Slashdot Mirror
Corporate IT Hanging Up on Apple's iPhone
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.'"
"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.
Companies who've locked themselves in to a proprietary email system can't change when a new (and potentially better) product is available.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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
Rich
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.
thats right, I rarely use capitals. deal with it. but don't mistake my laziness for stupidity
WTF. Corporate IT is fucking weird. The iPhone is POP3/IMAP and SMTP
What's so "nonstandard" about that?!
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
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/ . Pain in the arse to set up at the moment but very much going in the right direction.
Deleted
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.
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.
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 doesn't have screen and doesn't have sequential playback ability.
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.
And of course, all Apple products are expensive, since it's really hard to not have so many things in a product. The other companies just resist to the pressure and put all kinds of stuff in their products, that's why they're so cheap.
Confused?
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.
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
I hear they'll be releasing a version more targeted at Corporate IT - called the itPhone.
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
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. :)
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.
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
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
John Gruber has an article about this, for those interested.
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.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
-Stu
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.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)