The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.
Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?
A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.
That Q&A is USAtoday-conjured bullshit, plain and simple. None of the actual Verizon literature has suggested there will be ONLY a family share plan for all users.
You are being a little dense. Previously, up to 2GB of data would have cost me $30 a month. Now it will cost $50 a month, for 1GB. Before that, $30 would have gotten unlimited data.
So from a consumer point of view, the deal has gotten worse and worse. And it still costs money to add devices to the plan for data sharing, leaving this an all-around shitty deal.
If you are on a plan, by yourself (or with just one smartphone), you do NOT want the share everything tiers, and you do NOT have to use them! You can keep your 2GB/$30 tier for as long as you want, those are NOT going away ANY time soon. The article is a hyperbolic piece of shit.
In my case, if I had my current ATT account on Verizon, that'd be saving me a nice chunk of money. Anyone with more than one device is coming out ahead. Anyone with a current Verizon data plan *and* a phone will come out ahead. Anyone who is currently paying for tethering will come out ahead.
Personally, I hope ATT does this quickly, as well. (Although, frankly, I wish I could skip the $40 voice part... as it works out to about $2 a minute for the usage I have in a given month.)
That's what pretty much everyone who poops their pants over this is ignoring: THERE ARE STILL SINGLE LINE PLANS AND THEY ARE STILL CHEAPER. The "share everything" tiers are NOT for single line customers for fucks sake! I can't believe how many people are up in arms about this, it's a relatively minor shift in their pricing model.
Let me make this quick: If you had two smartphones, the same 1GB (if that's all you used) would have cost you $60 a month. Now, it's $50, and $50 is less than $60. How this is difficult for people to come to terms with is really amazing. Verizon has been moving away from unlimited for years so go ahead and forget any retort that includes "but but but unlimited was only $30 and unlimited is like infinity many of 1GB, so 1GB should be free!!!!!!111"
According to USA Today, 'Under the new pricing plan, a smartphone customer opting for the cheapest data bucket, 1 gigabyte, will pay $90 before taxes and fees ($40 for phone access and $50 for 1 GB). Customers can add a basic phone, laptop and tablet to share data for $30, $20 and $10, respectively.' Those of us still grandfathered into the unlimited plan will be forced (when upgrading) to either sign up for Share Everything or one of the tiered pricing plans currently in effect."
The "bucket plans" are for people with MULTIPLE LINES. Any price comparison for someone who has JUST ONE LINE (as they attempted here) is completely POINTLESS. Compare the new "bucket" rates to FAMILY PLANS for MULTIPLE smartphones and you will see that the pricing is either pretty much equal, or cheaper depending on how much data you use. Regardless, I expect approximately 9,234,987 slashdotters will be chiming in about how if they ran a wireless company, they would do things completely differently. I can't wait to read each and every reply.
I'm believe that the upgrade to 16GB or RAM is $200. That's around $60-$70 more than buying 2x8GB RAM sticks for an ordinary user-upgradeable notebook.
Read carefully: I did NOT say "same price as an ordinary notebook that is upgradeable" and that is not even close to what I meant. The price savings from not putting a little door, and a socket, and all the other work that goes into making it upgradeable can be cost-cut and the difference can be felt when buying the upgraded version (the max ram version is cheaper than it would have been if it were socketed and you bought the upgrade). Since its pointless as of now to compare the specs on this machine (no other machine has even close to that screen resolution) only time will tell if Apple has passed the savings on to the consumer (like they did with the iPad 3) or if they have merely pocketed it and charged more anyway.
This may be the largest battery ever produced, but would still only power my reading light (40 watt bulb) for 2 and 1/3 hours...... they ought to put some of that technology into a desktop to make it low-power (and green).
The largest "embedded" battery ever; plenty of other laptops with snap-in batteries offer larger options. And if your reading light were LED powered and not basically a heater that managed to throw off a little bit of light, it would last for days (a 40w equivalent LED would draw 4w or less).
I was reading about the display on AnandTech, but one thing I don't get is what the actual resolution of the retina display is. From what I can tell, the images are rendered at 2880x1800, but can't actually be displayed at that size with pixel-perfect accuracy. Text cannot be read on higher resolutions without increasing the font size, which I thought was the whole point of having a higher resolution.
It seems to make sense, they will either have an option where you can get the display to act like it's 2880x1800 (and everything will be super fucking small like you are saying) or you can have the display scaled to a slighly more normal 1900x1200 aka 1080p-like but at the cost of having the GPU do some upscaling so that all the apps still pump out a lower number of pixels, but the screen gets all the pixels it needs thanks to what is probably a pretty well thought out smoothing algorithm. And as the screenshot suggests, this is probably what murders the performance and/or battery life on the unit since you basically need to have a high power GPU running all the time to keep up with that process.
While a wholly proprietary pinout(and a different wholly proprietary pinout than the last model's wholly proprietary pinout) the storage card is at least socketed... Given that there are likely to be a reasonable number of these sold, and to deep pocketed buyers, 3rd-party options will likely exist sooner or later. RAM, though, may leave you with a case of buyer's remorse...
Easy, just buy the largest option. Apple is doing one thing smart here, they are making a design that if produced by the tens of millions (which these will surely be) will prove to be VERY cheap. That means you can probably buy the upgraded ram for what the same version would have cost you with a modular ram socket but no upgrade in place. Comparing these notebooks to other similar competitors will probably put Apple on a footing closer than they were in the past. The question is, at what price does giving up choice come at? Clearly Apple is OK with removing choice (as seen in all other product lines) in favor of a cost-competitive set of options that "you want". Why should they not take their laptops to the same model?
"Without a doubt, this new laptop is an engineering marvel..."
Oh give me a fucking break. The LEM was an engineering marvel. The Roman aqueducts were an engineering marvel. Apple has done nothing of the sort, what bologna.
They engineered the battery to be right at the very edge of the unit, in a perfect spot to be easily replaced should they decide to put a thin layer of plastic around it and install a tiny seam on the outside (as many past owners found to be perfectly acceptable) but instead they decided that selling $150 replacement batteries wasn't enough, now they need to sell $150 replacement batteries AND $150 replacement battery services. That's a marvel.
The law IS an appropriate reason. By law, any person who makes, uses, offers or sells something that is protected by a current patent, or who imports into the United States anything that is protected by a current patent, is guilty of patent infringement.
So if Apple believes that the patent(s) has indeed been infringed, the only lawful thing for them to do is to remove it from their store.
The most appropriate reason is that since Apple gets their 30% share from the sale and holds the keys to the gate, they are basically complicit in infringement and they are eager to use their platform control to make sure they don't end up on the losing side of a patent battle (they know what that feels like already).
Nope, you are right, they are full of it. The only way this would work is if you take a 100% backup to iCloud and then manage to preserve JUST that backup (i think it tries to backup automatically at a set interval and overwrite the previous, but in true apple fashion there is no documentation on exactly how this works) then it could be restored to a new ipad if you manage to successfully switch "your" ipad out for the new one. And all that assumes that as part of the "restore" it won't tell you that you must update itunes (and break/delete all the removed apps) which is something that Apple has done in the past and will probably do in the future.
Is this really a language as much as it is an IDE that saves to Javascript, Dart, or Python? It's not like they took the new language all the way down, they just wrote a nice Javascript based way to make more Javascript, or Dart, or Python. I suppose in the sense of "knowing how to use it" it then becomes a language since it completely obfuscates the layer below it, but there are plenty of people who make their way through C# with nothing more than the help of Visual Studio. So, is Visual Studio a language too?
I'd say someone who plays a single Civ2 game save for 10 years is pretty hardcore.
If this place were really "news for someone who played a single Civ2 game save for 10 years" then we would ALL be out (that guy probably doesnt even post here).
Though to be fair, generally the vendor will tie it to the dedicate port, and all other choices require explicit action. So if an admin is local, has no desire for remote management, ignoring the whole thing and leaving the dedicated ports unplugged *generally* suffices.
Don't try that with a Dell! While I havent worked on their most recent stuff, as of a few years ago their default was to share IPMI on all the network ports. Some IBM servers are the same way. The default addressing might make it unreachable in some scenarios but it is definitely on and listening unless you take steps to make it inaccessible.
We keep the management network and the production network on separate physical networks. So if you get into a box, you still can't IPMI to any other box.
Also, this is not hacking, it's by design.
Agreed, this is basically a "wow there is a feature, that works by design, and this is what it does!" article. To your comment about different networks, I have found on some servers even though you have the management nic segregated, the service processor goes after the other nics in the machine for IPMI access too. You have to be very careful and never ever trust the default settings on those things.
An analogy would be for me to run up to a random cop on the street and ask him how long it'd take to get reinforcements to the area. It's not the kind of activity that normally happens, so I've probably earned a bit of surveillance and a few funny looks, but it's no reason to be arrested on the spot.
The most important difference is that said cop probably would not (unless he was especially unwitting) give you actionable intelligence as a result of your inquiry. The problem scenario that happens on Google is that you actually find what you're looking for. I could see this as just another way to weed out "dumb criminals" (like anyone who robs a bank without a ski mask on) since the more perceptive criminals will just find other ways to go about gathering their nefarious intel, like looking for news stories on dead people to see how they died, without using any keywords that signal you might be looking specifically for how to kill someone.
I bet you're already thinking of just a few reasons why this might not such a good idea.
If you are, don't worry, the police are on their way to rectify the situation. We can't have people pre-thinking that thoughtcrimes of the future are bad...
No details on how he died were released, but I suspect it may have had something to do with the Earth orbiting the sun over 90 times since he was born.
For that matter, he could have been the one letting the earth orbit the sun all this time. I guess we will be waiting with bated breath to know if it is possible for the earth to orbit the sun without him.
If you're tracking the serial numbers of a bill in a database, skip the quantum brainhurt and just do the same thing video game authors and cell phone companies do: make sure the serial number isn't being used in more than one place at a time. Duh.
Seriously, it's like trying to invent a phaser so you can light a campfire, when the rest of us would just use a match.
Really. Really? Simply make sure that a certain marking only exists in one place? I suppose you could, in theory, require every single transaction of currency to involve scanning the numbers, then checking the numbers in with a central authority who knows that certain numbers have been sent from shopper to merchant and need to be "re-authorized" for shopper use again. Otherwise I could run off a thousand copies of a single bill and just use them over a few weeks' time and no one would be the wiser. However with this "improved" system every single transaction will be tracked electronically to eliminate counterfeits (or was that guy we just arrested carrying the originals?) Yep what could possibly go wrong.
This article was written by an idiot. You can't measure all the properties of a quantum particle. But so what?
You can't exploit it unless you have entangled particles. And it'll be a bit complicated to store your banknotes in total isolation from the environment.
You might as well assume that since they mentioned Science Fiction, that nanotubes (perhaps of the graphene variety) are going to be involved here. That pretty much solves everything, so what is it that you are so worried about?
The right way is to work about 20 minutes while sitting and then another 20 minutes while standing.
For that you'll nedd one of those desks whose height can be adjusted easily on the fly. Just like ergonomical office chairs they are extremely expensive. I've had one when a was working at University in Scandinavia.
You know they make chairs that sit more than 20 inches off the ground, right? If it was OK for the desk to be mobile then why not just have the thing show up at my house every morning... Now THAT would be an improvement.
As a developer who spends most of each day at the same desk in the same chair, I'm concerned about ergonomics and what I can do to keep my body from wasting away
So you are the jerk that isn't showing up to the stand up meetings we have twice a day?
The market is not a zero sum game. A billion in losses is not a billion in someone else's gains. If it were so, who gains the value of something depreciating?
Entropy does. At this point, they are sitting on a lot of revenue.
As can Exchange through Active Sync (on Android or iOS). Don't invest in a company that is posting a billion in hardware losses this year.
A billion in hardware losses for them is a billion in hardware GAINS for the consumer! Besides, you totally missed the point. With the BB platform, you can both encrypt all communication (instant messaging and email) as well as lock out any unencrypted communication (SMS and third party email) so your phones are as secure as anything else in your enterprise (as long as the users keep their passwords safe).
Slashdot Mirror
The new "share everything" plans are designed to make it easier (and a bit cheaper) for families with a bunch of smartphones, a tablet or two, and text-messaging addicted teenagers. Not for single-device customers looking for a bargain.
Indeed; that is addressed in a Q&A page linked from TFA:
Q: I'm single and I just want a smartphone, that's it. The cheapest Shared Everything plan looks pretty expensive at $90 per month, and that's with just 1 gigabyte of data. Is there no alternative?
A: There's one cheaper plan, intended for first-time smartphone buyers. It gives you unlimited calling and texting, and just 300 megabytes of data per month. If you're frugal with data usage, that will get you by. It costs $80 per month.
That Q&A is USAtoday-conjured bullshit, plain and simple. None of the actual Verizon literature has suggested there will be ONLY a family share plan for all users.
You are being a little dense. Previously, up to 2GB of data would have cost me $30 a month. Now it will cost $50 a month, for 1GB. Before that, $30 would have gotten unlimited data.
So from a consumer point of view, the deal has gotten worse and worse. And it still costs money to add devices to the plan for data sharing, leaving this an all-around shitty deal.
If you are on a plan, by yourself (or with just one smartphone), you do NOT want the share everything tiers, and you do NOT have to use them! You can keep your 2GB/$30 tier for as long as you want, those are NOT going away ANY time soon. The article is a hyperbolic piece of shit.
Some may win, some may lose.
In my case, if I had my current ATT account on Verizon, that'd be saving me a nice chunk of money. Anyone with more than one device is coming out ahead. Anyone with a current Verizon data plan *and* a phone will come out ahead. Anyone who is currently paying for tethering will come out ahead.
Personally, I hope ATT does this quickly, as well. (Although, frankly, I wish I could skip the $40 voice part... as it works out to about $2 a minute for the usage I have in a given month.)
That's what pretty much everyone who poops their pants over this is ignoring: THERE ARE STILL SINGLE LINE PLANS AND THEY ARE STILL CHEAPER. The "share everything" tiers are NOT for single line customers for fucks sake! I can't believe how many people are up in arms about this, it's a relatively minor shift in their pricing model.
Let me make this quick: If you had two smartphones, the same 1GB (if that's all you used) would have cost you $60 a month. Now, it's $50, and $50 is less than $60. How this is difficult for people to come to terms with is really amazing. Verizon has been moving away from unlimited for years so go ahead and forget any retort that includes "but but but unlimited was only $30 and unlimited is like infinity many of 1GB, so 1GB should be free!!!!!!111"
According to USA Today, 'Under the new pricing plan, a smartphone customer opting for the cheapest data bucket, 1 gigabyte, will pay $90 before taxes and fees ($40 for phone access and $50 for 1 GB). Customers can add a basic phone, laptop and tablet to share data for $30, $20 and $10, respectively.' Those of us still grandfathered into the unlimited plan will be forced (when upgrading) to either sign up for Share Everything or one of the tiered pricing plans currently in effect."
The "bucket plans" are for people with MULTIPLE LINES. Any price comparison for someone who has JUST ONE LINE (as they attempted here) is completely POINTLESS. Compare the new "bucket" rates to FAMILY PLANS for MULTIPLE smartphones and you will see that the pricing is either pretty much equal, or cheaper depending on how much data you use. Regardless, I expect approximately 9,234,987 slashdotters will be chiming in about how if they ran a wireless company, they would do things completely differently. I can't wait to read each and every reply.
I'm believe that the upgrade to 16GB or RAM is $200. That's around $60-$70 more than buying 2x8GB RAM sticks for an ordinary user-upgradeable notebook.
Read carefully: I did NOT say "same price as an ordinary notebook that is upgradeable" and that is not even close to what I meant. The price savings from not putting a little door, and a socket, and all the other work that goes into making it upgradeable can be cost-cut and the difference can be felt when buying the upgraded version (the max ram version is cheaper than it would have been if it were socketed and you bought the upgrade). Since its pointless as of now to compare the specs on this machine (no other machine has even close to that screen resolution) only time will tell if Apple has passed the savings on to the consumer (like they did with the iPad 3) or if they have merely pocketed it and charged more anyway.
This may be the largest battery ever produced, but would still only power my reading light (40 watt bulb) for 2 and 1/3 hours...... they ought to put some of that technology into a desktop to make it low-power (and green).
The largest "embedded" battery ever; plenty of other laptops with snap-in batteries offer larger options. And if your reading light were LED powered and not basically a heater that managed to throw off a little bit of light, it would last for days (a 40w equivalent LED would draw 4w or less).
I was reading about the display on AnandTech, but one thing I don't get is what the actual resolution of the retina display is. From what I can tell, the images are rendered at 2880x1800, but can't actually be displayed at that size with pixel-perfect accuracy. Text cannot be read on higher resolutions without increasing the font size, which I thought was the whole point of having a higher resolution.
It seems to make sense, they will either have an option where you can get the display to act like it's 2880x1800 (and everything will be super fucking small like you are saying) or you can have the display scaled to a slighly more normal 1900x1200 aka 1080p-like but at the cost of having the GPU do some upscaling so that all the apps still pump out a lower number of pixels, but the screen gets all the pixels it needs thanks to what is probably a pretty well thought out smoothing algorithm. And as the screenshot suggests, this is probably what murders the performance and/or battery life on the unit since you basically need to have a high power GPU running all the time to keep up with that process.
While a wholly proprietary pinout(and a different wholly proprietary pinout than the last model's wholly proprietary pinout) the storage card is at least socketed... Given that there are likely to be a reasonable number of these sold, and to deep pocketed buyers, 3rd-party options will likely exist sooner or later. RAM, though, may leave you with a case of buyer's remorse...
Easy, just buy the largest option. Apple is doing one thing smart here, they are making a design that if produced by the tens of millions (which these will surely be) will prove to be VERY cheap. That means you can probably buy the upgraded ram for what the same version would have cost you with a modular ram socket but no upgrade in place. Comparing these notebooks to other similar competitors will probably put Apple on a footing closer than they were in the past. The question is, at what price does giving up choice come at? Clearly Apple is OK with removing choice (as seen in all other product lines) in favor of a cost-competitive set of options that "you want". Why should they not take their laptops to the same model?
"Without a doubt, this new laptop is an engineering marvel..."
Oh give me a fucking break. The LEM was an engineering marvel. The Roman aqueducts were an engineering marvel. Apple has done nothing of the sort, what bologna.
They engineered the battery to be right at the very edge of the unit, in a perfect spot to be easily replaced should they decide to put a thin layer of plastic around it and install a tiny seam on the outside (as many past owners found to be perfectly acceptable) but instead they decided that selling $150 replacement batteries wasn't enough, now they need to sell $150 replacement batteries AND $150 replacement battery services. That's a marvel.
The law IS an appropriate reason. By law, any person who makes, uses, offers or sells something that is protected by a current patent, or who imports into the United States anything that is protected by a current patent, is guilty of patent infringement.
So if Apple believes that the patent(s) has indeed been infringed, the only lawful thing for them to do is to remove it from their store.
The most appropriate reason is that since Apple gets their 30% share from the sale and holds the keys to the gate, they are basically complicit in infringement and they are eager to use their platform control to make sure they don't end up on the losing side of a patent battle (they know what that feels like already).
Nope, you are right, they are full of it. The only way this would work is if you take a 100% backup to iCloud and then manage to preserve JUST that backup (i think it tries to backup automatically at a set interval and overwrite the previous, but in true apple fashion there is no documentation on exactly how this works) then it could be restored to a new ipad if you manage to successfully switch "your" ipad out for the new one. And all that assumes that as part of the "restore" it won't tell you that you must update itunes (and break/delete all the removed apps) which is something that Apple has done in the past and will probably do in the future.
Is this really a language as much as it is an IDE that saves to Javascript, Dart, or Python? It's not like they took the new language all the way down, they just wrote a nice Javascript based way to make more Javascript, or Dart, or Python. I suppose in the sense of "knowing how to use it" it then becomes a language since it completely obfuscates the layer below it, but there are plenty of people who make their way through C# with nothing more than the help of Visual Studio. So, is Visual Studio a language too?
...casual gamer?
I'd say someone who plays a single Civ2 game save for 10 years is pretty hardcore.
If this place were really "news for someone who played a single Civ2 game save for 10 years" then we would ALL be out (that guy probably doesnt even post here).
Though to be fair, generally the vendor will tie it to the dedicate port, and all other choices require explicit action. So if an admin is local, has no desire for remote management, ignoring the whole thing and leaving the dedicated ports unplugged *generally* suffices.
Don't try that with a Dell! While I havent worked on their most recent stuff, as of a few years ago their default was to share IPMI on all the network ports. Some IBM servers are the same way. The default addressing might make it unreachable in some scenarios but it is definitely on and listening unless you take steps to make it inaccessible.
We keep the management network and the production network on separate physical networks. So if you get into a box, you still can't IPMI to any other box.
Also, this is not hacking, it's by design.
Agreed, this is basically a "wow there is a feature, that works by design, and this is what it does!" article. To your comment about different networks, I have found on some servers even though you have the management nic segregated, the service processor goes after the other nics in the machine for IPMI access too. You have to be very careful and never ever trust the default settings on those things.
An analogy would be for me to run up to a random cop on the street and ask him how long it'd take to get reinforcements to the area. It's not the kind of activity that normally happens, so I've probably earned a bit of surveillance and a few funny looks, but it's no reason to be arrested on the spot.
The most important difference is that said cop probably would not (unless he was especially unwitting) give you actionable intelligence as a result of your inquiry. The problem scenario that happens on Google is that you actually find what you're looking for. I could see this as just another way to weed out "dumb criminals" (like anyone who robs a bank without a ski mask on) since the more perceptive criminals will just find other ways to go about gathering their nefarious intel, like looking for news stories on dead people to see how they died, without using any keywords that signal you might be looking specifically for how to kill someone.
I bet you're already thinking of just a few reasons why this might not such a good idea.
If you are, don't worry, the police are on their way to rectify the situation. We can't have people pre-thinking that thoughtcrimes of the future are bad...
No details on how he died were released, but I suspect it may have had something to do with the Earth orbiting the sun over 90 times since he was born.
For that matter, he could have been the one letting the earth orbit the sun all this time. I guess we will be waiting with bated breath to know if it is possible for the earth to orbit the sun without him.
If you're tracking the serial numbers of a bill in a database, skip the quantum brainhurt and just do the same thing video game authors and cell phone companies do: make sure the serial number isn't being used in more than one place at a time. Duh.
Seriously, it's like trying to invent a phaser so you can light a campfire, when the rest of us would just use a match.
Really. Really? Simply make sure that a certain marking only exists in one place? I suppose you could, in theory, require every single transaction of currency to involve scanning the numbers, then checking the numbers in with a central authority who knows that certain numbers have been sent from shopper to merchant and need to be "re-authorized" for shopper use again. Otherwise I could run off a thousand copies of a single bill and just use them over a few weeks' time and no one would be the wiser. However with this "improved" system every single transaction will be tracked electronically to eliminate counterfeits (or was that guy we just arrested carrying the originals?) Yep what could possibly go wrong.
This article was written by an idiot. You can't measure all the properties of a quantum particle. But so what?
You can't exploit it unless you have entangled particles. And it'll be a bit complicated to store your banknotes in total isolation from the environment.
You might as well assume that since they mentioned Science Fiction, that nanotubes (perhaps of the graphene variety) are going to be involved here. That pretty much solves everything, so what is it that you are so worried about?
The right way is to work about 20 minutes while sitting and then another 20 minutes while standing.
For that you'll nedd one of those desks whose height can be adjusted easily on the fly. Just like ergonomical office chairs they are extremely expensive. I've had one when a was working at University in Scandinavia.
You know they make chairs that sit more than 20 inches off the ground, right? If it was OK for the desk to be mobile then why not just have the thing show up at my house every morning... Now THAT would be an improvement.
As a developer who spends most of each day at the same desk in the same chair, I'm concerned about ergonomics and what I can do to keep my body from wasting away
So you are the jerk that isn't showing up to the stand up meetings we have twice a day?
The market is not a zero sum game. A billion in losses is not a billion in someone else's gains. If it were so, who gains the value of something depreciating?
Entropy does. At this point, they are sitting on a lot of revenue.
As can Exchange through Active Sync (on Android or iOS). Don't invest in a company that is posting a billion in hardware losses this year.
A billion in hardware losses for them is a billion in hardware GAINS for the consumer! Besides, you totally missed the point. With the BB platform, you can both encrypt all communication (instant messaging and email) as well as lock out any unencrypted communication (SMS and third party email) so your phones are as secure as anything else in your enterprise (as long as the users keep their passwords safe).