RIM's enterprise server now manages Apple's iOS devices
Research in Motion on Tuesday launched its new BlackBerry Mobile Fusion mobile device management software for enterprise customers, adding the ability to manage Apple's iOS devices, in addition to those running BlackBerry OS and Google Android.
Built on the foundation of BlackBerry Enterprise Server, the new BlackBerry Mobile Fusion will allow enterprise customers to manage smartphones and tablets based on a variety of platforms beyond its own BlackBerry OS. The software provides a single, unified wed-based console for managing devices.
"For businesses and government, managing a mix of mobile devices on any scale is chaotic. Organizations face pressure to allow employees to bring their own devices into the workplace, and they are looking to RIM as the global leader in the enterprise mobility space to solve that problem,” said Alan Panezic, Vice President, Enterprise Product Management and Marketing at Research In Motion.
"BlackBerry Mobile Fusion allows organizations to manage a mixed environment of devices in the most secure, simple, and cost efficient manner possible. It also means that businesses and government do not have to move to the lowest common denominator on security for all the devices they need to manage."
Managing iOS and Android devices with BlackBerry Mobile Fusion software grants companies the following capabilities:
Support for multiple devices per user
Application and software management
Connectivity management (Wi-Fi, VPN, certificates)
Centralized, easy to use, unified web-based console
Security and policy definition and management
Asset management
Configuration management
Security and protection for lost or stolen devices (remote lock, wipe)
User- and group-based administration
High scalability
BlackBerry Mobile Fusion is a free download, and usage is priced based on the number of devices being managed. Licenses start at $99 per user or $4 per month annually, while volume discounts are available.
iOS and Android devices require RIM's Mobile Fusion Client application to be installed. The software is available for the iPhone and iPad on Apple's App Store.
RIM first announced in May of 2011 that it planned to update its BlackBerry Enterprise server to support iOS devices. The product was initially expected to debut in late 2011, but was pushed back until Tuesday's launch.
The release of the new enterprise server software comes less than a week after RIM reported dismal earnings in which it saw a billion-dollar sequential drop in quarterly revenues. The Canadian smartphone maker sold 11.1 million handsets and a half-million PlayBook tablets in the last quarter.
[ View article on AppleInsider ]
Comments
iOS and Android devices require RIM's Mobile Fusion Client application to be installed. The software is available for the iPhone and iPad on Apple's App Store.
Why is a client necessary? That's ridiculous. iOS's MDM API and capabilities should be more than sufficient to manage the device. Every other MDM solution vendor uses it (AirWatch, MobileIron, Maas360) but RIM cannot?
They really can't go out of business fast enough. Not that they aren't trying.
Why is a client necessary? That's ridiculous. iOS's MDM API and capabilities should be more than sufficient to manage the device. Every other MDM solution vendor uses it (AirWatch, MobileIron, Maas360) but RIM cannot?
They really can't go out of business fast enough. Not that they aren't trying.
Well, the fact that they charge $99 per user or $4 per month annually (to start) is more than sufficient to kill their platform. Apple Configurator is free and alternative solutions to BlackBerry Enterprise Server are less expensive as well.
I really think the only potential biggie here is the "Support for multiple devices per user" part. That could finally allow them to have PlayBooks being managed (if they ever get the required OS update before RIM closes the doors)...
So, if I have more than 5 users (assuming a Mini Server lasts at least two years, which is low-balling), I am cheaper off buying an Mini and managing thousands of users (if needed) for far less with the same capabilities (based on the list of features in the article)? And I get a real interface, not a Web-based one? That will work.
I really think the only potential biggie here is the "Support for multiple devices per user" part. That could finally allow them to have PlayBooks being managed (if they ever get the required OS update before RIM closes the doors)...
That's true of a lot of things. Look at the price for Windows Server client licenses, as well. Apple's unlimited client license Mini Server is an incredible deal.
That's true of a lot of things. Look at the price for Windows Server client licenses, as well. Apple's unlimited client license Mini Server is an incredible deal.
Yes, why not just get a MacMini Server with Lion Server and you can manage your iOS devices that way...much cheaper. I guess if you have people who use Blackberries you can do both with one app, but you may have to purchase more licenses to manage iOS devices. I think the Mac server is the better route. You can also manage Macs if you so happen to have them.
I work in IT at a school and we are telling people to please not get another Blackberry. Most if not all can't wait for their contracts to expire so they can get either an iPhone or Android device anyways. RIM is ever so slowly dying. I think even if someone buys them, they're so far behind and bleeding money and customers so fast no one is going to stop it.
Yes, why not just get a MacMini Server with Lion Server and you can manage your iOS devices that way...much cheaper. I guess if you have people who use Blackberries you can do both with one app, but you may have to purchase more licenses to manage iOS devices. I think the Mac server is the better route. You can also manage Macs if you so happen to have them.
You can also use it as a file server for all platforms. With "Back to my Mac", it's a great way to remotely access your data, as well.
The difference between Apple then and RIM today however, RIM doesn't have a Steve Jobs to come and save them and whereas Jobs was decades ahead of his time in some respects, RIM's ex CEO's & co-founders are a decade behind.
And here we go again with sales numbers. Even RIM didn't announce sales numbers. They announced shipped numbers. While I can't speak for their phone shipments, it's a different story when talking about Playbook numbers. Last year, we saw those shipments dwindle from 500,000 to less than 150,000 in three quarters. And then, after having several fire sales, they took a $483 million write off on those tablets. They just took a write off on BB7 phones too.
So when I read something that not only doesn't bother to question the reality of shipments, but somehow translates them to sales, I wonder if the writer is paying as much attention to it as (s)he should.
While I agree that RIM is dying a slow death, everyone has to realize that a lot of IT departments have invested fully into RIM's ecosystem. Most companies have a 3-5 year rotations on technologies, and therefore (usually because of tax purposes) cannot just "get rid" of their current equipment. I'm sure a lot of IT pro's are relieved to know that they don't need to implement further technologies to manage multiple handsets for the time being.
That being said, I believe RIM knows that their PHONE platform is a dinosaur. Like all dinosaurs it's going to become extinct sooner rather than later. It's smart to get into a platform as a SERVICE, but the way they're implementing it is complete nonsense. An extra app on the phone just to access features that the iPhone provides natively is ridiculous. Saying that users will be reluctant to use it is an understatement, especially when Exchange already offers ActiveSync to interface with said native features - directly, without additional licensing.
My company is one of the lucky ones that refused (well I refused) to deploy BES servers (I hate RIM's business model). BUT our exchange server is on a real server, which brings me to my next point. A lot of you are comparing Mac Mini "server" pricing to the real deal. No IT department (well a competent one) would deploy a Mac Mini in a production environment with "thousands of users hitting it" (as another poster said). It's unfortunate that Apple has deprecated their main server line that utilized real server grade parts. Sorry, but throwing a SATA RAID 1 array in a small enclosure and calling it a day doesn't equal a production grade machine that I'd be confident to deploy.
Real servers use SAS in more complex RAID arrays to ensure faster performance (than RAID 1) and better data redundancy and up time (spare drives, RAID 6, etc). They also offer things like ECC memory, multi-socket system boards, redundant power supplies, etc. These machines start at the $2,000 range and only go up in price if you wish to scale out. Our Exchange server cost $10,000, but I can sleep at night knowing that the beast will never go down - ever. I couldn't do the same for a Mac Mini.
/rant
So much of this story and the talk back reminds me of the "Beleaguered Apple" stories we Apple users had to endure in the 90's. Hard to imagine Apple is the most valuable company in the world today and how many of their peers they have blown away in the last 10 years.
The difference between Apple then and RIM today however, RIM doesn't have a Steve Jobs to come and save them and whereas Jobs was decades ahead of his time in some respects, RIM's ex CEO's & co-founders are a decade behind.
That point about SJ is one I make as well. I'm sure Heins is well intentioned. But that isn't enough. A leader not only has to be able to see through everything that is there to the essential elements, which SJ did, to our consternation after he came back and discontinued major lines that were very popular, and doing well financially, but he needs to be able to convince people that he truly does see into the future, and that what (s)he sees is the truth.
SJ could do that, even when he made mistakes. There isn't anyone at RIM who can claim that. RIM's direction is backwards. They are now trying to catch the horse after it ran out of the barn, and they're on foot. It won't happen.
I had to chime in here, too many people who don't work in a real IT department commenting...
While I agree that RIM is dying a slow death, everyone has to realize that a lot of IT departments have invested fully into RIM's ecosystem. Most companies have a 3-5 year rotations on technologies, and therefore (usually because of tax purposes) cannot just "get rid" of their current equipment. I'm sure a lot of IT pro's are relieved to know that they don't need to implement further technologies to manage multiple handsets for the time being.
That being said, I believe RIM knows that their PHONE platform is a dinosaur. Like all dinosaurs it's going to become extinct sooner rather than later. It's smart to get into a platform as a SERVICE, but the way they're implementing it is complete nonsense. An extra app on the phone just to access features that the iPhone provides natively is ridiculous. Saying that users will be reluctant to use it is an understatement, especially when Exchange already offers ActiveSync to interface with said native features - directly, without additional licensing.
My company is one of the lucky ones that refused (well I refused) to deploy BES servers (I hate RIM's business model). BUT our exchange server is on a real server, which brings me to my next point. A lot of you are comparing Mac Mini "server" pricing to the real deal. No IT department (well a competent one) would deploy a Mac Mini in a production environment with "thousands of users hitting it" (as another poster said). It's unfortunate that Apple has deprecated their main server line that utilized real server grade parts. Sorry, but throwing a SATA RAID 1 array in a small enclosure and calling it a day doesn't equal a production grade machine that I'd be confident to deploy.
Real servers use SAS in more complex RAID arrays to ensure faster performance (than RAID 1) and better data redundancy and up time (spare drives, RAID 6, etc). They also offer things like ECC memory, multi-socket system boards, redundant power supplies, etc. These machines start at the $2,000 range and only go up in price if you wish to scale out. Our Exchange server cost $10,000, but I can sleep at night knowing that the beast will never go down - ever. I couldn't do the same for a Mac Mini.
/rant
While you can't easily mount it into a rack, the Mac Pro offers everything you mention, except one. Up to 128GB ECC RAM, 16TB SAS RAID, multi socket system board. The only thing they don't have is a redundant power supply. But I can replace mine in two minutes. I know of few companies who don't have redundant servers, so that isn't the biggest problem. The machine is also extremely reliable.
While you can't easily mount it into a rack, the Mac Pro offers everything you mention, except one. Up to 128GB ECC RAM, 16TB SAS RAID, multi socket system board. The only thing they don't have is a redundant power supply. But I can replace mine in two minutes. I know of few companies who don't have redundant servers, so that isn't the biggest problem. The machine is also extremely reliable.
Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.
No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...
Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro? Apple had great 1U servers (or was it 2U's...) but those are no more. Plus you don't get things like easy hot swapping. A real rack server can be pulled out on it's rails with most parts being hot swap-able (while the machine is on). With the Mac Pro, you must turn it off first to service it. That, right there, is a no-go for many IT departments. I had to replace a bad DIMM on one of our production servers just the other day (memory mirroring FTW!), and I was able to do all of this while the machine was on with NO downtime. Speaking of which, I think you underestimate the sheer lack of enterprise grade features the Mac Pro has.
No memory mirroring, no front facing hot swap HDD bays, no redundant PSU's, no baseboard management and monitoring chipsets, I mean the list really does go on...
I agree that the xServe was a great server - particularly when you consider the cost of Windows licenses compared to the unlimited client license of the xServe.
You're really talking about different markets, though. xServe was for the Enterprise, heavy iron server market. Mac Pro Server is more of a departmental server or for applications where the client only has one or two servers. Apple simply decided that they weren't selling enough to the enterprise market to make it worth keeping the xServe. Unfortunate, but I don't have any data that suggests that they made the wrong decision.
Yes, why not just get a MacMini Server with Lion Server and you can manage your iOS devices that way...much cheaper. I guess if you have people who use Blackberries you can do both with one app, but you may have to purchase more licenses to manage iOS devices. I think the Mac server is the better route. You can also manage Macs if you so happen to have them.
I work in IT at a school and we are telling people to please not get another Blackberry. Most if not all can't wait for their contracts to expire so they can get either an iPhone or Android device anyways. RIM is ever so slowly dying. I think even if someone buys them, they're so far behind and bleeding money and customers so fast no one is going to stop it.
Ever so slowly? I think they have been transferred to the ICU and are about to code! ;-)
And they kept up the charade up to the very end. The new ceo is going to have to admit that what was promised for release later this year won't come to pass until maybe, and it's a big maybe, next year. But given he's already said they would face pressure through 2013, my guess is they don't have anything on the drawing boards that will save their sinking ship.
One would guess that they've got some serious brain drain happening too, which isn't going to be good for long-term viability, let alone short term.
Agreed, but in an age where consolidation and server density is key - would you opt for 1 4U server or 4 1U servers, where a 1U server could compete equally with the Mac Pro?
Maybe, maybe not. Yes we see where you are coming from with your user name but your hot swapping RAM example is purely hypothetical because most OS tools would not be able to diagnose a bad DIMM to start with. With VM a 4U running 12 cores could potentially out perform 4 1U boxes because cooling and RAM limitations on the iUs may not equal 10+ VMs running on a 4U. Depends on the application environment. Anyway that is not how any of the big data centers do it now-a-days. Two words: Load balancing! For example Google data centers with 50,000 servers all load balanced running the exact same application with RAID 50s. You may have a big ass server but you only have the one. Never say never, especially when you have all your eggs in one basket.
While you can't easily mount it into a rack, the Mac Pro offers everything you mention, except one. Up to 128GB ECC RAM, 16TB SAS RAID, multi socket system board. The only thing they don't have is a redundant power supply. But I can replace mine in two minutes. I know of few companies who don't have redundant servers, so that isn't the biggest problem. The machine is also extremely reliable.
Companies have already moved beyond that. Many use low cost server without HD in 1U cases connected to SAN drives. Small server farms are so cost effective now that many companies virtualize everything from processors to storage and allocate computing resources dynamacally. The fact that Apple does not allow non-Apple HW virtualization is truly out of touch in the corporate world. Apple is just not competitive in that space.
AS for RIM, I think Microsoft should just buy it, combine the market of Windows Phone and Blackberries.