[LuvULongTime]

It does little to nothing to manage the phone (for instance, I'm not completely positive but I'm pretty sure that ActiveSync can't force a user to put a lock on his phone).

Yikes! Talk about security breach.

[chalx]

When people talk about BYOD, I suspect they're REALLY saying "my company let me set up my Exchange account on my phone". There are many, many businesses that are left very vulnerable with this. And the employee is left paying for the phone (and likely all the data/voice traffic for work, too).

To many businesses setting exchange sync is enough and they don't need any MDM. Blackberry was considered to be a messaging platform where you are paying additional fee to be able to send and receive emails and IM. Security features were taken for granted and not considered as important. In many cases, security features were taken as necessary evil. When other manufacturers managed to implement push email exchange sync, businesses were happy to escape from Blackberry. Escape from Blackberry goes on for some time, and I assume that BOYD strategy pays off despite security risks which are possible but not imminent.
In this new world it become obvious that very little businesses are willing to pay for enhanced security and Blackberry must change their business model. They should probably give phones for free and charge for BES licenses or something similar.

[moyah8]

I too was given an iPhone 4 at a job, after they changed phone contracts and took away my 9700. After using the iPhone for a day, I gave it back and demanded I get back my BlackBerry 9700 as the iPhone was NOT productive for me.

In my current job, I was again given a iPhone 4s. Again, I requested a BlackBerry of any sort. When this request was denied, I purchased a BlackBerry Q5 from eBay and placed the work sim inside. And that's been my work horse, till now where I've replaced it with a Q10.

In a nutshell, I'd rather purchase a BlackBerry myself and use than use a "free" iPhone.

Posted via my sexy all black Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.3247

[chalx]

Maybe I don't understand article correctly, but I'm under impression that users are demanding BBRY phones because they don't want their IT to sniff through their personal content on their personal phones which they are using.

[KenFletch]

It's not in their DNA.

Literally

HTC TOUCH, Nokia-N97, BlackBerry Torch 9800, Z10

[moyah8]

Maybe I don't understand article correctly, but I'm under impression that users are demanding BBRY phones because they don't want their IT to sniff through their personal content on their personal phones which they are using.

That is correct.

[lawguyman]

People are getting the spin on this wrong.

People use an iPhone or Android as their personal phone.

People want to use their phone for work too. IT says that they need to install Mobile Iron or Good software on the phone to let it run on the corporate network.

People distrust these Apps. People say it is Spyware. I don't want my employer tracking me with my own phone. Some people won't let IT install it.

Other people find that the software screws up battery life or other phone function. They want it taken off.

In both cases, IT issues employees old BlackBerry phones. Employee now carries two phones. This is not about love for BlackBerry.

Posted via CB10

[Playbook007]

This is coming from the people I know that have been given corporate iphones. They are locked down so hard in order to achieve some sort of business device, they are practically useless in terms of a personal device. They limit the apps and most are work related. There is no "Balance" between work and personal time. And the kicker! The device location cannot be turned off, so as long as that phone is on, they have access to your location, your emails and basically anything else they deem necessary. I have never been a fan of BYOD.

Posted via CB10

[co4nd]

And really, for small companies that works fine. Which is why there's no BES10 Express, because BB has no need to serve that market now.

When people talk about BYOD, I suspect they're REALLY saying "my company let me set up my Exchange account on my phone". There are many, many businesses that are left very vulnerable with this. And the employee is left paying for the phone (and likely all the data/voice traffic for work, too).
.

They canceled our company issued phones and gave us a $70 monthly stipend for BYOD. Exchange and voice were the primary business uses. As a consulting business, there was a lot of travel so a communication device was considered a necessity. We had a little over 700 employees through out the US, so I guess we were fairly small.

As far as paying for the phone, I made out, I signed a second line to my wife's account for $50 a month, got the then free iPhone 3GS and pocketed $20 a month.

[sfor13thlegion]

I'd suspect it might have something to do with patents, but I'm not entirely sure.

The bigger question is, why hasn't Apple used it's massive war chest to buy/partner with Blackberry on security so as to try and dominate corporate communications.

Posted via CB10

[TgeekB]

I'd suspect it might have something to do with patents, but I'm not entirely sure.

The bigger question is, why hasn't Apple used it's massive war chest to buy/partner with Blackberry on security so as to try and dominate corporate communications.

Posted via CB10

I can only speculate that they have determined it's not that important.

Germany. 2014 FIFA World Cup Champs!

[Thunderbuck]

To many businesses setting exchange sync is enough and they don't need any MDM. Blackberry was considered to be a messaging platform where you are paying additional fee to be able to send and receive emails and IM. Security features were taken for granted and not considered as important. In many cases, security features were taken as necessary evil. When other manufacturers managed to implement push email exchange sync, businesses were happy to escape from Blackberry. Escape from Blackberry goes on for some time, and I assume that BOYD strategy pays off despite security risks which are possible but not imminent.
In this new world it become obvious that very little businesses are willing to pay for enhanced security and Blackberry must change their business model. They should probably give phones for free and charge for BES licenses or something similar.

As I said before, it depends on the size of the business. And some businesses are regulated (government contractors, public utilities, banks) where EAS is in no way adequate at all.

I think you'll see more companies decide that they want more control as the years go by, too. They're trying to cheap out now but once they've had enough breaches they'll decide they need "real" MDM.

Posted from CB10 running on my awesome Z30 2B6927F7

[Jonesy1966]

Odd that you should post this now as I was on the GO train into Toronto yesterday and had two people behind me moaning how much harder it was to get their recently activated iPhones to run productively and how much easier and more productive their BlackBerrys were. The one asked the other ".........but would you go back to a BlackBerry?", the other replied "Absolutely not, they're not cool enough."

Sometimes you've got to wonder about people and how they define themselves and others by the brand of device they carry.

[crackbrry fan]

Odd that you should post this now as I was on the GO train into Toronto yesterday and had two people behind me moaning how much harder it was to get their recently activated iPhones to run productively and how much easier and more productive their BlackBerrys were. The one asked the other ".........but would you go back to a BlackBerry?", the other replied "Absolutely not, they're not cool enough."

Sometimes you've got to wonder about people and how they define themselves and others by the brand of device they carry.

It's akin to ,some wearing the latest fashion shoes that's killing their feet ,just to be considered Vogue, though all they want is to take them off and wear something comfortable. I guess one needs to mature and prioritize.

Posted via CB10

[lnichols]

Heinz and the then board panicked, putting up the company for sale did quite a bit of damage, Prem Watsa made the right moves to prevent further damage. Not knowing what you have and the strengths therein is a a silly mistake.

Posted via CB10

Heins was doing Prem Watsa's bidding. Prem structure his compensation so that a sale of the company was a windfall for Heins. Heins was doing what his incentive package was designed to make him do.

Posted with a BlackBerry Z10

[crackbrry fan]

Heins was doing Prem Watsa's bidding. Prem structure his compensation so that a sale of the company was a windfall for Heins. Heins was doing what his incentive package was designed to make him do.

Posted with a BlackBerry Z10

Respectfully Disagree ,makes little sense to do that. Heinz basically panicked, he isn't actually CEO material. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The move to try to sell the company, did damage the company's image further. However it's now time to move past that.

Posted via CB10

[lawguyman]

The Board of directors decided to try to sell BlackBerry, not Heins.

Heins basic problem is that BlackBerry vastly overestimated bb10 demand. This resulted in Poor inventory management. This caused huge multi billion dollar write offs. Expectations were set too high and failure to meet them was crushing.

If BlackBerry had accurately forecast bb10 demand and lowered expectations instead of raising them, the company would look different today. Heins was part of this problem when he talked about "tens of millions" of Q10s that were to be sold.

Most of what Chen is now getting credit for was set in motion by Heins. The difference is on the sales pitch, not the product.



Posted via CB10

[chalx]

The Board of directors decided to try to sell BlackBerry, not Heins.

Heins basic problem is that BlackBerry vastly overestimated bb10 demand. This resulted in Poor inventory management. This caused huge multi billion dollar write offs. Expectations were set too high and failure to meet them was crushing.

If BlackBerry had accurately forecast bb10 demand and lowered expectations instead of raising them, the company would look different today. Heins was part of this problem when he talked about "tens of millions" of Q10s that were to be sold.

Most of what Chen is now getting credit for was set in motion by Heins. The difference is on the sales pitch, not the product.



Posted via CB10

I agree. We should also add high price of devices to the equation.

[lnichols]

Respectfully Disagree ,makes little sense to do that. Heinz basically panicked, he isn't actually CEO material. Trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The move to try to sell the company, did damage the company's image further. However it's now time to move past that.

Posted via CB10

Look at the facts. Watsa was the one who RESTRUCTURED Heins deal that had him getting 40+ Million if BlackBerry sold. Prem was friends with Mike L and they personally picked Heins. Prem would have had his investment wash in a buyout where he was falling behind otherwise. Heins and his merry band of rejects appeared to botch every aspect of the Bb10 launch. When no one would buy the company, Heins was let go, at a much lower compensation than a sell, and Prem brought in someone to legitimately try and turn the company around. Do some research on CrackBerry for the info about Heins huge payout if the company sold compare to what he got when it didn't and tell me what a compensation package like that had a purpose of.

Posted with a BlackBerry Z10

[lnichols]

Double post


Posted with a BlackBerry Z10

[crackbrry fan]

Look at the facts. Watsa was the one who RESTRUCTURED Heins deal that had him getting 40+ Million if BlackBerry sold. Prem was friends with Mike L and they personally picked Heins. Prem would have had his investment wash in a buyout where he was falling behind otherwise. Heins and his merry band of rejects appeared to botch every aspect of the Bb10 launch. When no one would buy the company, Heins was let go, at a much lower compensation than a sell, and Prem brought in someone to legitimately try and turn the company around. Do some research on CrackBerry for the info about Heins huge payout if the company sold compare to what he got when it didn't and tell me what a compensation package like that had a purpose of.

Posted with a BlackBerry Z10

I got that, however I don't agree, there were a number of things going on at the time, the BlackBerry 10 launch was late, the OS wasn't complete, the OS was different for consumers to get acquainted easily, there were returns going on because of the aforementioned, Heinz and Co. over estimated initial demand, they waited too long to release BlackBerry 10 whilst still holding onto BBOS7. In retrospect, I think and it's only my thoughts, is that they should have continued building on BBOS iterations, Then do a controlled release of BB10. It would have given them a little time to properly address the issues on 10.1. Without rushing and betting the house on it. Doing iterations of BBOS 8/ 9 etc would have slowed the hemorrhage on the loss of customer base, all the while maintaining a " fresh " presence till the proper premiere of BlackBerry 10. Right now Chen is essentially doing that with the "Classic " and at the same time, moving forward with "new" technologies " on the Passport. The re release of the Bold also should stop the existing customer base loss and they should remain for a while longer before the transition is finally complete. In conclusion I don't agree that there was some sort of conspiracy, I see it as yet another mistake made in a series of bungling from the original board and respective CEO 's, till Chen, got on Board, which so far has been a good thing. Heinz and the board panicked they should have never tried selling at that time, as it shook confidence ,which now needs and is being addressed by Chen and the current board. Additionally Heinz tried to be another Apple, not recognizing the strengths of BlackBerry.

Posted via CB10