose the integrated calendars stuff, but that's a sacrifice you may have to make.
Re:Why must we continually re-invent the wheel? (Score:4, Informative)
IT will follow when the masses demand it (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
IMAP and POP3 are out since that's a security concern
just a toy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I hear... (Score:4, Funny)
VPNs and policy software (Score:2)
Outlook? (Score:2)
Pop or IMAP, or that Yahoo push business. Not RIM. Can sync with Exchange server.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Daring Fireball (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Awesome. Instead of answering my question, you're paraphrasing the Daring Fireball rant.
Well excuuuuse me, Princess. I did not realize I was paraphrasing Gruber's article. I thought I was simply telling the truth.
Let me rephrase my question (since you're obviously not in IT):
Actually, I am.
how does the iphone contribute to the company's bottom line?
It contributes the the company's bottom line by cutting down on support cost for crappy cell phones. Not that it matters, if the right people want an iPhone, IT will do it.
And let's try one more: what does the iPhone offer that the *insert phone/email/platform of choice* doesn't already do?
Again, it doesn't really matter, but what the iPhone does offer is an interface that seems to be easy to figure out.
Thank you for the spelling correction, but let me offer you a definition from wikipedia: "A de facto standard (...)
Right. See that? "de" and "facto" are two different words. I know what
Can I brick an iPhone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CEO (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
iPhone already a success? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Email is the tip of the iceberg (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's the corporate intranet, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Although I for one would not want a company owed communication tool.
Re:Not a great new app! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point of the grandparent post. Re-read the first sentence and you'll see that (s)he has the same opinion as you. The message in its entirety said "I think people will buy the iPhone because of its beauty, and not functionality. There are a number of phones that come standard with the features loaded in the iPhone." (Emphasis mine.) It see
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:Not a great new app! (Score:5, Insightful)
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. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
I don't need a qwerty keyboard to read email.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, a couple of inaccuracies in your comment:
Yes, it does.
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)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"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:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you both get back to us after you've actually tried using what you're reviewing?
Re: (Score:2)
And arguably most of them are as "beautiful" in their own right and cost half as much under contract as the iPhone. It seems a little odd that anyone would want an iPhone when they could probably afford an 80Gb iPod from the change left over from buying another phone with similar specs.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
EMail in dk0:[300,310] Web pages in dk0:[300,320]
Uptime would be fantastic.
I wonder if there are any software emulators out there?
Re: (Score:2)
With a bit of work, they could probably be compiled for Linux on something portable, or even Windows Mobile and you *could* have a PDP-11 on your phone.
"Switching on," not "Switching to" (Score:3, Informative)
Of course, it does require a security model based on something other than, "Our server is secure, because hackers could never compromise Outlook!"