Provided this phone works well as a business smart-phone, they could take most of the market, particularly if the e-mail solution works well.
Why? Business users don't typically pay for their phones, the business buys them. If it's a good usable phone, I don't see why there won't be take up. There of course will be a lot of upwards pressure for take up, as it gains the business user a FREE iPOD!
The price is fine btw.. my windows smartphone not on a contract costs £600 (£1000), the Apple one seems quite cheap in comparison!
A typical corporate IT licensing stack easily eclipses the cost of the hardware..
eg: Windows, Office, SMS, Citrix, Exchange CAL, Sharepoint, Server CAL, SQL CAL, CRM, Terminal Server CAL, Altiris / Ghost License, Backup Agent, Two Factor Authentication, ISA, Web Filtering, Anti-Virus, Archiving / Retention Systems, Voicemail / Phone Switch / Fax Licensing etc. etc. etc. the list is almost endless.
A subset of that list could easily reach over £1000 per user, multiple that by a few thousand desktops or laptops and it's a significant cost. Perhaps two to three times the cost of the actual PC or laptop.
Saving a few £ on the odd server is irrelevant when faced against this lot.
We do exactly the same thing and it works very well. Very few of these people take it any further once they realise they need approval from a director.
My line with most monitoring and lockdown requests is that it's a management issue, using the IT Department to control your staff builds resentment towards IT and often punishes other members of staff when all it would take to solve is a quiet word with the individual concerned.
TalkTalk ties you in to an 18 month contract. Whatever else is in the small print, if you are not absolutely clear on that point then you could be in for trouble.
I suspect that this policy is a result of some of the more unscrupulous phone resellers who are doing the rounds at the moment. Some are phoning people up, asking if they'd like to save money on phone calls, record the response and then tie people into 24 month phone contracts, without a signed consent form or anything but the verbal response. This sounds unbelievable, but it's happening.
There is some sense to the policy, particularly if it carries on after death.
You should try using dirvish (http://www.dirvish.org/) on top of all that. It's a primitive snapshotting tool, that runs on top of rsync. It'll make your backups a bit more like tape, you'll be able to step back a few days if you need to. It only stores the differences between your various snapshots (kind of like rolling incremental backups), so it's very space efficient.
I would agree with you, but the skeptic in me doubts it. A schoolboy picking up a football would not spontaneously develop a new branch of football. The structured feet only thing would seem to be the newer game, if you look back through history you'd see that the games have never been limited to the feet.
Football, when it started, was not restricted to the use of feet. Indeed, banning the use of hands only started after an enterprising young lad from the city of Rugby picked the ball up and ran with it to the goal. (Even today, this variant is called "Rugby Football", even though feet are rarely used outside of a scrum.)
The other critical and often forgotten bit is that the iPod used a hard disk rather than flash. Other players had maximum of 1GB of storage (typically 256MB or less) and really crappy slow transfer rates. I'd seen this crummy flash ones, the effort and time spent swapping around music on the go wasn't worth the effort. With a 20GB iPod people could carry around their entire CD collection.
I think it's roughly similar.. I found this on law.enotes.com:
"TORT LAW originated in England with the action of trespass. Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss; in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. A trespass gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime."
IANAL but "Trespassing" is not an offence as such, no one gets prosecuted for trespassing. Although the police could come and ASK you to move along, they have no legal basis to do this. If you want someone ejected from your property then they would have to commit a real crime such as theft, damage etc. I'm perhaps UK biased but the only areas where you really will be in trouble for tresspass are the railways, nuclear powerstations, military installations etc.
Precisely. All SSL is really good for on the general internet is to prevent casual sniffing. You can sign up for a cert these days for $25 with very little clearance. The trust element has completely gone, if it was ever there at all?
It's the practicalities of the WALL JACK model, not the thin-client concept that I feel will fail.
We've got 100's of WySE/CHIP PC/Compaq thin-client terminals at work, they do the job. We did consider this Jack one, but it has some limitations, particularly with repairs and cable reach.
You need a central server offering up a desktop (ie. Windows Terminal Services, Citrix or LTSP etc.). It'll be fine for office, database apps etc. however not much use for music, videos and games. Thin-client computing is great for moving desktop support centrally, particularly for typical officer workers. No more backup or visits to fix a PC, a replacement unit can we swapped.
This is the downfall with this particular unit though, if it's wall point it can't be easily replaced by untrained staff. It also means that you've dedicated your wall point, should you wish to replace with a different unit it will be an expensive. It is also very restrictive from a cabling perspective, your screens have to be located within a few feet of your ethernet sockets.
This unit does have some good uses, nailed down public access terminals and switch minimalist offices, but for mainstream thin-client usage I can't see it being very successful.
It won't, it's a cacheing service for torrent, not too disimilar to Akamai for HTTP. A mutual action to reduce bandwidth levels by introducing co-locating caches is not in my opinion contravening network neutrality nor would private dedicated pipes between an ISP and a content provider. What *would* contravene it is if an ISP put that content providers traffic on a QoS shit list or policed it unless they paid up.
If media providers co-locate servers with large ISPs or make use of multicast then this is not so much of a problem. It's the onward links that are expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure the telescope scientists would disagree with you ;)
Provided this phone works well as a business smart-phone, they could take most of the market, particularly if the e-mail solution works well.
Why? Business users don't typically pay for their phones, the business buys them. If it's a good usable phone, I don't see why there won't be take up. There of course will be a lot of upwards pressure for take up, as it gains the business user a FREE iPOD!
The price is fine btw.. my windows smartphone not on a contract costs £600 (£1000), the Apple one seems quite cheap in comparison!
Jason.
You would think, but check out this rather bizarre "organisation": www.jase.com.
Jason. (Nothing to do with me btw.)
"bare metal" meaning a kernel module in a relatively standard redhat linux distribution.
Jason.
I'm using Drupal with good results. AD integration, access controls, works really well for this.
Jason.
A typical corporate IT licensing stack easily eclipses the cost of the hardware..
eg: Windows, Office, SMS, Citrix, Exchange CAL, Sharepoint, Server CAL, SQL CAL, CRM, Terminal Server CAL, Altiris / Ghost License, Backup Agent, Two Factor Authentication, ISA, Web Filtering, Anti-Virus, Archiving / Retention Systems, Voicemail / Phone Switch / Fax Licensing etc. etc. etc. the list is almost endless.
A subset of that list could easily reach over £1000 per user, multiple that by a few thousand desktops or laptops and it's a significant cost. Perhaps two to three times the cost of the actual PC or laptop.
Saving a few £ on the odd server is irrelevant when faced against this lot.
Jason.
VMWare already runs Microsoft Virtual Server disk images, see the tech specs on the free VMWare Server.
Jason
We do exactly the same thing and it works very well. Very few of these people take it any further once they realise they need approval from a director.
My line with most monitoring and lockdown requests is that it's a management issue, using the IT Department to control your staff builds resentment towards IT and often punishes other members of staff when all it would take to solve is a quiet word with the individual concerned.
Jason.
The blob is firmware for the graphics card, not code for the CPU. So the link is through hardware not software.
TalkTalk ties you in to an 18 month contract. Whatever else is in the small print, if you are not absolutely clear on that point then you could be in for trouble.
I suspect that this policy is a result of some of the more unscrupulous phone resellers who are doing the rounds at the moment. Some are phoning people up, asking if they'd like to save money on phone calls, record the response and then tie people into 24 month phone contracts, without a signed consent form or anything but the verbal response. This sounds unbelievable, but it's happening.
There is some sense to the policy, particularly if it carries on after death.
Jason.
You should try using dirvish (http://www.dirvish.org/) on top of all that. It's a primitive snapshotting tool, that runs on top of rsync. It'll make your backups a bit more like tape, you'll be able to step back a few days if you need to. It only stores the differences between your various snapshots (kind of like rolling incremental backups), so it's very space efficient.
Jason.
Set the Proxy server to a junk value.
Then add proxy exclusions for the sites that they are permitted to access.
Then lock down these settings via GPO.
42
I would agree with you, but the skeptic in me doubts it. A schoolboy picking up a football would not spontaneously develop a new branch of football. The structured feet only thing would seem to be the newer game, if you look back through history you'd see that the games have never been limited to the feet.
Jason.
Football, when it started, was not restricted to the use of feet. Indeed, banning the use of hands only started after an enterprising young lad from the city of Rugby picked the ball up and ran with it to the goal. (Even today, this variant is called "Rugby Football", even though feet are rarely used outside of a scrum.)
That's a myth. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rugby_football.
Jason
The other critical and often forgotten bit is that the iPod used a hard disk rather than flash. Other players had maximum of 1GB of storage (typically 256MB or less) and really crappy slow transfer rates. I'd seen this crummy flash ones, the effort and time spent swapping around music on the go wasn't worth the effort. With a 20GB iPod people could carry around their entire CD collection.
I think it's roughly similar.. I found this on law.enotes.com:
"TORT LAW originated in England with the action of trespass. Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss; in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. A trespass gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime."
Sounds about the same as British law.
Jason.
IANAL but "Trespassing" is not an offence as such, no one gets prosecuted for trespassing. Although the police could come and ASK you to move along, they have no legal basis to do this. If you want someone ejected from your property then they would have to commit a real crime such as theft, damage etc. I'm perhaps UK biased but the only areas where you really will be in trouble for tresspass are the railways, nuclear powerstations, military installations etc.
Precisely. All SSL is really good for on the general internet is to prevent casual sniffing. You can sign up for a cert these days for $25 with very little clearance. The trust element has completely gone, if it was ever there at all?
It's the practicalities of the WALL JACK model, not the thin-client concept that I feel will fail.
We've got 100's of WySE/CHIP PC/Compaq thin-client terminals at work, they do the job. We did consider this Jack one, but it has some limitations, particularly with repairs and cable reach.
Jason
You need a central server offering up a desktop (ie. Windows Terminal Services, Citrix or LTSP etc.). It'll be fine for office, database apps etc. however not much use for music, videos and games. Thin-client computing is great for moving desktop support centrally, particularly for typical officer workers. No more backup or visits to fix a PC, a replacement unit can we swapped.
This is the downfall with this particular unit though, if it's wall point it can't be easily replaced by untrained staff. It also means that you've dedicated your wall point, should you wish to replace with a different unit it will be an expensive. It is also very restrictive from a cabling perspective, your screens have to be located within a few feet of your ethernet sockets.
This unit does have some good uses, nailed down public access terminals and switch minimalist offices, but for mainstream thin-client usage I can't see it being very successful.
Jason.
Ebay + Paypal + No Limits = Money Launderers Dream.
It won't, it's a cacheing service for torrent, not too disimilar to Akamai for HTTP. A mutual action to reduce bandwidth levels by introducing co-locating caches is not in my opinion contravening network neutrality nor would private dedicated pipes between an ISP and a content provider. What *would* contravene it is if an ISP put that content providers traffic on a QoS shit list or policed it unless they paid up.
Jason
If media providers co-locate servers with large ISPs or make use of multicast then this is not so much of a problem. It's the onward links that are expensive.
Jason
You wouldn't save any resources by using mailavenger as SA still needs to run on each message.
Do you have a catch-all address? The simplest thing to do would be to switch it off.
Jason