1. bbmme's Avatar
    Damn right eh! Smart choice
    02-29-12 12:43 AM
  2. iN8ter's Avatar
    I presume all of that can be locked down thru IT policies, no?
    Yes. Exchange has had those policies for almost a decade now with no need for middleware to lock down an SD Card Slot or Camera. Microsoft will likely add PC components to that with the harder push they're doing for Tablet PCs of which one can expect some x86 variants will be available since there are x86 (Intel) Android phones coming out now.
    02-29-12 12:44 AM
  3. iN8ter's Avatar
    There is another government CIO without a clue about information security.
    That quote is hillarious, and so is your response.

    People seem to be banking on BB10 but they don't realize just hot hard it will be to get back in once businesses start getting rid of BES and other vendors like Apple and Google (or its OEM partners) start implementing more complete Exchange Policy support in their devices.

    I think RIM is doing everything it can to keep it's corporate offering tied to BES but competitors are starting to find a way to usurp that. Even stock Android is getting stronger there. It (ICS) actually has better Exchange Policy Support than iOS5 and WP7.5.

    Both iOS and Android device cameras can be disabled by the Exchange Server Policy. iPhones can have their browsers disabled by the Exchance Server.

    Exchange has policies to Disable OTA Updates, SMS/MMS, Camera, Removeable Storage (i.e. SD Card), Tethering, Roaming, POP3/IMAP and Consumer Email, Bluetooth, Browser, Wi-Fi, etc. and can force device Encryption as well as force a device to use Encrypted Email, among other things. For many of those policies if the device doesn't support them the device won't be allowed to connect to the Exchange server.

    So, in many cases for companies moving from BB to iPhones and Android devices, they simply did not need the extra security of the BB/BES because if they did they'd have equivalent policies set up in Exchange and iPhones and Androids in many cases wouldn't even be allowed to connect to the Exchange server. Do you seriously think businesses are putting themselves at risk in droves just so their workers can have cuter phones?

    People are simply waking up and smalling the coffee.

    1. Their workers don't like the Blackberries.
    2. BB = More Cost. Why pay for BES to do exactly what you can do with Vanilla Exchange, whilst having better device choice? Not only does BES have additional cost, but it's an additional support contract and potentially an additional employee in some cases, and the phones cost a lot cause most employees here won't buy their own BB - since they don't want one to begin with.

    Friend just got a corporate phone. They've stopped giving out blackberries and moved on to giving out Droid Bionics. This is same place I worked for a few years ago that had everything but blackberries banned for quite a while until they finally opened it up...
    Last edited by N8ter; 02-29-12 at 12:59 AM.
    02-29-12 12:46 AM
  4. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    All that rendered useless by a jailbreak or root. Who in the right mind would allow that on their personal mobile phone anyway?
    02-29-12 02:29 AM
  5. BB.David's Avatar
    I guess the U.S. Air Force is getting the iPad afterall:

    US Air Force Agrees to Purchase $9 Million Worth of iPads - Mac Rumors
    03-02-12 01:16 PM
  6. Hamp's Avatar
    The AMC (Air Mobility Command) will probably have the most use for them but AFSOC may not want them due to the nature of certain missions and the security of such. Air Force Special Ops Cancels iPad Procurement Plan | InvestorPlace

    This is probably what is happening. Each command can decide to get a contract. It doesn't mean that the iPad will/could be AF wide; just available for use within certain Wings or Units.

    - TSgt (Ret.)
    vgwillm and Superfly_FR like this.
    03-02-12 01:32 PM
  7. Economist101's Avatar
    The AMC (Air Mobility Command) will probably have the most use for them but AFSOC may not want them due to the nature of certain missions and the security of such. Air Force Special Ops Cancels iPad Procurement Plan | InvestorPlace

    This is probably what is happening. Each command can decide to get a contract. It doesn't mean that the iPad will/could be AF wide; just available for use within certain Wings or Units.

    - TSgt (Ret.)
    The plot thickens:

    Air Force Gives $9 Million Award for as Many as 18,000 IPads - Bloomberg
    03-02-12 02:22 PM
  8. qbnkelt's Avatar
    The AMC (Air Mobility Command) will probably have the most use for them but AFSOC may not want them due to the nature of certain missions and the security of such. Air Force Special Ops Cancels iPad Procurement Plan | InvestorPlace

    This is probably what is happening. Each command can decide to get a contract. It doesn't mean that the iPad will/could be AF wide; just available for use within certain Wings or Units.- TSgt (Ret.)

    THIS is the pertinent piece.
    These are not static programs with uniform requirements....no pun intended....
    03-02-12 02:29 PM
  9. undone's Avatar
    From the Bloomberg article:


    The type of iPad the command is buying retails for $599, Ferrero said. The Air Force would buy it at a discount for about $520 a device, she said. The product comes with wireless connectivity and 32 gigabytes of memory, she said.

    Funding Requests

    The contract allows the Air Force to buy as many as 18,000 of the devices within a year of the award date, which was yesterday, Ferrero said.

    �That doesn�t necessarily mean we�ll purchase all 18,000,� she said. �It�s contingent upon funding requests and approval.�

    The Air Force has already bought 63 iPad 2s from Executive Technology, Ferrero said. The devices will be delivered within 30 days and undergo testing, she said.

    The competition drew 24 proposals from interested companies, Ferrero said. She wouldn�t name the companies or say whether Cupertino, California-based Apple responded to the request. The command�s decision was based in part on the lowest- priced offer, she said.

    �It was open to everybody,� she said. �We weren�t going to any specific vendor.�
    REALLY? You couldnt get a better deal for 520 bucks? This smells like the air plane deal they tried to cook up that blew up in there face.
    03-02-12 02:32 PM
  10. Economist101's Avatar
    REALLY? You couldnt get a better deal for 520 bucks? This smells like the air plane deal they tried to cook up that blew up in there face.
    When the topic is U.S. Air Force procurement, "airplane deal" really isn't specific enough. But if you're referring to the tanker dust up, there were several issues there, and I don't think price was one of the key ones. Of course, had the deal originally been awarded to Boeing (U.S. based) and not the foreign consortium that deal wouldn't have created such rancor, but let's not get caught up in what's really going on.
    03-02-12 02:43 PM
  11. undone's Avatar
    When the topic is U.S. Air Force procurement, "airplane deal" really isn't specific enough. But if you're referring to the tanker dust up, there were several issues there, and I don't think price was one of the key ones. Of course, had the deal originally been awarded to Boeing (U.S. based) and not the foreign consortium that deal wouldn't have created such rancor, but let's not get caught up in what's really going on.
    My point was not the specifics of the Airbus/Boeing RFQ process and issues but more how someone caught wind of it screamed holy terror and then they where back into the bidding it over again. Same will happen here. Somehow someone will decry this (google, microsoft, rim, wont matter who) and the process will start over.
    03-02-12 02:50 PM
  12. Economist101's Avatar
    My point was not the specifics of the Airbus/Boeing RFQ process and issues but more how someone caught wind of it screamed holy terror and then they where back into the bidding it over again. Same will happen here. Somehow someone will decry this (google, microsoft, rim, wont matter who) and the process will start over.
    No, the same won't happen, because this deal didn't place what many believe to be a vital element of national defense in the hands of a foreign company. That was the issue in the tanker deal. It wasn't that Boeing complained; it was that Boeing complained about a deal given to a foreign company despite what Boeing argued was a comparable, Boeing-built alternative, and tankers are critical to air superiority.

    As for the companies you listed, Microsoft and Google don't manufacture tablet hardware. As for RIM, since it's Canadian I really doubt it objection would create a problem here. Conversely, if the Canadian military awarded a contract to RIM and Apple complained, I imagine the response would be something along the lines of "go &$@# yourself," and that's their right.
    03-02-12 02:58 PM
  13. undone's Avatar
    No, the same won't happen, because this deal didn't place what many believe to be a vital element of national defense in the hands of a foreign company. That was the issue in the tanker deal. It wasn't that Boeing complained; it was that Boeing complained about a deal given to a foreign company despite what Boeing argued was a comparable, Boeing-built alternative, and tankers are critical to air superiority.

    As for the companies you listed, Microsoft and Google don't manufacture tablet hardware. As for RIM, since it's Canadian I really doubt it objection would create a problem here. Conversely, if the Canadian military awarded a contract to RIM and Apple complained, I imagine the response would be something along the lines of "go &$@# yourself," and that's their right.
    But Boeing wasnt able to put together something that Air Force wanted so the contract was getting awarded to Airbus to build it. Enter in the cry foul....

    With Google owning Motorola now (more like deal to be completed soon) they have a stake in this. RIM has been used by the DoD for some time, so I cant see where suddenly this would be an issue.

    My point is, some one will cry foul...with or without some sort of factual reasoning.

    Personally I think a customized Android would be a better fit for the Government, but that's me.
    03-02-12 03:08 PM
  14. Economist101's Avatar
    But Boeing wasnt able to put together something that Air Force wanted so the contract was getting awarded to Airbus to build it. Enter in the cry foul....
    Someone always "cries foul," but it generally does not work. It worked on the tanker deal because the winner of the contract was a foreign company. Had the battle been between Boeing and another American company, the "cry foul" would not have had the same result. The reversal of the tanker deal smacked of nationalism, so let's not kid ourselves.

    As for what Boeing was or wasn't able to do, your description really isn't accurate. Boeing's issue in its application was that it took a different approach to solving the problem than Airbus did.

    RIM has been used by the DoD for some time, so I cant see where suddenly this would be an issue.
    You don't understand. I'm not claiming RIM being Canadian is an issue. What I'm saying is that RIM complaining about what the USAF does is less persuasive than, say, Microsoft, simply because RIM isn't a U.S. company. They cant play the "Americans can build X for the USAF just as well as those foreign companies" card like Boeing did, since be it Apple or RIM, we already know where the devices are being built, and it's not the U.S. in either case.
    03-02-12 03:22 PM
  15. xandermac's Avatar
    Hmmmmm


    http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/3/2/...pad-2-contract

    Edit: Should have looked closer. Already posted above.


    Sent from my iPhone4s using Tapatalk
    Last edited by xandermac; 03-02-12 at 03:26 PM.
    03-02-12 03:22 PM
  16. undone's Avatar
    Someone always "cries foul," but it generally does not work. It worked on the tanker deal because the winner of the contract was a foreign company. Had the battle been between Boeing and another American company, the "cry foul" would not have had the same result. The reversal of the tanker deal smacked of nationalism, so let's not kid ourselves.

    As for what Boeing was or wasn't able to do, your description really isn't accurate. Boeing's issue in its application was that it took a different approach to solving the problem than Airbus did.



    You don't understand. I'm not claiming RIM being Canadian is an issue. What I'm saying is that RIM complaining about what the USAF does is less persuasive than, say, Microsoft, simply because RIM isn't a U.S. company. They cant play the "Americans can build X for the USAF just as well as those foreign companies" card like Boeing did, since be it Apple or RIM, we already know where the devices are being built, and it's not the U.S. in either case.
    Ok you win...happy? I just dont agree.
    03-02-12 03:32 PM
  17. sleepngbear's Avatar
    Key points:

    The contract allows the Air Force to buy as many as 18,000 of the devices within a year of the award date, which was yesterday, Ferrero said.

    �That doesn�t necessarily mean we�ll purchase all 18,000,� she said. �It�s contingent upon funding requests and approval.�

    The Air Force has already bought 63 iPad 2s from Executive Technology, Ferrero said. The devices will be delivered within 30 days and undergo testing, she said.

    The competition drew 24 proposals from interested companies, Ferrero said. She wouldn�t name the companies or say whether Cupertino, California-based Apple responded to the request. The command�s decision was based in part on the lowest- priced offer, she said.

    �It was open to everybody,� she said. �We weren�t going to any specific vendor.�
    As I noted in another post, iPad is being considered as one option; but the purchase of 18,000 iPads is not carved in stone, and in fact highly unlikely. Part of that $9 mil will be spent on evaluation of the iPad and at least some of those 24 other options. Pretty sure there will be significantly less than that spent on actual procurement, and it's still very much up in the air how much of that will be spent on iPads.

    Typical exemplary journalism here makes virtually no effort to identify where any of the other 24 proposals came from. Another example of the Apple marketing machine in action. Before you anti-conspiracy militants jump down my throat, I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just making an observation.
    recompile likes this.
    03-03-12 02:54 AM
  18. vgwillm's Avatar
    Actually they will have both, just depends which unit orders which model and what the use will be. I have seen both in action. Not sure how many of each will be picked at the end of ordering.

    Ones i have seen...

    PB used for projects and meetings
    iPAD used for Lang training, medical training/ref.
    Superfly_FR likes this.
    03-03-12 03:02 AM
43 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD