Is Microsoft the New Apple?
-
@Dashrender said:
Which brings me back to why am I worrying about mobile devices at all. I'm worried about them being stolen primarily. If they are loaded up with PHI then I need to ensure that the device is encrypted and password protected and also the ability to remotely wipe them. If I can remove these concerns by removing the data from the device and only accessing when I'm online and it's never stored on the device then I would say we don't need to worry about it.
That's the same magic that moving away from file servers gets you. Pretty rarely does any new business need to store things on a desktop or laptop anymore. I haven't had a real need to do that in a decade. I realize that I tend to be ahead of the curve, but that is a LOT ahead of the curve. The need to store files on the laptop for normal people is pretty minor. Unless you do something semi-unique like video editing.
-
@Dashrender said:
Of course, these devices aren't windows devices (unless you have a windows phone), but come on does that really matter today? As you mentioned, buy a CAL, I'm happy to do that. MS gets paid to support the standard mobile platforms that are out there through my purchase of a CAL for that device.
That pays for only part of it. Normally they make $100 for the OEM sticker and then the CAL is additional to that plus the server license. The CAL is nowhere near the entire price and just one part of the cost picture. This is to make the cost model more sensible for many different potential use cases, but the tradeoff is that it is confusing and can appear that buying a CAL pays for the cost of management, but it does not.
Would you be happy to pay $100 per phone each time a phone was added to management AND buy a CAL for each user who might use any of the phones? If not, you aren't really happy with the current pricing model for that stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
OK fine make me buy a CAL for the mobile device - and why do you view it as a different type of thing. It's a computer - it reads email, it has apps. The primary difference between a phone a laptop/desktop is the size of the screen/the OS it's running and probably the ownership.
One is a general purpose, multi-user, user centric application platform. The other is a specific purpose, single user, device centric platform.
While that is true, it's clearly not the considered norm, at least by the new tech companies - your example of Pertino is proof of that.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
OK fine make me buy a CAL for the mobile device - and why do you view it as a different type of thing. It's a computer - it reads email, it has apps. The primary difference between a phone a laptop/desktop is the size of the screen/the OS it's running and probably the ownership.
One is a general purpose, multi-user, user centric application platform. The other is a specific purpose, single user, device centric platform.
While that is true, it's clearly not the considered norm, at least by the new tech companies - your example of Pertino is proof of that.
That may be true, but I doubt that it is yet the norm. I was talking about modern west coast companies, remember. Also, remember, that AD doesn't apply in those scenarios at all. So where AD applies, that model does not. AD is designed around the other model, multiple users. That's its primary function. -
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
OK fine make me buy a CAL for the mobile device - and why do you view it as a different type of thing. It's a computer - it reads email, it has apps. The primary difference between a phone a laptop/desktop is the size of the screen/the OS it's running and probably the ownership.
One is a general purpose, multi-user, user centric application platform. The other is a specific purpose, single user, device centric platform.
While that is true, it's clearly not the considered norm, at least by the new tech companies - your example of Pertino is proof of that.
That may be true, but I doubt that it is yet the norm. I was talking about modern west coast companies, remember. Also, remember, that AD doesn't apply in those scenarios at all. So where AD applies, that model does not. AD is designed around the other model, multiple users. That's its primary function.
I agree it's not the norm today, and for some companies it never will be, short of going VDI or assigning laptops to everyone in my office I don't think we can get away from the shared desktop scenario. The number of missing staff we have daily, it seems that almost no one who has a desktop sits in the same spot two days in a row, people are often moving to completely different areas where they need different default printers (I don't know how to solve that one when they are on the same IP subnet).
Although, considering things like O365 and Rackspace and Gmail, AD is definitely seeing an end of life - and IT will look to other tools to manage desktops/laptops, many of which already exist, but now the company will have to pay reoccurring fees to use them.
-
@Dashrender said:
Although, considering things like O365 and Rackspace and Gmail, AD is definitely seeing an end of life - and IT will look to other tools to manage desktops/laptops, many of which already exist, but now the company will have to pay reoccurring fees to use them.
But they pay recurring fees for AD today. Isn't moving away from AD also potentially moving away from recurring fees? I'm confused, I thought that AD was the recurring fee that you wanted to get away from.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Although, considering things like O365 and Rackspace and Gmail, AD is definitely seeing an end of life - and IT will look to other tools to manage desktops/laptops, many of which already exist, but now the company will have to pay reoccurring fees to use them.
But they pay recurring fees for AD today. Isn't moving away from AD also potentially moving away from recurring fees? I'm confused, I thought that AD was the recurring fee that you wanted to get away from.
They are? CALs aren't nearly as expensive as most MDMs and other management software
-
@Dashrender said:
They are? CALs aren't nearly as expensive as most MDMs and other management software
Who uses MDM for desktops or laptops? Most MDM that I've used is very cheap, Meraki is free.
-
@Dashrender said:
But they pay recurring fees for AD today.
They are? CALs aren't nearly as expensive .....
Well, you have to pay for regular (even if only occasionally) server OS upgrades. That's normally expensive. Then you have to upgrade the CALs. And you need to upgrade the OS. That's three different recurring costs with AD just for the basics.
-
You can pay for AD ad hoc, which often costs more as companies do reckless things trying to "keep costs down." Or you can use a combination of InTunes + desktop license subscriptions and Software Assurance to turn the unpredictable AD upgrade costs into a very predictable cost. When you do this it really exposes the recurring nature of it. The recurring nature is always there, you just choose for it to be predictable and granular or unpredictable and somewhat controlled as to granularity.
MDM costs normally includes hosting and support rolled into the price too. AD does not.
-
What kind of businesses are these west coast firms? I'm guessing they're generally startups with relatively few employees. I can understand why AD doesn't fit well in these types of organisations. The larger the firm, the better AD works.
Compliance issues is also a good reason for AD, as mentioned above. We're a small firm but work on a lot of government contracts, and I'm sure AD helps us pass their audits, though there are always ways around these things.
As an aside, I'm fascinated by Californian startups. We're a 100+ year old British manufacturer - very traditional. One of my pet projects is how to make us more like a Californian startup. I'm having a little trouble getting my colleagues on board with my vision. I keep telling them there is no reason we can't be the next Nest.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
What kind of businesses are these west coast firms? I'm guessing they're generally startups with relatively few employees.
Two of the biggest companies in the world would be in that list. Actually three, including the very largest. And while I've not been inside, I know that Oracle is like that too. And those are just the insanely enormous players. Size really isn't that big of a factor, culture really is.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
I'm guessing they're generally startups with relatively few employees.
Only one that I've mentioned is in any way small. The second smallest is hundreds of people in eighteen countries with huge server concerns. The smallest isn't all that small. But the largest ones are in the hundreds of thousands of employees.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
As an aside, I'm fascinated by Californian startups. We're a 100+ year old British manufacturer - very traditional. One of my pet projects is how to make us more like a Californian startup. I'm having a little trouble getting my colleagues on board with my vision. I keep telling them there is no reason we can't be the next Nest.
Startups are designed around getting risky venture capital, failing nine out of ten times (and literally closing up shop and going home) and when successful selling out to a large, established company. SW is the later, they've done well enough that they are planning to sell this year hence why they don't operate the way that their users or customers would like - because they only answer to the investors. Wall St. is a fickle mistress and not a logical one at all, investors will sacrifice a year of profits for a day of increased market cap.
-
California companies are really bizarre, but it is what drives the market here. But boy are they different. If you work in IT outside of California, chances are it is as foreign as working in India to work in California. Absolutely everything is different.
-
Like what?
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Like what?
Like they don't have IT departments (until they get really large). Hundred and hundreds of people, no IT (because everyone is "technical enough.") People tend to admin their own desktops. Laptops are common rather than desktops. Mac and Linux instead of Windows. Remote access is assumed. AD isn't often even considered, nor any centralized machine management system. On premise hosting isn't thought about, hosted services are the only real consideration. Cloud computing is a foregone conclusion (real cloud, not what people elsewhere call cloud to sound cool.) DevOps rather than traditional systems administration (there is a reason that there is a barrier to entry for IT people into this market.)
Plus soft things that you see in some other markets like NYC and Austin like free food in the office, flexible work hours, work from home, work remotely, reimbursements for using public transport, dogs in the office, lots of time working in "alternative spaces". Those sorts of things too.
Plus the pay difference. Here pay is often partially in equity, not in salary.
-
When you have a technical staff you can get away with those things, but when you don't - now what?
It sounds like you couldn't even get a job as a receptionist in those companies if you can't fix your own PC issues for the most part. One one hand that sounds almost awesome - people who understand the technology that they use, realize it has pitfalls and they themselves know how to get around a lot of them... but the rest the US this is simply not the case - but you've already said that.
-
I just wonder how life would be different around my office if everyone had to provide their own computer, or at least just maintain their own computer - if you're computer is broken, it's on YOU to fix it, not some IT department. I think half our employees would be fired inside a week because they'd break something and have no clue to how fix it, nor do they care cause it's not their problem.
-
@Dashrender said:
When you have a technical staff you can get away with those things, but when you don't - now what?
Then this model isn't for you
Microsoft designed their models around how "normal" companies work and how they should work. Managing desktops isn't a bad thing. Just important to realize that it isn't for absolutely everyone, but it is for most people. Both models have value, just for different kinds of companies.
