Interesting pivot in the approach to the enterprise phone market
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
BYOD was never something that was good in the view of securing and maintaining company communications. It was initially a way to save money, and then became normal.
I don't agree. I think BYOD caused modern security to happen. It wasn't about saving money, it was about better design. Once you went to what I call the "citadel" design of your network, BYOD was trivial. In the enterprise, I saw functionality drive BYOD, not cost savings. The cost savings thing I only heard about in the SMB a decade later.
I feel like I'm inviting a @scottalanmiller firehose of information here, but what functionality gains were seen by using BYOD? The devices were unchanged generally. Perhaps it is the difference in our experiences, but I don't even see how what your describing makes any sense. The decade thing seems a bit farfetched as BYOD really only became a thing, in SMB afaik, in the late aughts. To put enterprise BYOD back into the late '90's seems a bit incredible.
-
@Kelly said:
Perhaps it is the difference in our experiences, but I don't even see how what your describing makes any sense. The decade thing seems a bit farfetched as BYOD really only became a thing, in SMB afaik, in the late aughts. To put enterprise BYOD back into the late '90's seems a bit incredible.
SMB wasn't really into quite by then and by the early 2000s it was old hat in the enterprise space.
-
@Kelly said:
I feel like I'm inviting a @scottalanmiller firehose of information here, but what functionality gains were seen by using BYOD? The devices were unchanged generally.
Devices didn't change, but thinking did. The era before BYOD people used to assume that end points were secure. Of course, they are not. The changes were that the network was designed such that BYOD happened naturally by securing resources assuming that the end points were insecure. They didn't do it "for" BYOD, BYOD became a natural extension of the improvements in security.
-
@Kelly said:
what functionality gains were seen by using BYOD? The devices were unchanged generally.
I've done BYOD twice:
First (Enterprise size) was a corporate fleet of BB's and it was simply because VIP staff wanted iPhones. No functionality gain, they still were only used for email. Did gain some "sales team bling factor" which apparently "helped boost sales".
Second (SMB size) was pushed by Finance to get rid of corporate bills. Easier and cheaper for us to give each employee $50/mth and install MDM on their device of choice.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I think BYOD caused modern security to happen.
@scottalanmiller said:
They didn't do it "for" BYOD, BYOD became a natural extension of the improvements in security.
You can't have it both ways, you need to pick one
-
@Kelly said:
I think two phones should be normative. I'm probably in the minority, but I don't like BYOD. Can you consider a phone a secure business device if it is used for Netflix, Candy Crush, and for keeping the 3 year old quiet? This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way. The "app gap" is almost a feature :). I'm not sure I'm communicating clearly, but even if this is not currently the standard, it should be.
I completely get what you are saying - but the end result is that the non technical CEO does not want to carry around two devices - one for facebooking/twitter/personal email/personal texting, etc and a second one for business.
Nor should he have to. Virtualization already exists that allows business apps to exist in a type of container that can have separate authentication requirements than the base phone.
There was a named TouchDown that did this at least for Exchange based email.
I know other products also exist to create this separation between the user's junk and the business stuff.
-
I'm all for companies offering devices, but requiring them feels like an epic fail except in the most extreme special cases. This is why people hate Blackberry, it was just the shitty second phone you had to carry.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm all for companies offering devices, but requiring them feels like an epic fail except in the most extreme special cases. This is why people hate Blackberry, it was just the shitty second phone you had to carry.
This phone is dual SIM, so you could put both a personal number and a work number in it, so for someone who didn't want the full smartphone experience on the personal front, it could do both.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
I think two phones should be normative. I'm probably in the minority, but I don't like BYOD. Can you consider a phone a secure business device if it is used for Netflix, Candy Crush, and for keeping the 3 year old quiet? This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way. The "app gap" is almost a feature :). I'm not sure I'm communicating clearly, but even if this is not currently the standard, it should be.
I completely get what you are saying - but the end result is that the non technical CEO does not want to carry around two devices - one for facebooking/twitter/personal email/personal texting, etc and a second one for business.
Nor should he have to. Virtualization already exists that allows business apps to exist in a type of container that can have separate authentication requirements than the base phone.
There was a named TouchDown that did this at least for Exchange based email.
I know other products also exist to create this separation between the user's junk and the business stuff.
It would be very cool to have a containerized, secure, business OS run within a personal phone. I would push to move in this direction almost regardless of the platform or other considerations.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I'm all for companies offering devices, but requiring them feels like an epic fail except in the most extreme special cases. This is why people hate Blackberry, it was just the shitty second phone you had to carry.
This phone is dual SIM, so you could put both a personal number and a work number in it, so for someone who didn't want the full smartphone experience on the personal front, it could do both.
But why is Windows phone failing today? It is because the OS sucks - NO - anyone why uses it with a real open mind will see that it's just as usable any Android or iOS - it's failing because of the lack of apps. There might also be programming reasons weren't written there in the first place.
Of course I will toss in that that MS phones have in general sucked since the beginning, only with Windows Phone 7 did they really start being worth looking at, but with no real carrier buy-in, and iOS already doing so well - and Android starting to do better... MS had a huge uphill battle that they just continued to loose ground to.
-
@Kelly said:
It would be very cool to have a containerized, secure, business OS run within a personal phone. I would push to move in this direction almost regardless of the platform or other considerations.
But as Scott said, users will revolt. They'll passively revolt if that's their only option - i.e. not charge it, forget it at home, etc. People don't want to carry multiple devices around anymore.
And if your business rebuilds its apps like Scott mentioned - to consider the endpoint unsecure, basically just a device on the internet trying to access your app, then using any device become a possibility. And in that case why wouldn't the user just use whatever device they like?
-
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
@Kelly said:
I think two phones should be normative. I'm probably in the minority, but I don't like BYOD. Can you consider a phone a secure business device if it is used for Netflix, Candy Crush, and for keeping the 3 year old quiet? This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way. The "app gap" is almost a feature :). I'm not sure I'm communicating clearly, but even if this is not currently the standard, it should be.
I completely get what you are saying - but the end result is that the non technical CEO does not want to carry around two devices - one for facebooking/twitter/personal email/personal texting, etc and a second one for business.
Nor should he have to. Virtualization already exists that allows business apps to exist in a type of container that can have separate authentication requirements than the base phone.
There was a named TouchDown that did this at least for Exchange based email.
I know other products also exist to create this separation between the user's junk and the business stuff.
It would be very cool to have a containerized, secure, business OS run within a personal phone. I would push to move in this direction almost regardless of the platform or other considerations.
Samsung has containerization with some of their new Android phones.
-
A large portion of using mobile devices for accessing things... isn't that what Remote Desktop & ilk are for?
If I have my phone, I can operate any device I need to manage thanks to apps like JuiceSSH, MS-RDP, Citrix, et al.
And note, this is my phone, not my employer's.
-
@dafyre said:
A large portion of using mobile devices for accessing things... isn't that what Remote Desktop & ilk are for?
Exactly. You create safe interfaces between your data and the BYOD devices so that data cannot egress in ways that you do not approve.
-
@Dashrender said:
But why is Windows phone failing today? It is because the OS sucks - NO - anyone why uses it with a real open mind will see that it's just as usable any Android or iOS -
I put it in between. More usable than Android and less usable than iOS. However, for a new entrant into the market, it has to shine, and that it did not, at all. It lacks the open ecosystem that Android uses as the excuse for being functionally problematic and it lacks the tight integration that makes iOS work. It's trying to fill a pointless middle ground that doesn't exist. Then, of course, it botched that middle ground terribly and that's another issue. But even executed well, I don't see it having a purpose, a goal.
