iPhone gaining acceptance as Business phone

http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20...nfoworld/95192

---

› See More: iPhone gaining acceptance as Business phone

On Feb 11, 7:53*pm, Ron <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/infoworld/20...nfoworld/95192

I like this example from that article...

Mark Russell, vice president of sales and marketing at U-Line, a
Milwaukee-based manufacturer of under-counter icemakers and
refrigerators, had an iPhone for fun and a Nokia E70 for work until he
accidentally crushed the Nokia device in his mother-in-law's recliner.
Instead of getting a new E70, he asked IT to sync his iPhone with the
corporate Exchange server.

"Our IT guy was nervous at first, but when Visto added iPhone
capability to its Visto Enterprise Server, he gave it a try," Russell
says, referring to the mobile messaging service provider, Visto. U-
Line was already using Visto to sync its smartphones with Exchange.

Russell is perfectly happy with his business iPhone and has no
intention of repurchasing the Nokia or any other device. And according
to Daniel Koshute, U-Line systems administrator, several other
employees are ready to make the switch as well.

The above examples are not unique. Like the PDAs, USB storage devices,
and Wi-Fi devices that came before it, the iPhone is pushing its way
through the side door of today's enterprises, thanks to a sexy
interface, a superior mobile browser, and executive pressure.

"Apple has definitely achieved its goal of making you smile every time
you press a keystroke," says Ken Dulaney, an analyst at Gartner.

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 09:35:17 -0500, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article
><c96d9ba7-eb38-49fd-a9c7-ff7c075a3a01@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The above examples are not unique. Like the PDAs, USB storage devices,
>> and Wi-Fi devices that came before it, the iPhone is pushing its way
>> through the side door of today's enterprises, thanks to a sexy
>> interface, a superior mobile browser, and executive pressure.
>
>Just like Macintosh computers.


Regretably Macintosh computers are not expanding in Fortune 500
companies. Microsoft has successfully spread the myth that it costs
more and is more difficult to support two platforms than one.

And if you had a Mac Server, Mac System Admins tend to look like
anarchists, which turns off anal-retentive IT managers.

At 12 Feb 2008 14:57:23 +0000 Ron wrote:

> Regretably Macintosh computers are not expanding in Fortune 500
> companies. Microsoft has successfully spread the myth that it costs
> more and is more difficult to support two platforms than one.


I'm not sure that's the issue as much as the fact that Apple offers very
little Enterprise support. It's sort of a catch 22- Enterprise customers
don't use Apple because of the limited support, and Apple offers little
support because Enterprise customers don't use Apple products...

In message <[email protected]> Ron
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Regretably Macintosh computers are not expanding in Fortune 500
>companies. Microsoft has successfully spread the myth that it costs
>more and is more difficult to support two platforms than one.

And they're correct, it does. If users could cut over to OSX entirely,
and if IT had staff capable of supporting OSX already, then it might not
be as substantial an investment.

In the real world, despite having a large number of OSX fans in my
circle of friends, each and every one has Windows installed, either
using parallels or bootcamp. There are various reasons, but ultimately
it comes down to one or more mission critical applications require
Windows.

The result is that those users have 100% of the security and
administration issues of Windows, plus the various OSX issues to handle.
Oh, and they not only pay a premium for Apple hardware, but still have
to purchase a second OS too -- This substantially increases the
acquisition costs.

Now that OSX has enough of a market share to sneeze at, malware authors
are starting to notice it exists, and make no mistake, the vast majority
of zombied Windows boxes out there had their zombie installed by the
user, in the form of a trojan hose delivery system. No operating system
which allows user installable programs is invulnerable to a user willing
to unwittingly grant root level access to malware.

If you're a Microsoft shop, you likely don't have anyone in IT capable
of supporting the OSX platform, which means you need to either train
staff, or hire staff. Since in a parallels installation, both operating
systems have access to each other, you really *need* someone competanent
to manage both.

Depending on your environment, OSX may not be a bad choice, but it costs
more to support additional platforms -- This is just as true if your
default position is OSX, and suddenly you have a Windows junkie who
insists on sticking with their platform of choice -- This post isn't to
dump on OSX, it's simply a representation of the facts of life being a
significant underdog.