[conite]

Ok--again--I'm not really familiar with this. EMM is a way of dealing with all of these devices right? I'm assuming this is not a simple endeavor?

So, you can have BYOD, but isn't it a big expense/effort? Does it create vulnerability as opposed to not allowing BYOD?

Whether you have corporate-issued devices or BYOD, you need something to manage them. EMM locks them down and containerizes corporate data.

[KAM1138]

Whether you have corporate-issued devices or BYOD, you need something to manage them. EMM locks them down and containerizes corporate data.

Ok, sure--you need the EMM to manage--whatever it is.
What I'm trying to understand is if the Diversity of many devices a major cost or potential vulnerability compared to having ONE device that everyone has to use.

Or is it a minor issue to have a wide variety of devices. Of course, this goes beyond Mobile Phones--laptops and such as well, so it may be impossible to have ONE device, so let's say one PHONE for a given company.

So, just a quick illustration. If a company said "Everyone Uses iphone 8" and that's it, would it be significantly simpler than BYOD--which may include hundreds of different phones?

[KAM1138]

Ok, perhaps good old Wikipedia can say this better than I can.
From Entry on EMM:
"The diversity of Android devices appeals to consumer buyers, but is a source of anxiety for IT security experts. OpenSignal, a UK-based mobile company, recently published a survey of almost 700,000 devices and reported approximately 12,000 distinct Android devices using eight different versions of the Google operating system. For many IT organizations charting out their BYOD strategy, this translates into security risks that are tough to monitor and control."

[conite]

Ok, sure--you need the EMM to manage--whatever it is.
What I'm trying to understand is if the Diversity of many devices a major cost or potential vulnerability compared to having ONE device that everyone has to use.

Or is it a minor issue to have a wide variety of devices. Of course, this goes beyond Mobile Phones--laptops and such as well, so it may be impossible to have ONE device, so let's say one PHONE for a given company.

So, just a quick illustration. If a company said "Everyone Uses iphone 8" and that's it, would it be significantly simpler than BYOD--which may include hundreds of different phones?

Most companies say you can use phone A, B, C, or D. It's pretty straightforward and easy to manage that way.

[KAM1138]

Most companies say you can use phone A, B, C, or D. It's pretty straightforward and easy to manage that way.

Ah, ok, so most companies (Government included?) are already limiting what they have to deal with significantly. So it's not anything like "hundreds" and the effort to manage...a handful isn't significantly harder (more costly) than handling One.

Ok, so that being said...does Blackberry really offer no security advantage over A, B, C or D today? Is that just a reputation that exists that's outdated?

[conite]

Ah, ok, so most companies (Government included?) are already limiting what they have to deal with significantly. So it's not anything like "hundreds" and the effort to manage...a handful isn't significantly harder (more costly) than handling One.

Ok, so that being said...does Blackberry really offer no security advantage over A, B, C or D today? Is that just a reputation that exists that's outdated?

The only real players in government and enterprise are iPhone and Samsung Knox. TCL is going after a slice of this market with BlackBerry Android. The good news is that 60% of their US sales have been to enterprise - but it's just a start. It will take years to make inroads.

The new Google Enterprise Recommended program helps IT make some decisions though.

https://androidenterprisepartners.wi...s/browse-all/2

[KAM1138]

By the way--as to the general "What would you have done."
My first thought, which I've mentioned tangentially at various times--is to step back, and ask whether the way things being done currently are the best, most efficient and whether playing "follow the leader" is ever going to lead to success.
Sometimes that may work, but looking at how Android and iOS dominate the market, I think that thinking bigger (or smaller) and doing something NOT in your competitions playbook (no joke intended) would be something to consider.
Making a bigger, better, more popular Smartphone isn't likely to happen, so all the people who rail about that are probably right. Instead--figure out something sufficiently new like Apple did when it introduced the iphone. It wasn't really revolutionary technology, but it was packaged in a way that was revolutionary enough to alter the market.

Easier said than done? Definitely, but that's the sort of thinking that I think you need to start with. Getting more narrow or more limited in your thinking isn't likely to end up with a good result. That's what Blackberry (and Windows phone) did, and it's not worked out.

I'm fairly confident of one thing--the conventional wisdom of what things NEED to be today to be on top is going to change. Apple and Android might remain the companies that become whatever is needed to remain suppliers of that top thing (whatever it may be), but it's also an opportunity for another company to bump them out, the same way that they bumped out others. Highly unlikely that 10 years from now, things will remain the same.

No one should be surprised if "There's an app for that" mindset is considered archaic and inefficient in 10 years. The way that users are provided functionality and utility may be entirely different than downloading an app and carrying it around in a tiny (if growing) computer in your hand. In some ways it seems like it already seems like a step backwards, or something that was a good idea in 2007, but may not be as much today.

[conite]

I'm fairly confident of one thing--the conventional wisdom of what things NEED to be today to be on top is going to change.

Sure.

But while you go off and invent the next paradigm shift in mobile technology, the rest of us have businesses to run, suppliers and employees to pay every week, and shareholders to satisfy.

[KAM1138]

Sure.

But while you go off and invent the next paradigm shift in mobile technology, the rest of us have businesses to run, suppliers and employees to pay every week, and shareholders to satisfy.

Well, I'm not going to be the one to come up with the next thing, and I don't mean to suggest that I have the ability to A) figure out exactly what that solution is B) how to find money for it, and C) have the specific skills in this field.

But this isn't about ME at all, and it's missing the point. Rather, it's about the next Apple or Google who realizes that The current Blackberry is vulnerable and that things won't last.

You're right--there ARE people that need to tend to business today, and that's probably very similar to what Blackberry thought--and which resulted in them being where they are today.

Success is a double edged sword. Innovation is hard--and the lure to keep doing what you're doing is significant. "It's what everyone wants." Until someone changes the conversation.

[markmall]

Absolutely. Few people said it could be done. SAF formed the bulk of the old business model.

Chen had to use Prem's cash to buy that revenue, correct?

BlackBerry is now just a collection of acquisitions. Do I get credit when some company I own stock in's revenue goes up just because I own the stock? That's about how much credit Chen deserves for revenue increasing in other companies.

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

It doesn't SEEM as if it should be THAT hard of a sell to come up with a plan that would serve THAT market (even if no other) with a simple, secure device. I'm sure this isn't a NEW idea, and that Blackberry at one time supplied phones to the US Government (and perhaps still does).

Google and Apple get a lot of money from selling information...I'd love it if Blackberry could figure out a way to make money by making sure information DOESN'T get sold/stolen/hacked, etc. That's a niche that would seemingly have SOME value. Of course, the US government isn't the only market.

This is why I would rate John Chen below average in performance. Fine, he got the simple things right. He fired a lot of people to lower the head count. He sold a lot of property. He made some acquisitions that have been okay but not home runs or close to it.

But he has absolutely no salesmanship to him. Whatever Steve Jobs had, he has none of it. Remember him trying to sell the Priv on TV and he didn't know how to use it?

People like Steve Jobs can see what the market wants way before the market itself even knows it. This whole thing with privacy was sitting right out there for Blackberry to grab onto.

Chen didn't grab onto it. Now the company has no core business. It has some lottery tickets but that is it.


Posted via CB10

[markmall]

I've heard people talk about pressure from users who didn't want to carry Blackberries and wanted to carry their iPhones--I'm sure that was something that happened, but with Government, I'm saying they could say "No--you do it our way." But NOT if Blackberry couldn't offer functionality NEEDED for the government work itself.

Around 2012 or 13 a friend of mine worked in securities and had to carry BBOS phone around with him. If he would've told his boss he wanted an iPhone, his boss would've said then quit your job.

I can't understand how there is no market for any devices that are locked down.



Posted via CB10

[markmall]

Ok, perhaps good old Wikipedia can say this better than I can.
From Entry on EMM:
"The diversity of Android devices appeals to consumer buyers, but is a source of anxiety for IT security experts. OpenSignal, a UK-based mobile company, recently published a survey of almost 700,000 devices and reported approximately 12,000 distinct Android devices using eight different versions of the Google operating system. For many IT organizations charting out their BYOD strategy, this translates into security risks that are tough to monitor and control."

I think the U.S government put out a warning that Chinese manufacturer Huwai (sp?) was a danger for spying on phone users. Imagine government employees using Chinese phones for sensitive functions.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Chen had to use Prem's cash to buy that revenue, correct?

BlackBerry is now just a collection of acquisitions. Do I get credit when some company I own stock in's revenue goes up just because I own the stock? That's about how much credit Chen deserves for revenue increasing in other companies.

Posted via CB10

If that's seriously what you think, then you haven't looked into it very carefully.

There are industry insiders a lot more plugged in than either of us who are praising Chen for what he has been able to accomplish.

BNN:

"BlackBerry CEO John Chen was awarded a five-year extension on his contract with the company. The turnaround artist has overhauled a once hardware company into a software and services company, something that many people thought impossible. Rob Enderle, president at Enderle Group said Chen did, in fact, do the impossible, and is certainly deserving of his contract renewal."

[johnny_bravo72]

If that's seriously what you think, then you haven't looked into it very carefully.

There are industry insiders a lot more plugged in than either of us who are praising Chen for what he has been able to accomplish.

BNN:

"BlackBerry CEO John Chen was awarded a five-year extension on his contract with the company. The turnaround artist has overhauled a once hardware company into a software and services company, something that many people thought impossible. Rob Enderle, president at Enderle Group said Chen did, in fact, do the impossible, and is certainly deserving of his contract renewal."

This.
I'm quite astonished with the tennis match here regarding John Chen's credibility. It's quite moot now, given that BlackBerry extended his term until 2023.

[KAM1138]

This is why I would rate John Chen below average in performance. Fine, he got the simple things right. He fired a lot of people to lower the head count. He sold a lot of property. He made some acquisitions that have been okay but not home runs or close to it.

But he has absolutely no salesmanship to him. Whatever Steve Jobs had, he has none of it. Remember him trying to sell the Priv on TV and he didn't know how to use it?

People like Steve Jobs can see what the market wants way before the market itself even knows it. This whole thing with privacy was sitting right out there for Blackberry to grab onto.

Chen didn't grab onto it. Now the company has no core business. It has some lottery tickets but that is it.


Posted via CB10

I stated my opinion that I don't see Chen as a savior or a villain. I think he's a functionary, not a visionary.

I tend to agree about his performance--he slashed parts of the company, and fired people, as well as shifting to a different business. If that keeps the company alive--well, good for whoever that benefits. If he "saved" that portion, he killed the rest.

I don't think he's much of a salesman, and has had some fairly bad moments, but no one gets the Lavish Praise that Jobs did. I think it's amusing to see people like Heins or Chen trying to play that Role that Jobs did so well. It's like a parody.

I think in Tech, people don't really know what they want, until they're shown--hey, we can do this now. No one was saying "When is the iphone going to be made"--they made the iphone and said "You need this."

People have laughed off Marketing as being a major part of this whole Saga, but I think they are very, very mistaken. Apple used Marketing Very well, and obliterated Blackberry in the process. Not the only thing, but a major part of their success.

As far as claiming that Blackberry is "successful" now. Well, low bar was set--to exist, but again, the stock is flat, it's brand is largely a joke, and I'm not sure even Chen knows where it's going.

[KAM1138]

I think the U.S government put out a warning that Chinese manufacturer Huwai (sp?) was a danger for spying on phone users. Imagine government employees using Chinese phones for sensitive functions.

Posted via CB10

Oh, I'm sure they've got it "handled." That's sarcasm, just to be clear.

[KAM1138]

Around 2012 or 13 a friend of mine worked in securities and had to carry BBOS phone around with him. If he would've told his boss he wanted an iPhone, his boss would've said then quit your job.

I can't understand how there is no market for any devices that are locked down.



Posted via CB10

I know that people in industries that are less "regulated" let's say that also had company policies regarding Blackberries (I think that's over now however).

I also don't understand how government especially is so "flexible."

I wonder if things will suddenly change should there be any evidence that a Data Breach occurred due to lack of security in these devices. I would guess that sooner or later it will A) Happen, and B) be something that the media or other politicians want to exploit, and therefore make a huge story out of it.

Just IMAGINE if a politician (not naming names) was using a device and it was hacked, and ANY piece of "classified" data was taken. If that politician was on the wrong side of the media--this would be 'Treason.'

What I'm saying is that very suddenly, "security" might be a hot topic, regardless of the reality of the technical issues.

I think it would be particularly funny to hear some Pundit say "Why did we stop using Blackberries."

[conite]

Around 2012 or 13 a friend of mine worked in securities and had to carry BBOS phone around with him. If he would've told his boss he wanted an iPhone, his boss would've said then quit your job.

I can't understand how there is no market for any devices that are locked down.



Posted via CB10

IPhones and hardened Androids like Knox and BlackBerry Android are very much locked down when managed by an EMM solution.

[conite]

I know that people in industries that are less "regulated" let's say that also had company policies regarding Blackberries (I think that's over now however).

I also don't understand how government especially is so "flexible."

I wonder if things will suddenly change should there be any evidence that a Data Breach occurred due to lack of security in these devices. I would guess that sooner or later it will A) Happen, and B) be something that the media or other politicians want to exploit, and therefore make a huge story out of it.

Just IMAGINE if a politician (not naming names) was using a device and it was hacked, and ANY piece of "classified" data was taken. If that politician was on the wrong side of the media--this would be 'Treason.'

What I'm saying is that very suddenly, "security" might be a hot topic, regardless of the reality of the technical issues.

I think it would be particularly funny to hear some Pundit say "Why did we stop using Blackberries."

You mentioned you did not know much about enterprise mobility management solutions.

The security offered by the best of them is more than sufficient for 99.99% of even the most secure workplaces.

Anyone else, like POTUS, would need a custom device anyway, and would never, ever buy anything off the shelf.

[KAM1138]

You mentioned you did not know much about enterprise mobility management solutions.

The security offered by the best of them are more than sufficient for 99.99% of even the most secure workplaces.

Anyone else, like POTUS, would need a custom device anyway.

Yeah, reality and politics have very tenuous connections.

[KAM1138]

You mentioned you did not know much about enterprise mobility management solutions.

The security offered by the best of them is more than sufficient for 99.99% of even the most secure workplaces.

Anyone else, like POTUS, would need a custom device anyway.

Yet there are Data Breaches, hacks, etc--at least that is what is reported in the news (granted...that may be less than accurate, or technologically incorrect). I read someone (I forget who) talking about that the Mobile Device is rarely (?) the source of the security problem.
Is that accurate?

[conite]

Yet there are Data Breaches, hacks, etc--at least that is what is reported in the news (granted...that may be less than accurate, or technologically incorrect). I read someone (I forget who) talking about that the Mobile Device is rarely (?) the source of the security problem.
Is that accurate?

I challenge you to find a single example of a breached, managed device that compromised a business. Spoiler: you can't.

The data breaches in the news have to do with hacking company servers or cloud accounts.

[KAM1138]

I challenge you to find a single example of a breached, managed device that compromised a business. Spoiler: you can't.

The data breaches in the news have to do with hacking company servers or cloud accounts.

I Challenge you to eat 50 Hot Dogs.

Why are you challenging me to something that I'm not disputing--but rather asking you to confirm something...that AGREES With you.

[conite]

I Challenge you to eat 50 Hot Dogs.

Why are you challenging me to something that I'm not disputing--but rather asking you to confirm...that AGREES With you.

You are misinterpreting my tone. I'm all sunshine and lollipops.