You just don't get it. All Japanese and Taiwanese high tech companies that have R and D and even production lines on their campus take your camera equipped devices (including phones and laptops!) before you walk on their property. I cannot do business without a phone/email or email device. Most serious technology companies are fanatical about their trade secrets.
If apple is going to be taken seriously for their security, they will need to get rid of the camera in the phone.
A camera equipped phone will be useless as a business device if it is locked in a security cabinet.
No... YOU don't get it.
The size of that market is zero.
For you to advocate that apple make to Iphones, one with and one without a camera so in Japan the high tech companies can use the iPhone is silly.
And to think that a serious technology company likes having you send email through a canadian central server is also silly.
Again, you are right that there are companies that stop you from carrying a device that could steal their information.
But it means absolutly nothing.
Zero.
Nada.
Nothing...
There is no money to be made in that tiny market, spending effort to get a toe hold in it is beyond silly, it's a dumb idea on the face of it.
Yes, having a camera will suppress 10,000 phone sales worldwide.
Putting all kidding aside, I say, "RIM and Apple, let the games begin!!"
I have a company BBerry, I hate it! First of all the battery life is horrible. I have to reset it daily. It doesn't sync properly with Entourage (don't ask me how since it's tied to bberry server & is supposed to be syncing from exchange). The internet on this thing is worthless. Bluetooth tethering is horrible, only supports up to 115K so the EVDO connection on my phone is of no use!
I unfortunately have no say in what I use so unless the costs are good enough that it makes my organization decide to switch me I'm out of luck.
In a jab aimed squarely at RIM, Jobs noted that the company, often equated with "secure corporate email," relays all BlackBerry messages out of corporate email servers and through its Network Operation Center servers in Canada.
"Why aren't CIOs really worried about security?" Jobs asked the press. "Every email message sent to or from a RIM device goes through a NOC up in Canada. Now, that provides a single point of failure, but it also provides a very interesting security situation. Where someone working up at that NOC could potentially be having a look at your email. Nobody seems to be focused on that. We certainly are."
Jobs' comments alluded to a blackout of BlackBerry service caused by NOC issues at RIM. For the iPhone, secure push email services will work directly from corporations' own email infrastructure to the iPhone, without traveling through Apple's servers or requiring the installation of additional messing server hardware, as Schiller outlined in a diagram that compared the iPhone against RIM's BlackBerry infrastructure. Schiller noted that Apple's push email strategy would be both more affordable and more reliable.
I thought the path thru the NOC was only a temporary measure? I found this related article in 2006...
Quote:
The planned software update will include a "standard mode" that works the same way the BlackBerry service does now, plus a "U.S. mode" that RIM could automatically switch users to via its network operations center.
The NOC is here in Canada, but the servers are located around the world.
I guess they decided to leave it that way, in case someone else challenges their patents again.
Besides the encryption happens on the message server, not in the NOC. This makes it end-to-end.
I agree the backend Blackberry service is more expensive to implement, but let's face it, isn't the cellular network connecting these devices also a single point of failure? Or the message server itself?
For you to advocate that apple make to Iphones, one with and one without a camera so in Japan the high tech companies can use the iPhone is silly.
And to think that a serious technology company likes having you send email through a canadian central server is also silly.
Again, you are right that there are companies that stop you from carrying a device that could steal their information.
But it means absolutly nothing.
Zero.
Nada.
Nothing...
There is no money to be made in that tiny market, spending effort to get a toe hold in it is beyond silly, it's a dumb idea on the face of it.
Yes, having a camera will suppress 10,000 phone sales worldwide.
Tough doo-doo if you're one of em....
The market for optionally non-camera equipped iPhones for use by corporations would be quite large. It shouldn't be that big of a deal for Apple to create a customized line for this market segment.
Give me a break. You are just pontificating something that you want others to believe without basis.
The market exists. High Tech companies employ 32% of the US workforce (150 million people). (look it it up (CIA factbook), its true.) 10-15 % percent of most international companies are in the R and D field, making sales trips to companies, or are field application engineers supporting production lines - all in positions where cameras are potential no-nos. 3% of the work force or 5 MILLION US WORKERS are put in positions where they can have their phone taken away.
Let me tell you about IT departments. IT is an all or nothing business. Either all of the company goes with RIM or all of the company goes with another service. Support for a second equivalent service is usually more than double the resources required, so there is extra cost for supporting RIM without cameras and Apple with cameras. There may be a small market to sell a lot of no-camera phones, but they are not insignificant. Especially when corporate contracts where the company is all in for every user, Apple will loose the business with out it.
You can't cut off the arm to save the face! Even if it is a money looser product, it can be part of a BIG money winning corporate contract. Having the business contract with 1% of the sales going to a profit loosing sale is still a market expanding and profitable move for Apple.
You are also discounting any government contracts for the nearly 3 million government employees - camera phones are being banned in court houses and institutions across the country. There are numerous business reasons to have an iPhone without a camera.
The market for optionally non-camera equipped iPhones for use by corporations would be quite large. It shouldn't be that big of a deal for Apple to create a customized line for this market segment.
Perhaps. By the same token, I don't seeing the camera in the iPhone posing a huge security risk. When there is a will, there is a way. The iPhone's not having a camera wouldn't prevent someone from so called "corporate espionage."
Give me a break. You are just pontificating something that you want others to believe without basis.
The market exists. High Tech companies employ 32% of the US workforce (150 million people). (look it it up (CIA factbook), its true.) 10-15 % percent of most international companies are in the R and D field, making sales trips to companies, or are field application engineers supporting production lines - all in positions where cameras are potential no-nos. 3% of the work force or 5 MILLION US WORKERS are put in positions where they can have their phone taken away.
Let me tell you about IT departments. IT is an all or nothing business. Either all of the company goes with RIM or all of the company goes with another service. Support for a second equivalent service is usually more than double the resources required, so there is extra cost for supporting RIM without cameras and Apple with cameras. There may be a small market to sell a lot of no-camera phones, but they are not insignificant. Especially when corporate contracts where the company is all in for every user, Apple will loose the business with out it.
You can't cut off the arm to save the face! Even if it is a money looser product, it can be part of a BIG money winning corporate contract. Having the business contract with 1% of the sales going to a profit loosing sale is still a market expanding and profitable move for Apple.
You are also discounting any government contracts for the nearly 3 million government employees - camera phones are being banned in court houses and institutions across the country. There are numerous business reasons to have an iPhone without a camera.
Go sound silly in the forum for phones without cameras.
Give me a break. You are just pontificating something that you want others to believe without basis.
The market exists. High Tech companies employ 32% of the US workforce (150 million people). (look it it up (CIA factbook), its true.) 10-15 % percent of most international companies are in the R and D field, making sales trips to companies, or are field application engineers supporting production lines - all in positions where cameras are potential no-nos. 3% of the work force or 5 MILLION US WORKERS are put in positions where they can have their phone taken away.
Let me tell you about IT departments. IT is an all or nothing business. Either all of the company goes with RIM or all of the company goes with another service. Support for a second equivalent service is usually more than double the resources required, so there is extra cost for supporting RIM without cameras and Apple with cameras. There may be a small market to sell a lot of no-camera phones, but they are not insignificant. Especially when corporate contracts where the company is all in for every user, Apple will loose the business with out it.
You can't cut off the arm to save the face! Even if it is a money looser product, it can be part of a BIG money winning corporate contract. Having the business contract with 1% of the sales going to a profit loosing sale is still a market expanding and profitable move for Apple.
You are also discounting any government contracts for the nearly 3 million government employees - camera phones are being banned in court houses and institutions across the country. There are numerous business reasons to have an iPhone without a camera.
Nonetheless, it is highly likely that globally, (RIM marketshare globally is not that great outside of the US), the iPhone will continue to gain huge momentum.
Steve Jobs already mentioned that Apple is not interested in "Big Contracts" where they have to please "Gatekeeper CIOs".
I think Apple has focused on improving and refining the product itself, then let the clients come, rather than changing the product to suit the big contracts. I know it is a fine line between what to change for more people to use it, and what to change for certain important people to use it.
Besides the encryption happens on the message server, not in the NOC. This makes it end-to-end.
And look what was posted today...
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
"The BES server and the BlackBerry handheld share a unique randomly generated security key based on triple-DES encryption which is considered unbreakable," they explained. "The BES server encrypts all information with this key while behind the corporate firewall, before passing through the NOC. The only decryption key in existence resides on the handheld device, which gives BlackBerry the highest level of security in the industry."
As such, the analysts noted that RIM is the only vendor to have thus far received top-level security accreditations in North America and Europe. This has helped make BlackBerries the exclusive smartphone of secure conscious agencies like the US Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. For this reason, the analysts say "claims of security issues raised by ActiveSync advocates seem completely meritless."
Perhaps. By the same token, I don't seeing the camera in the iPhone posing a huge security risk. When there is a will, there is a way. The iPhone's not having a camera wouldn't prevent someone from so called "corporate espionage."
A relative of mine who works at a secure site for a very large government contractor said the very same thing about the camera (absolutely cannot have it), and consequently uses a Blackberry instead.
Steve Jobs already mentioned that Apple is not interested in "Big Contracts" where they have to please "Gatekeeper CIOs".
His Steveness is not talking about the government though. He is talking about IT with a stick up their arse that think technology moves at the pace of themselves.
We have seen them go feverishly after government contracts with their servers. Apple is to stupid not to cash in on big GOVERNMENT contracts. It may not happen with the next gen phone. But it will happen.
Comments
You just don't get it. All Japanese and Taiwanese high tech companies that have R and D and even production lines on their campus take your camera equipped devices (including phones and laptops!) before you walk on their property. I cannot do business without a phone/email or email device. Most serious technology companies are fanatical about their trade secrets.
If apple is going to be taken seriously for their security, they will need to get rid of the camera in the phone.
A camera equipped phone will be useless as a business device if it is locked in a security cabinet.
No... YOU don't get it.
The size of that market is zero.
For you to advocate that apple make to Iphones, one with and one without a camera so in Japan the high tech companies can use the iPhone is silly.
And to think that a serious technology company likes having you send email through a canadian central server is also silly.
Again, you are right that there are companies that stop you from carrying a device that could steal their information.
But it means absolutly nothing.
Zero.
Nada.
Nothing...
There is no money to be made in that tiny market, spending effort to get a toe hold in it is beyond silly, it's a dumb idea on the face of it.
Yes, having a camera will suppress 10,000 phone sales worldwide.
Tough doo-doo if you're one of em....
Putting all kidding aside, I say, "RIM and Apple, let the games begin!!"
I have a company BBerry, I hate it! First of all the battery life is horrible. I have to reset it daily. It doesn't sync properly with Entourage (don't ask me how since it's tied to bberry server & is supposed to be syncing from exchange). The internet on this thing is worthless. Bluetooth tethering is horrible, only supports up to 115K so the EVDO connection on my phone is of no use!
I unfortunately have no say in what I use so unless the costs are good enough that it makes my organization decide to switch me I'm out of luck.
Yeah for Apple though!
A NOC on RIM
In a jab aimed squarely at RIM, Jobs noted that the company, often equated with "secure corporate email," relays all BlackBerry messages out of corporate email servers and through its Network Operation Center servers in Canada.
"Why aren't CIOs really worried about security?" Jobs asked the press. "Every email message sent to or from a RIM device goes through a NOC up in Canada. Now, that provides a single point of failure, but it also provides a very interesting security situation. Where someone working up at that NOC could potentially be having a look at your email. Nobody seems to be focused on that. We certainly are."
Jobs' comments alluded to a blackout of BlackBerry service caused by NOC issues at RIM. For the iPhone, secure push email services will work directly from corporations' own email infrastructure to the iPhone, without traveling through Apple's servers or requiring the installation of additional messing server hardware, as Schiller outlined in a diagram that compared the iPhone against RIM's BlackBerry infrastructure. Schiller noted that Apple's push email strategy would be both more affordable and more reliable.
I thought the path thru the NOC was only a temporary measure? I found this related article in 2006...
The planned software update will include a "standard mode" that works the same way the BlackBerry service does now, plus a "U.S. mode" that RIM could automatically switch users to via its network operations center.
The NOC is here in Canada, but the servers are located around the world.
I guess they decided to leave it that way, in case someone else challenges their patents again.
Besides the encryption happens on the message server, not in the NOC. This makes it end-to-end.
I agree the backend Blackberry service is more expensive to implement, but let's face it, isn't the cellular network connecting these devices also a single point of failure? Or the message server itself?
No... YOU don't get it.
The size of that market is zero.
For you to advocate that apple make to Iphones, one with and one without a camera so in Japan the high tech companies can use the iPhone is silly.
And to think that a serious technology company likes having you send email through a canadian central server is also silly.
Again, you are right that there are companies that stop you from carrying a device that could steal their information.
But it means absolutly nothing.
Zero.
Nada.
Nothing...
There is no money to be made in that tiny market, spending effort to get a toe hold in it is beyond silly, it's a dumb idea on the face of it.
Yes, having a camera will suppress 10,000 phone sales worldwide.
Tough doo-doo if you're one of em....
The market for optionally non-camera equipped iPhones for use by corporations would be quite large. It shouldn't be that big of a deal for Apple to create a customized line for this market segment.
No... YOU don't get it.
The size of that market is zero.
Give me a break. You are just pontificating something that you want others to believe without basis.
The market exists. High Tech companies employ 32% of the US workforce (150 million people). (look it it up (CIA factbook), its true.) 10-15 % percent of most international companies are in the R and D field, making sales trips to companies, or are field application engineers supporting production lines - all in positions where cameras are potential no-nos. 3% of the work force or 5 MILLION US WORKERS are put in positions where they can have their phone taken away.
Let me tell you about IT departments. IT is an all or nothing business. Either all of the company goes with RIM or all of the company goes with another service. Support for a second equivalent service is usually more than double the resources required, so there is extra cost for supporting RIM without cameras and Apple with cameras. There may be a small market to sell a lot of no-camera phones, but they are not insignificant. Especially when corporate contracts where the company is all in for every user, Apple will loose the business with out it.
You can't cut off the arm to save the face! Even if it is a money looser product, it can be part of a BIG money winning corporate contract. Having the business contract with 1% of the sales going to a profit loosing sale is still a market expanding and profitable move for Apple.
From RIMs own mouth...
http://www.cameraphonereport.com/200...ys_no_cam.html
You are also discounting any government contracts for the nearly 3 million government employees - camera phones are being banned in court houses and institutions across the country. There are numerous business reasons to have an iPhone without a camera.
The market for optionally non-camera equipped iPhones for use by corporations would be quite large. It shouldn't be that big of a deal for Apple to create a customized line for this market segment.
Perhaps. By the same token, I don't seeing the camera in the iPhone posing a huge security risk. When there is a will, there is a way. The iPhone's not having a camera wouldn't prevent someone from so called "corporate espionage."
Give me a break. You are just pontificating something that you want others to believe without basis.
The market exists. High Tech companies employ 32% of the US workforce (150 million people). (look it it up (CIA factbook), its true.) 10-15 % percent of most international companies are in the R and D field, making sales trips to companies, or are field application engineers supporting production lines - all in positions where cameras are potential no-nos. 3% of the work force or 5 MILLION US WORKERS are put in positions where they can have their phone taken away.
Let me tell you about IT departments. IT is an all or nothing business. Either all of the company goes with RIM or all of the company goes with another service. Support for a second equivalent service is usually more than double the resources required, so there is extra cost for supporting RIM without cameras and Apple with cameras. There may be a small market to sell a lot of no-camera phones, but they are not insignificant. Especially when corporate contracts where the company is all in for every user, Apple will loose the business with out it.
You can't cut off the arm to save the face! Even if it is a money looser product, it can be part of a BIG money winning corporate contract. Having the business contract with 1% of the sales going to a profit loosing sale is still a market expanding and profitable move for Apple.
From RIMs own mouth...
http://www.cameraphonereport.com/200...ys_no_cam.html
You are also discounting any government contracts for the nearly 3 million government employees - camera phones are being banned in court houses and institutions across the country. There are numerous business reasons to have an iPhone without a camera.
Go sound silly in the forum for phones without cameras.
We're all full up here......
Give me a break. You are just pontificating something that you want others to believe without basis.
The market exists. High Tech companies employ 32% of the US workforce (150 million people). (look it it up (CIA factbook), its true.) 10-15 % percent of most international companies are in the R and D field, making sales trips to companies, or are field application engineers supporting production lines - all in positions where cameras are potential no-nos. 3% of the work force or 5 MILLION US WORKERS are put in positions where they can have their phone taken away.
Let me tell you about IT departments. IT is an all or nothing business. Either all of the company goes with RIM or all of the company goes with another service. Support for a second equivalent service is usually more than double the resources required, so there is extra cost for supporting RIM without cameras and Apple with cameras. There may be a small market to sell a lot of no-camera phones, but they are not insignificant. Especially when corporate contracts where the company is all in for every user, Apple will loose the business with out it.
You can't cut off the arm to save the face! Even if it is a money looser product, it can be part of a BIG money winning corporate contract. Having the business contract with 1% of the sales going to a profit loosing sale is still a market expanding and profitable move for Apple.
From RIMs own mouth...
http://www.cameraphonereport.com/200...ys_no_cam.html
You are also discounting any government contracts for the nearly 3 million government employees - camera phones are being banned in court houses and institutions across the country. There are numerous business reasons to have an iPhone without a camera.
Nonetheless, it is highly likely that globally, (RIM marketshare globally is not that great outside of the US), the iPhone will continue to gain huge momentum.
Steve Jobs already mentioned that Apple is not interested in "Big Contracts" where they have to please "Gatekeeper CIOs".
I think Apple has focused on improving and refining the product itself, then let the clients come, rather than changing the product to suit the big contracts. I know it is a fine line between what to change for more people to use it, and what to change for certain important people to use it.
You may have missed it, but they mentioned for security purposes the camera can be disabled by the phone!
Problem solved, let's see the other handsets do THAT.
You are kidding right?
Look up 'Intellisync Device Management' at some point. Guess which company beginning with an N owns that now.
Besides the encryption happens on the message server, not in the NOC. This makes it end-to-end.
And look what was posted today...
"The BES server and the BlackBerry handheld share a unique randomly generated security key based on triple-DES encryption which is considered unbreakable," they explained. "The BES server encrypts all information with this key while behind the corporate firewall, before passing through the NOC. The only decryption key in existence resides on the handheld device, which gives BlackBerry the highest level of security in the industry."
As such, the analysts noted that RIM is the only vendor to have thus far received top-level security accreditations in North America and Europe. This has helped make BlackBerries the exclusive smartphone of secure conscious agencies like the US Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security. For this reason, the analysts say "claims of security issues raised by ActiveSync advocates seem completely meritless."
Perhaps. By the same token, I don't seeing the camera in the iPhone posing a huge security risk. When there is a will, there is a way. The iPhone's not having a camera wouldn't prevent someone from so called "corporate espionage."
A relative of mine who works at a secure site for a very large government contractor said the very same thing about the camera (absolutely cannot have it), and consequently uses a Blackberry instead.
Steve Jobs already mentioned that Apple is not interested in "Big Contracts" where they have to please "Gatekeeper CIOs".
His Steveness is not talking about the government though. He is talking about IT with a stick up their arse that think technology moves at the pace of themselves.
We have seen them go feverishly after government contracts with their servers. Apple is to stupid not to cash in on big GOVERNMENT contracts. It may not happen with the next gen phone. But it will happen.