That last sentence says it all.
Microsoft is determined to get Windows Phone 8 to work. So they will not buy RIM.
In the wake of Microsoft announcing that it's acquiring Nokia, and BlackBerry announcing that it's buying itself out of the public market with Fairfax’s help, I can’t help but come to a single conclusion: Microsoft has missed what could possibly have been the single greatest acquisition in its company’s history. As you’ll know …
My thoughts exactly, although of course they also want the same looks, feel and operation across the whole eco-system from PCs to phones via tablets, consoles and whatever else they can put a Windows logo onto.
But of course whilst RIM/Blackberry are well known for security etc, the same cant be said for Microsoft more generally. Hence they'd either have to throw out their much vaunted cross-platform equality (which in the real world may not be such a bad thing, but that's just what reality seems to be showing) or bite the bullet on Windows security. And neither of those are going to happen without a major shift in policy.
Microsoft is now widely known for their security - they literally wrote the book on developing secure software, from the (painful) lessons they learned from MS.Blaster and all the other attacks on the XP/2003/IIS 5 time of software.
The book: http://www.amazon.com/Security-Development-Lifecycle-Michael-Howard/dp/0735622140.
"Microsoft is now widely known for their security - they literally wrote the book on developing secure software, from the (painful) lessons they learned from MS.Blaster and all the other attacks on the XP/2003/IIS 5 time of software."
I've never heard anyone previously say Microsoft are widely known for their security.
Publishing a book with the word "Security" in the title doesn't mean anything.
@AC - that's because you hang around places like reg comments where saying anything that is critical of MS gets you brownie points. In the non-rabidly anti-microsoft world, people realise that MS have made vast strides in security and that most of the problems with Windows these days are caused by the users rather than the software itself.
"MS have made vast strides in security and that most of the problems with Windows these days are caused by the users rather than the software itself."
Then get rid of users! They do nothing but mess up beautiful, nay, perfect IT architectures that would operate faultlessly if the malign influence of users could be eliminated. Imagine how much more efficient the average CIO's empire could operate without any filthy users making their unreasonable demands that the software and hardware actually work, easily and effectively!
"....most of the problems with Windows these days are caused by the users rather than the software itself."
Yep, us IT guys would have such an easy life if wasn't for those pesky peeps actually using the kit.
Look, pal, it's a well known fact that putting up a prompt that's safe to accept 99.5% of the time pretty much GUARANTEES that it'll also be accepted the 0.5% of the time that it isn't safe. This is Human Factors Engineering 101. Don't ever, ever, ever blame the users for that. It's piss-poor, uneducated, design. Plain and Simple. That's just one example of how Windows continues to get it wrong on security, and that stupid statement of yours amply demonstrates why Windows continues to get it wrong.
I'd be face-palming if I wasn't AC,
There is a solution to this, make all your users standard/restricted users. See how many complaints you get then about not being able to install stuff. Only those technically competent should be given raised privileges.
I have full control of the my children's internet capabilities, even get reports of usage etc. automatically, not sure if other OS's offer this facility free of charge but I consider this a really useful feature and means I don't have to stand there all the time making sure they're not using the inappropriately.
> "Only those technically competent should be given raised privileges."
No. Only those paid to administer and support the machines should be given raised privileges. End users get the tools we package and install for them, and do NOT get privileged access, ever.
"I've never heard anyone previously say Microsoft are widely known for their security. Publishing a book with the word "Security" in the title doesn't mean anything."
"@AC - that's because you hang around places like reg comments where saying anything that is critical of MS gets you brownie points. In the non-rabidly anti-microsoft world, people realise that MS have made vast strides in security and that most of the problems with Windows these days are caused by the users rather than the software itself."
Actually, I'm a security consultant, and not especially rabidly anti-microsoft.
I've still never heard anyone previously say Microsoft are widely known for their security.
Please point me to an example of people saying this is widely known. Thanks.
"I've never heard anyone previously say Microsoft are widely known for their security."
They are these days - zero remote exploits in windows phone so far, including Windows Mobile! Versus hundreds in IOS and Android. Even Blackberry 10 was completely rooted via a Flash exploit.
This is the same as Microsoft's desktop and servers OSs - they have for years now had far fewer vulnerabilities than the competition such as Mac OS-X and Linux. Ditto IE has had far fewer vulnerabilities versus Chrome / Firefox / Safari ever since IE7 onwards...And you have a much lower risk of being hacked / defaced if you run an internet website on a Microsoft OS versus say Linux....
You are a really well-paid troll, it seems - you keep coming back to post the same false crap over and over again... your Windows Phone section, another failing project sunken by Ballmerian golden boy VP Belfiore, must be in a desperate mood... :D
"They are these days - zero remote exploits in windows phone so far, including Windows Mobile!"
Yeah except there are including that HUGE WiFi-exploit in Windows Phone THAT MS REFUSES TO FIX and instead advises you TO STOP USING WIFI (yes, I'm NOT kidding): http://betanews.com/2013/08/07/microsoft-warns-windows-phone-users-not-to-use-wifi-wait-what/
"Even Blackberry 10 was completely rooted via a Flash exploit."
Wrong again, it was NOT rooted. Moreover it required a lot of things even to gain unathorised data ccess:
>>Successful exploitation requires not only that a customer enable Blackberry Protect, use the feature to reset the device password, and download a specifically crafted malicious app, but an attacker [would also need to] gain physical access to the device,” the blog post explained.
“If all of the requirements are met for exploitation, an attacker could potentially access or modify data on the device,” it added.<<
It was fixed right away - something these MSFT clowns forget to mention. :)
"This is the same as Microsoft's desktop and servers OSs - they have for years now had far fewer vulnerabilities than the competition (...) And you have a much lower risk of being hacked / defaced if you run an internet website on a Microsoft OS versus say Linux...."
HAHAHAHAHA - hilarious nonsense! =)
Aside of its entertaining value it also clearly shows what kind of surreal Ballmerian bubble you MSFT trolls live inside the Redmond campus...
"WP not having AAAAAANY EXPLOIT" - yeah except the one that can compromise the entire phone just connecting to the wrong wifi AP and we refuse to fix....
"BB10 was rooted via Flash" - except it wasn't and it would require a lot of things and it was quickly fixed
"IIS is more secure than anything else" - I don't even have to write anything here, it's sooo obvious.. :)
Strange, as improved security is one of the big things everyone keeps going on about, particularly using it as a major reason to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 or 8 ...
Strange, the main security issue pertaining to XP -> Windows 8 upgrades is that MS are refusing to backport further security fixes to XP. Nice computer there mate, shame if anything happened to it.
That last sentence says it all indeed.
MS didn't want an existing mobile phone hardware - OS - app ecosystem.
They wanted to push their own OS and app ecosystem.
Nokia were previously renowned for great hardware (I found the E63 to be a half decent business smartphone...) but the OS left a lot to be desired.
It should've been a match made in heaven.
Instead we have Nokia trying to play catchup, lumbered with an OS that no-one really wants.
10 years ago, RIM/BB used to be renowned for corporate phones. Almost the handheld equivalent of a ThinkPad. Standard corporate equipment, nobody ever got fired for buying BlackBerry.
Bit of a shame that they've been sidelined by the new kids on the block.
Myself? I needed / wanted a business phone with a physical keyboard. I ended up with a Samsung GTi5510 running Android. It's now a bit old, bit slow and cumbersome by modern standards, but it is still a joy to tap out an email on a proper slideout keyboard rather than faffing about with some toi-uchd-screem-n effp-ort.
"Can you imagine a phone built from the ground up with security in mind, running endpoint protection natively, with deep hooks for remote management built in?"
I can, but it probably wouldn't look much like Windows Phone, and that's what Microsoft want to sell.
Dropping it in favour of something else would be too much loss of face.
Buying RIM and them forcing them to make Windows phones would have the same result as what happened at Nokia.
The problem is has less apps, when apps exist they often cost more than their iOS / Android counterparts and the phones themselves are quite expensive for their specs.
I feel RIM / Blackberry would have been a lot more successful if they had produced a security hardened and certified handset running Android with value added software that ran on top.
But a security hardened and certified Android would be a major fork, which they would have to maintain. As they actually own QNX and it gets used for a number of other things, the work of updating is spread across more products. If you had to produce a version of Android using a Linux kernel with, most likely, major differences, where's the saving? And in any case a major security black hole is the "Apps" which you have to give ridiculous permissions to in order to run.
When I bought the Q10, it was basically iPhone 5 standard electronics but in a more robust case with a bigger battery, SD expansion, NFC, HDMI out and a proper keyboard. It cost the same as an iPhone. Given that BB don't have the economies of scale of an Apple or a Samsung, I considered the price quite reasonable. It's the Z10 that was overpriced at launch, and it flopped. I've never understood why they did the Z10; it seems to have no advantages at all over the competition and was never going to get the attention of former Bold owners.
"But a security hardened and certified Android would be a major fork" of course it would be. That's where the value add of their version would reside.
It would still be vastly simpler that maintaining an entire separate kernel, set of drivers and all user land apps, and expecting / paying 3rd party developers to support their platform. *And* BB10 already maintains a fork of Android to power its android runtime layer. That is the current BB proposition and clearly it failed badly.
I'm quite certain they could have implemented their work / play personas over Android, providing the security & confidence that would keep business heads happy while letting users install and run potentially unsafe stuff in their half of the phone.
"It would still be vastly simpler that maintaining an entire separate kernel, set of drivers and all user land apps, and expecting / paying 3rd party developers to support their platform."
Err, no. Drivers are done, kernel is QNX anyway which is the preeminent OS in the embedded world.
If they focus on enterprise/scurity then apps are a also a much more focused effort.
"*And* BB10 already maintains a fork of Android to power its android runtime layer. That is the current BB proposition and clearly it failed badly."
Wrong again. It's a runtime, not an entire fork, secondly the launch version (10.0 for Z10, 10.1 for Q10) were pretty half-baked, only supporting Gingerbread and even that in a crappy way - but the *CURRENT* one, being Android 4.2.2 as in v10.2, is actually a smooth sailing Android app experience within BB10, pretty far from a failed one.
What's failed is this stupid CEO's incompetent money-saving/profit-maximizing approach; he should've invested a lot into a PR-blitz and bring out the Q10 first, Z10 second, both at $150-200 LESS to generate volume sales...
In a sense they have as BB10 can run a lot of Android apps - if all you need is a Dalvik VM then the rest is pretty easy.
I think QNX is a better fit for mobile phones than Linux, though I suspect given the amount of customisation in Android the point maybe moot. But it wouldn't surprise me if Fairfax doesn't sell the OS onto Google, or maybe even Intel for just that kind of project.
"I think QNX is a better fit for mobile phones than Linux, though I suspect given the amount of customisation in Android the point maybe moot."
It's the user land that matters, not the kernel underneath it. Windows Phone has an NT kernel, Android has Linux, iOS has a hybrid BSD kernel, BB10 has QNX. All manage to provide a smooth, attractive, modern look and feel.
As long as the kernel offers up the services that modern apps need (networking, display, radio, input etc.) and does so in a relatively efficient way then it really doesn't how it is implemented - monolithic or microkernel for example are largely irrelevant.
"As long as the kernel offers up the services that modern apps need (networking, display, radio, input etc.) and does so in a relatively efficient way then it really doesn't how it is implemented - monolithic or microkernel for example are largely irrelevant."
Well, from a user PoV sure - but there is a reason why multitasking in Android (or even in WP) is still a PITA compared to BB10 and we all know just how badly Android pisses away resources...
The same stubbornness that killed Nokia has also killed RIM. They wanted to control the lot and put all their chips on black, and it came up red. Both now have nothing.
Both had the option of making Android handsets, and i'm sure they would have been successful and doing so, but their greed got in the way of common sense.
What a stupid statement, firstly the microsoft way of doing push email is exchange, if they ever bought rim the email platform would be thrown out of the window and exchange would replace it. Secondly microsoft had to much already invested in nokia, they had been slowly moving towards a buy out since the partnership had started, plus nokia had far more attractive patents.
Plus microsoft is trying to so hard to push windows phone if it had purchased rim they wouldnt be called BB phones any more and maybe BB Windows Phone or more likely Windows Phone...
Microsoft not buying BB was a smart move on MS part, the brand is dying why invest money in it, now someone else does and it says as BB and dies a slow death over a few years or possibly becomes another android competitor, which is highly unlikely.
If microsoft did by BB, would they keep BB os, nope, would they keep the name maybe, but probably not in the long term, would they keep BB email services, nope. So what happens they have is a company with 1 - 2 years of development until they can produce the product they would want to sell/produce, by that time the markets moved on and its been a big cash cow that needs taking out and shot.
D3wd u r s0 k3wl.
Have you ever used a Windows Phone? They compliment the market well and add competition, which is much needed in the mobile space. Get off your fanboi seat and look at things objectively for a change. I have no brand loyalty btw and think Android, WinPhone and iOS each have their own pros and cons.
All they see is Apple's 30% of everything in the phone ecosystem and want 30% of the Windows ecosystem, it isn't going to happen.
MS haven't taken the needs of enterprise seriously since XP, they bought a few technologies to add to their portfolio and gave us lousy integration, but noting innovative has come out the doors for years.
The best thing for enterprise and consumers is a break up of MS and hopefully some of the divisions can innovate and the others die.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
On what grounds? In the mobile OS / handset business both MS and BB are minnows.
MS has more than enough on its plate with the integration of the Nokia handset business. MS is nearly on a par with BB10 feature-wise so a buy would only make sense to stop the competition getting at the IP. Now Blackberry has been taken off the market the chance for a quick buy has passed. No doubt Fairfax will be offering part or all of Blackberry for sale at some point.
1) RIM never built really good smartphones. The only killer feature was its messaging service, which appealed to the business users wanting it. If you didn't need it, there were better ones.
2) Apple showed that it's now the consumer market driving the business one. Especially when some devices become status-symbols. Executive and upper management will want them, and the sysadmin can only bow to them - while cursing them in the privacy of the server room. The devil is out of the box, and it would be difficult for the sysadmins to put it back into it. Today, it a phone is not sexy, it doesn't matter how many high-end business features it has. They are envied only by sysadmins, not by other executives (and chicks) at parties. Look at how many Surface were sold - and the Pro running a full version of Windows Pro is fully domain capable. But it is not sexy...
3) It is true Nokia never understood the smartphone - thinking it as a phone with more features, and not as a little PC with a phone feature, but it looks it's now understanding, and it worked hard to make WP8 better. And Nokia phones are already WP capable. MS didn't want to buy a smartphone OS from another vendor, it just needed the hardware to push its mobile OS. Another OS developed elsewhere would need a lot of work to merge it into the other product lines - think about Office, it runs on WP8, it would need a deep rewrite to run on Blackberry OS.
Nokia actually built a little PC with phone features - the N900. The screen was too small, the resistive touchpad sucked, the micro-USB was a weak point and it was too easy to lose the phone icon. So they canned it, for the wrong reasons.
A pity, because being able to run a desktop Java application using X over ssh from a headless embedded Linux box was kind of clever, even if you did need a binocular microscope to read the button labels.
THe N900 came late and was bad as a phone and as a smartphone - compated to the competion already available. I'm not saying the hardware or the software were ugly, but it was an half-baked product that would have needed much more refinement before being released.
I had many colleagues buying it as soon as it was available, they regretted it, and all of them get rid of it as soon as they could forget the money spent on it.
Being able to run X over SSH would appeal only to some hardcore Linux sysadmins - but if you ever design a smartphone with this target demographic in mind, you will sell maybe two or three - because even hardcore Linux sysadmins often can't resist to show off with something that could appeal to friends and girls, which usually is not a Java application using X over SSH, but something more stupid and funny.
Could Nokia have kept on developing Maemo/Meego and phones using it? Maybe, but it looks it understood it had no the skill or the resources to develop a new phone OS from ground up and be competitive. Running Linux under the hood it's not enough, 95% ot smartphone users don't care if the kernel is Linux, BDS or Windows - what they care about the UI, available applications, "feel good factor" and peer acceptance...
I think you may have missed the satirical intent of my post, which was indeed that the N900 had all kinds of things wrong with it, including its extremely niche market. Yes, it was unusable except by hardcore Unix sysadmins. I was almost surprised I didn't need to run Perl scripts to make calls.
In fact I looked at it as a possible field tool to maintain embedded boxes, but as per my post the screen was simply too tiny and it wasn't robust enough to tolerate the USB cable being pulled out, not to mention the certainty of losing styluses. A netbook running Linux was a much better bet.
"1) RIM never built really good smartphones. The only killer feature was its messaging service, which appealed to the business users wanting it. If you didn't need it, there were better ones."
No the actual build quality from the hardware was second to none. Under the plastic was a metal shell around all the components that stopped tampering or any kind of post forensics. It wasn’t impossible but in comparison to the alternatives they were leaps and bounds ahead.
Only reason I know this was because was present at a conference where the MET police discussed it. Very interesting, because they hated getting BB's because they were so much harder to get any information off.
If Microsoft purchased RIM it would be no different to Nokia. What you would end up with is a phone that still have Windows 8 Phone on it because Microsoft are determined to push that OS or be labelled as failures - again! As Windows Phone 8 is substand the resulting RIM phone with that operating system would also be substandard. It would make no difference. Microsoft could buy Samsung, drop Android, replace it with WP8 and it would be crap!
" As Windows Phone 8 is substand "
WP8 is more secure and performs better than Android with lower hardware requirements, so looking at Android's market share that's not going to be a road block...
Microsoft will likely win out in the corporate space with windows Phone - primarily because it's much more secure than Android, and easier to manage / lock down for corporates...
Your comment is fail. Really. It nearly made my brain bleed out of my ears.
I sincerely hope that you were being sarcastic about the following:
>>> WP8 is more secure and performs better than Android with lower hardware requirements, so looking at >>>Android's market share that's not going to be a road block...
At exactly what point was any of this true? Performs better with lower requirements is like saying windows 3.1 performs better that Windows 7 with lower requirements. I'm sure it does. Also, no Malware =! more secure. Never has, never will.
And your next assertion:
>>> Microsoft will likely win out in the corporate space with windows Phone - primarily because it's much >>>more secure than Android, and easier to manage / lock down for corporates...
It makes me cry with laughter, and weep with terror, that you might actually believe it to be true. If Microsoft wins out in the corporate space with WP8 then we are screwed. WP8 brings nothing with it that is the least bit revolutionary, rather it is a substandard copy of what has come before. As for it being easier to manage / lock down...
[cue gales of canned laughter...]
I am shocked to hear this and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Actually, I think someone should make plastic cards, credit card sized, reading "Just because you read something on the internet, doesn't mean it's true." It would save time, and look more authoritative when encountering the person who has just learned that rhino horn cures erectile dysfunction, or the like.
It has been pointed out to me that this reference may have different connotations in the UK than it does here. In light of this, I offer an unreserved apology for any offence this may have caused.
In Australia, while there are prejudices against those of the redheaded persuasion, it does not extend to level of outright hatred that it may extend to there. Any form of discrimination is wrong and it is part of our duty to help stamp it out whatever form it may take. It was not my intention to cause offence, merely to use a figure of speech (as this statement is used here in Australia) to drive home my point.
Again, I offer my sincerest apologies. Should you wish to discuss this further, feel free to send an email to email@example.com.
Yep, Android's totally open and flexible nature allows you to do precisely this...
Unfortunatly, your beloved iPhone won't do this and many other things. Infact on Android you could even switch to this work profile with a NFC tag on your desk, switch to a driving profile with a NFC tag in the car, and a Home profile with a NFC tag by your door.
I don't get it: profiles in some form are standard issue on later Android versions and separate user-logins are too. What's the big deal? All 'productivity' software that is on iOS is also available or has a better clone on Android.
I really don't see how anyone can come up with the conclusion that iOS is the only option.
Don't know about other flavors of Android, but HTC's Sense overlay provides for "scenes" that can be quickly switched out and separately configured. The stock scenes are set up as Work, Play, Travel, etc., and can be customized with whatever homescreen apps, themes and utilities you prefer. Just a few swipes to switch from one to another, though I generally leave mine in work mode during the week and switch to another scene for the weekend.
My company has had Blackberries for as long as I care to remember and all they are used for is to send relatively secure emails and make phone calls that regularly fail mid conversation (a RIM failing on all of the Bolds and Q10s that are out there). BBM is available for folks to use if they so wish, but is never used. What they constantly whine about is being able to effectively manage spreadsheets and word docs, something that isn't even possible on WP due to the stunted version of Office on that platform.
So I really do not see what buying Blackberry would have brought to the big table in Redmond over Nokia. The Finns know how to screw a phone together well and their camera tech is class leading. Surely they were a more wise purchase?
I agree with your conclusion: Microsoft should have bought RIM. But in my opinion they ruled it out because it's so widely perceived as failing that they didn't want to be associated with it.
It's a shame as RIM do still have plenty of USPs that nobody else has. Personally I think a Windows Phone, with toys like BBM and the end-to-end encryption plus all of the centralised server management gubbins, would be well worth having.
Did nobody mention to them that BlackBerry Enterprise Server also needs you to buy client access licences for all the business features? Microsoft really like selling licences. I'm sure that would have persuaded them.
BlackBerry's key strengths are their email, messaging and OS.
Microsoft didn't want any of those because they already have Exchange and Windows Phone 8, both of which are clearly considered core to their business plan.
Nokia's only remaining asset was hardware. They already threw away all their software.
Thus, what do you buy?
"I want to be able to switch my phone into work mode and have it bring to the fore everything I would normally use while working."
If that is your requirement then my old Samsung Galaxy - the original one, never saw a compelling reason to upgrade - does it very nicely. I deleted 5 out of 7 home screens and brought applications I use to the remaining two, grouping them so that I can switch between the two screens to "bring to the fore" one group or the other. This includes two different email clients - one personal and one for work. Dialer, contacts, and messaging icons (and the full app menu) remain available regardless of the "profile". I have 8 apps in each screen, which is more than I need, but it is easy to have 16. You can have up to 7 "profiles" that way.
I realize that one may dislike Android (as I do, but I dislike iOS even more), or one may find that some app that you consider mission critical is missing, but that is not what the author complains about. The complaint about "profiles" seems quite minor, actually (unless I misunderstand it, which may well be the case).
And allow me to remain incredulous about "I write articles; I write specifications". One may love, hate, or remain indifferent to one's smartphone, but writing anything more complex than a short email on it is sheer masochism.
A totally irrelevant rant about ones dream. MS = WP8 and that rules Blackberry out of equation. And about sysadmin phone? Be consistent with your requirements, please for whatevers' sake. First, it's decent browser, which of all choices Blackberries' is the most laughable choice. Then all of a sudden it's full blown productivity suite..? Which again is not in Blackberry favor. And what the hell you do as a sysadmin that you need productivity suite..? I'd understand decent ssh client and remote desktop app, but that..?
El'Reg has just fallen short on respect points for posting this article...
The simplest response that I can give you is this: Everything.
In my duties as a sysadmin I don't have the luxury of operate in a single environment. I consult with multiple clients offering sysadmin services that they don't have the capacity to provide with their current staff or cannot afford.
I don't have any staff to do these things for me. I do my own paperwork, often producing documentation or invoicing on the fly. I've also been known to write entire specifications on my phone. Sitting at a desktop, notebook, even a tablet (to a certain extent) producing these would be preferable to doing this on a phone, but you work with what you have.
MS was not interested in buying a phone OS, they were interested in buying a competent phone manufacturer to complement their phone OS and to buy a strong brand name without any strings attached.
Why should MS spend money reviving an independent phone system that might or might not succeed? The managers at MS, just like everywhere else, want their own strategy/products to succeed, not to finance somebody else's. A financier might do the latter, hence the buyout of BB.
And for MS, the death of an independent BB is just as attractive as the success of BB under their tutelage might have been. Option 1 (let them sink) carries much less risk.
Corporate marriages are not made in heaven, quite the opposite. So stop dreaming and learn to live on the ground.
that the author can manage to do serious data creation work (typing) on any form of mobile phone (Blackberry, iThing, Android, Win8) - a quick text or email, fine, but writing design documents and reports? I still have to have a decent sized screen, mouse and keyboard for anything over a hundred words or so.
Thank-you. The initial draft of this article was produced on my phone. I now spend so much time typing on it that I can produce 1500 words on my phone about 3x faster than I can type it on a keyboard.
There are absolutely things involved in producing specifications that are distinctly easier with a mouse and a keyboard but you can't have everything.
I'm impressed, and somewhat skeptical. If you can type your thoughts linearly then a small screen is fine (even a typewriter will work); but if you're the kind of person who regularly goes back to edit, to make changes to what you've just written, then the iPhone is terrible.
Maybe us young folk just are too accustomed to being able to go back and make changes.
If that's all it takes to impress you, I have this bridge I'd like to sell you. ;-)
In all seriousness, my use of the iPhone as that major part of my life grew inorganically. I'm most definitely not a linear person. If you're having issues making changes to your work then you probably aren't using the right software. I'm currently using a combination of iA writer and Apple's own iWork Suite. By themselves neither of them are perfect, but I've spent so much time with them now that I know their little quirks (and huge embarrassing bugs Apple) quite well by now.
As always, YMMV and I've always been an edge case. Sometimes even by choice.
>had Microsoft wanted a decent mobile operating system
Good point, as history shows us that MS didn't want a good mobile OS. Remember the Windows desktop/server team took over the WP team largely because their (the WP team) version of Windows was different to the desktop version of Windows, suitability and fit for purpose weren't considered, what was more important was consistency of user experience, hence why we had the daftness of Windows 8, slavishly implementing a tablet interface on a high-res desktop ...
Turned up and tried to administer my company network from an iPhone he'd be sacked on the spot.
Did you actually write this with a straight face? Because if you did I suggest the only thing you should be administering is a few thousand volts to your own testicles. Not only do you suggest that the iPhone (of the 4 digit passcode) is remotely secure for that sort of work, virtually every other statement you make is factually wrong.
Nokia have supported dual homescreen 'profiles' on the handset since at least 3rd ed. FP2, so circa 2007/8 or so. Nokia handsets are STILL more capable than iPhone in hardware terms (and the older Symbian handsets are a step change better even than the WP stuff).
Blackberry kit is highly impressive - QNX based BB 10 is perfectly capable - and more importantly doesnt spaff personal information to anyone within a 5 mile radius. I also dont understand why you're whining about apps when you can add Android apps to it - so they're crashy junk under a dalvik emulator - thats no worse than they are when run natively.
MS have WP which is to be fair the peasants iOS. Its the worst of everything. Its so many steps backwards from Symbian it'd make Usain Bolt go pale to contemplate running the same distance. Battery life, connectivity, reliability, features; all = fail in comparison. Its about the same comparison to BB 10.
This is just a personal opinion but it strikes me as interesting that all the beloved OS that the press and everyone else is crooning about have one thing in common - security that has more holes in it than a Mitsu over the Marianas. Odd is it not that the ones that actually respect their owners privacy to any extent are the ones that have suddenly lost market share in the 'whole world' (aka USA) faster than a jury loses objectivity in a paedogeddon case...
A few years ago I helped a Japanese visitor sort out his VPN connection - asked him the password. It was 'password'!* Now how should I put this?
If it came to me hiring a sysadmin I would search the person out who set up that VPN before I would ever employ a iPhone fetishist in such a position of responsibility.
*The worst part of this is I bought it to my directors attention, and he went berserk at me for bringing it up, notwithstanding all our confidential information was being handed to this guy...
You make some interesting points. I'm not entirely sure that most days my wife wouldn't agree with you about needing a few thousand volts to the testicles, but there you go.
>>Nokia have supported dual homescreen 'profiles' on the handset since at least 3rd ed. FP2, so circa >>2007/8 or so. Nokia handsets are STILL more capable than iPhone in hardware terms (and the older >>Symbian handsets are a step change better even than the WP stuff).
Refer to my somewhat pathological hatred for Nokia, reinforced again, and again, and again, by hardware that was barely if at all suitable for the job it did. Every single Nokia phone I have ever owned was dead within 6 months. Every single one. Nokia based windows phones? The two that I rolled out for initial testing with a client died within 3 months. Don't like em, have tried them again and again because everyone I know raves about them, but experience shows they are simply low end crap marketed as high end.
>>>Blackberry kit is highly impressive - QNX based BB 10 is perfectly capable - and more importantly >>>doesnt spaff personal information to anyone within a 5 mile radius. I also dont understand why you're >>>whining about apps when you can add Android apps to it - so they're crashy junk under a dalvik >>>emulator - thats no worse than they are when run natively.
Agree. Actually that was quite well said. Nothing to see here, moving along...
>>>If it came to me hiring a sysadmin I would search the person out who set up that VPN before I would >>>ever employ a iPhone fetishist in such a position of responsibility.
Fantastic. We're in the same boat. I'd absolutely hire someone competent over an iPhone fetishist any day. As I pointed out in the article, I haven't been one for some time. No version of this article was a love letter for the iPhone at any point. I don't just sysadmin, I do everything from system architecture to R&D for my clients. While I don't pay for each item that we test, I get to experience them and I stand by what I said in piece.
From a security and productivity standpoint, they are all dreck. All of them are rubbish to the core. They're rubbish to the core though because they aren't built with Corporate/SME/Enterprise as anything more than a passing afterthought. They are consumer phones and I wouldn't expect anything else. As much as we all bitch about BB's various products, myself included, they were at least built with those considerations in mind.
I don't want to use an iPhone anymore, it was simply the choice that, at the time at least, didn't make me want to smash it with a hammer. Which I did do to the Galaxy.
Odd then isnt it how of the three Nokia Symbian handsets I have all three are working perfectly? To whit, an E70, 9300 & E7-00. One of which is almost 8 years old now and still functions as well as the day I got it from a Vodafone shop in town (the phone lasted longer than that Vodafone store ironically).
I wont say they're perfect, but its more a problem with external companies not being able to hire programmers capable of aspiring to anything higher than membership of the First High Circle of the Ancient Order of Scriptkiddies as any inherant problem with the OS.
I actually wrote the majority of two books on the E70 flip phone and were it to support A2DP & SDHC memory cards I would probably be using it as a phone still.
As to the joys of iOS - I can remember as a 12 year old being told about passwords and security (and given that we were using that paragon of computing excellence the RM Nimbus 80186, God alone knows why they bothered) and how the more characters and the more obscure, the better. 15 years later and one of the inventors/pioneers of the whole industry can't get his head around more than 4 digits?
While given my health situation it is unlikely I will be working again any time soon - my policy were I in a network manager/admin position would be very simple - to quote "you will ask to BYOD i-kit on my network over your dead body...". The result should they attempt it anyway would probably be a cross between a mauling by a female Deinonychus with world class PMS and what happens when someone mentions the term 'thin-client' to the BOFH...
This post has been deleted by its author
Upvoted for "Mitsu over the Marianas", but it isn't only that (and do you use those phrases around Japanese visitors? Perhaps if the password is "password", you'd be justified.)
Am I the only person who still produces diagrams as part of specifications? It's conceivable that you could use something like LucidChart on a GN3, but how do you do that on an iPhone? If you need portability, surely a Macbook Air will do the job properly.
People understand diagrams much better than wodges of text, or at least need diagrams to help them understand.
All the tasks listed by the author can easily be done using Windows Phone. Why is there so much hate out there for this OS? I'm certain that a great portion of it is purely based on hearsay and not finding out or using the OS personally. Not just a flick and a poke in the shop but a serious trial of the OS.
When I first heard of Windows bringing out a new OS I was sceptical, heard all these bad reports but as I'm not happy taking just anyone's word for things I thought I'd buy a handset, and yes it was new OS back then but now it is becoming quite the shining gem.
Get a little app called "Group Tiles" and you can segment 'work' and 'play' tiles, have many email accounts and have your personal email accounts linked together or keep them apart from work Exchange accounts very easily. Office and Skydrive combined do very nicely.
Give it a serious go before poo pooing it.
10 weeks as my primary phone. Have no complaints about the HTC hardware it was running on, especially since the model I was trialing had been thoroughly thrashed and put through the wringer and was still an exceptionally good phone hardware-wise.
Except when the software let it down, which was a lot of the time. Most fo the time it was simply Win Phone 8 getting in its own way and making things that should be a simple task take longer then they need to.
Sadly, I'll probably end up with one as a dedicated business phone, because as much as the OS is crap, it does still tick a lot of the boxes.
Remind me again... you CAN still buy HTC Windows Phones right?
How dare you accuse MS of astroturfing! The WinPho are not only the best, most user friendly, and most secure phones, not to mention they're so damn desirable I'm thinking of tossing my girlfriend to replace her with a WinPho, I also suspect they're capable of curing cancer.
I read it from someone whose love for all things MS is so sincere that they post as AC, so it *must* be true!
For this to make any sense, Microsoft would have to admit to itself they have a problem. So far there's no sign of that at all, in fact the endless WP astroturfing about security and business use strongly suggests MS believe WP8 is the business phone Aaron is looking for. Or will be when they finish the missing bits and smooth off the rough edges.
What would buying RIM have got them? The BBM system? How long do you think MS could resist just folding it into the wider Microsoft network, tying it to your Microsoft account and inevitably pissing away most of what made BBM so attractive to business. Even if they didn't screw up the service, their reputation would damage the product.
RIM didn't get success by building great smartphones (everyone I know with one hates their device), or building a great smartphone OS (they didn't). It was the service running behind it all people bought and Microsoft buying that service would devalue it enormously and instantly.
"WHY didn't Microsoft buy RIM? Us business blokes would have queued for THAT phone"
No ... no! no! no!
Should that have happened, I would have run screaming from the Blackberry platform. Microsoft's history of buying innovative things and twisting them to the Windows way has sickened me enough already.
Just remember, Microsoft would have ASSIMILATED RIM, not joined with or partnered with but ASSIMILATED! RIM didn't want Windows 8 (or any other later version), and Microsoft didn't want to try and "adapt" to RIM.
Sometime these comments about who should buy who, what team should have what coach etc is pure "craP", because the players have to be WILLING to work together, not everyone jumps for the fortune if they don't get to play the boss of their own destiny.
The iPhone was designed to milk money from the great unwashed. It's a super simple device for super simple people who like to chatter inanely, text incomprehensibly and post pictures in flagrante. For business users you need something outside the fenced-in iPhone application environment, so it's going to happen on Android or WinPhone, probably Android because MS are such tossers.
Yes, but Microsoft would be too arrogant to keep and maintain the Blackberry OS. They'd want to open their flaccid sphincter and extrude Windows onto the platform.
Everything that made Blackberries what they are would be gone.
There wouldn't be much point to that acquisition for Microsoft anyway. From their perspective there's no reason to eliminate a failing competitor.
There are a lot of very misguided conclusions in this blog post.
One of the ones that jumped out at me the most is the whole blackberry user satisfaction thing. The only people left using blackberry are utterly brainwashed devoted fanboys. They're never used an actual smartphone and have no idea what they're missing out on. Poor farmers in China are as happy with a bowl of rice as a NYC socialite is with caviar and champagne. That doesn't mean the two are in any way equivalent.
I've never met a single person with Android malware. As long as you aren't downloading "meet up for sex in your area" apps, I think you're safe.
RIM hasn't even tried to keep current with demands of business. Why should we go backwards to the "smart"phone equivalent of the old candybar phones (and I quote smart because, lets face it, RIM devices are anything but)?
Blackberry had an opportunity to be the only one in the market but decided it didn't want it. So imho, it's a foregone conclusion, good riddance.
I'm used to el Reg slapping click-bait heds on actually good articles, but this time the article itself is till-thought-out click bait. I expected some insight into how this would fit with Microsoft's strategy, but there is none; it's just the author wanking to his own anti-Nokia fantasies. I'm disappointed.
The idea that MS would want, or would put to good use, RIM's software and engineering talent is laughable. MS has software engineers a-plenty. They have a mobile OS they like, and they have Exchange, SharePoint, etc. to handle the back end. If MS believed that BB's approach was the way to go, they could easily copy it in-house without wasting money buying RIM out. All they'd lose by copying is the name, and the BlackBerry brand is no longer the gem it once was.
Microsoft is consolidating their infrastructure across every segment, so why would they head in the exact opposite direction by funding RIM as a software company-within-a-company?
You mean you LITERALLY NEVER VISIT sites USING FLASH?
Wow, just wow.
I uninstalled flash from my desktop machine a couple of years back. It was a pain at first, but almost every site with an interest in displaying multimedia these days supports HTML 5, and those that don't aren't missed.
Your comment about having a work profile and a personal profile etc is something that I had looked for and thought I had almost found.
I bought an HTC One X+ and in Sense 4, you had the ability to setup multiple profiles. You could switch between them and all the widgets and folders on the main screen would switch as well. Perfect, I had E-mail setup as a main widget on my "Work" profile and not on the "Personal" one. However, there was one small problem. In order to change between profiles you had to Swipe down, click settings, click to go inside another setting, then click on the profiles setting, then swipe to the profile you wanted, then click ok, then exit settings and it was just such a pain in the arse that I stopped using it.
I found the Llama app with which you can set cell towers as Home, or Work or whatever and then when you come in range of one it triggers all your Work actions, like going to vibrate etc. It can even hook into programs, so long as they expose a hook, but sadly it seems Sense 4 didn't.
Lastly I had a number of e-mail conversations with HTC and the outcome seemed bright in that I was told my suggestions to make profile switching easier would be lloked at by the developers for a future Sense release and that my suggestion to expose a hook would be looked into, but sadly with the release of Sense 5 it seems they have done away with profiles altogether, or at least buried them so deep I can't find them.
So sad and as you mention it would be soooooo useful on a daily basis!
You said, "Nokia haven’t made a decent smartphone ever."
I say that Nokia created the best smartphones long before anyone else.
I had the 9110, the 9210, and the 9300. It seems they lost the plot a bit with the E90 and after waiting too long for the next decent model (which never came...) I finally switched to the iPhone 3GS.
If Nokia had the insight and foresight to create an app store for the Communicator (one of the most frustrating things for me on the Communicator was finding well written apps for sane prices) then they could have continued to own the market in a major way.
I still miss the experience of using the Communicator, but it's clear its days are over now.
The author is a whiner. "What I want is <bla bla>, what I need is apparently impossible". Jesus, what is with these people, it's like he needs to show that he's an individual by telling us all the special needs that he has. Just because you are "needy" does not mean that you are "special" (quite the opposite actually...). Author=Windbag.
Often start with symptoms like slow boot time, laggy GUI AND unstable OS as well as most apps being crap.. I will not even mention so called services (Activities) that I have NO control whatsoever to switch off unless I uninstall completely - and loose any config ...and as exactly precisely in the article the NEED for SERIOUS business functionalities as in the article... Hoy !, did I mention I have a 1GB QUAD core 1.4 GHz Galaxy 3 Android ?
Too bad Azz Hole Ballmer focused on big square tiles instead...
I hope Apple is listening....
*good, no that I got your attention...
Christ, how that said it all for me.
What's this guy on? Running his business from an iPhone? Sending a ton of emails - from a phone? Wants his phone to know what he's doing? What he needs? Get out of here.
The man's a total prat and he should take his hunt for the magic screwdriver and stick it up his smartarse.
PS I use a Lumia 925 and it shows every sign of being a useful, reliable and, dare I say, likeable smartphone. I also own a "live" (ie has a working sim and network connection) Samsung GIII but prefer the Lumia. My wife has an iPhone 4S which I "look after" and which just doesn't do it for me. So, unlike a lot of posters here I'm guessing, I've actually got current experience of todays' mobs (except the Blackberry which I've always avoided because of their price.)
Not sure why you have such hatred for Nokia, especially if you have no expereince with using their phones as you have been living in Apple's world but Nokia have made some excellent Windows smartphones for a number of years. Their integration with the workplace is excellent. Office 365, Sharepoint, Exchange emails all work perfectly and its the first phone where I've ever been able to use Excel properly for my daily tasks. MS were right to purchase Nokia and abandon RIM to their fate, I agree the blackberries were excellent in their day but MS now has the ability to leverage its work with Windows phone 8 to make it attractive to business users and system admins that up to now have had no real desire to let anything Apple into the corporate workplace which is already full of Microsoft systems. Apple will never take Microsoft's market share in the workplace, Google might, but Apple, nah no way.