Interesting pivot in the approach to the enterprise phone market
-
HP is releasing a Windows 10 Mobile device aimed at the enterprise. This seems like an interesting riposte to the BYOD craze: https://www.thurrott.com/hardware/64677/elite-x3-hp-takes-windows-phone-enterprise.
-
Me and a buddy of mine have been talking about a setup like this for years... over some type of Wireless... although, I'm not sure the video would work well enough for watching videos and such on the "Laptop" module via WiFi... but I could be wrong.
-
What excites me the most about this, isn't the actual device necessarily, but the promise of the concept. This moves the idea of one device doing all of our computing from concept to reality. It doesn't meet my needs per se, but it meets many needs in the larger universe of compute. I also like the fact that this is a way to say "screw you" to the carriers who have never worked for the customers' best interest in any way.
-
I'm not really sure how this is saying "screw you" to the carriers, but I agree this is a pretty nice setup for the business person on the go.
The question is - will it have enough power and app depth to cover what they want? Also, will the price be lower than a laptop and phone combo? Also will the weight be less?
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm not really sure how this is saying "screw you" to the carriers, but I agree this is a pretty nice setup for the business person on the go.
Only in so much as the device is being purchased through HP and not a carrier.
So people will only need a SIM and service. Yes, you can do that now with other devices, but since the devices have no other use, very few people do.
-
LG is doing something similar with the G5 and it's "Friends"
http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/22/11091552/lg-g5-design-friends-mwc-2016
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm not really sure how this is saying "screw you" to the carriers, but I agree this is a pretty nice setup for the business person on the go.
There is a not insignificant amount of revenue gained from selling upmarket phones, and that is where many of businesses go because they need the performance.
-
I suppose the other screw you is that the carrier can't put their crap on the device.
It would be awesome to see Best Buy and other retailer selling more unlocked non network based devices - but we have a problem in the US
You often can't switch between providers with the same device.
I think AT&T phones can go to T-mobile and vice versa, but definitely can't go to Sprint or Verizon, and Sprint nor Verizon phones can go anywhere else.
The frequency lock-in almost makes this a non issue from a carrier perspective. They know that if a CDMA phone is sold - it's only going to Sprint or Verizon (one, not both), with GSM, ok the consumer has a choice.
We in the USA have much less choice than they do in other parts of the world because of this.
-
@Kelly said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not really sure how this is saying "screw you" to the carriers, but I agree this is a pretty nice setup for the business person on the go.
There is a not insignificant amount of revenue gained from selling upmarket phones, and that is where many of businesses go because they need the performance.
I don't understand?
This device seems aimed at businesses that will provide a phone the employee, not a BOYD type device - I say not BOYD because the app gap will keep employees from buying it.
So now you have a situation where people will have to carry two devices - one personal and one business. My question is - will that ever fly again as a standard? Even as a standard for higher end business people?
-
Didn't Motorolla try something similar to this anyway?
I think @Dashrender has a good point about buying two devices again.
-
I think two phones should be normative. I'm probably in the minority, but I don't like BYOD. Can you consider a phone a secure business device if it is used for Netflix, Candy Crush, and for keeping the 3 year old quiet? This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way. The "app gap" is almost a feature :). I'm not sure I'm communicating clearly, but even if this is not currently the standard, it should be.
-
@Kelly said:
This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way.
For companies that depend on the LAN and can't figure out BYOD. As someone who spent a long time in this world where a second phone was needed, it caused revolt. People just stopped working rather than keep the device charged, protected, etc. It's horrible, especially when the device starts becoming enormous like this. If this was my only device, sure, but as a second "carry this around all the time" no thanks.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way.
For companies that depend on the LAN and can't figure out BYOD. As someone who spent a long time in this world where a second phone was needed, it caused revolt. People just stopped working rather than keep the device charged, protected, etc. It's horrible, especially when the device starts becoming enormous like this. If this was my only device, sure, but as a second "carry this around all the time" no thanks.
Was there a specific reason you excluded the forgoing portion of my post? It seems that those considerations are very germane to the discussion. Yes, people revolt at even the slightest inconvenience, but that doesn't mean it is in the best interest of the business to cater to them even at a larger inconvenience like having two phones (one of which replaces their laptop).
-
BYOD was never something that was good in the view of securing and maintaining company communications. It was initially a way to save money, and then became normal.
-
@Kelly said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
This is a significant orientation change in my opinion. It is putting a small computing device in the hands of employees that can be secured and controlled in a major way.
For companies that depend on the LAN and can't figure out BYOD. As someone who spent a long time in this world where a second phone was needed, it caused revolt. People just stopped working rather than keep the device charged, protected, etc. It's horrible, especially when the device starts becoming enormous like this. If this was my only device, sure, but as a second "carry this around all the time" no thanks.
Was there a specific reason you excluded the forgoing portion of my post? It seems that those considerations are very germane to the discussion. Yes, people revolt at even the slightest inconvenience, but that doesn't mean it is in the best interest of the business to cater to them even at a larger inconvenience like having two phones (one of which replaces their laptop).
Well it becomes a thing to workaround, based on the company not figuring out a better way to do things. It's an invite to revolt NOT because it is good for the company but because it is a company that is lazy.
I left off the first part because I didn't feel that it applied. BYOD is extremely secure, if companies need mobile devices on their LANs I think they've lost the security battle already in most cases.
-
@Kelly said:
BYOD was never something that was good in the view of securing and maintaining company communications. It was initially a way to save money, and then became normal.
I don't agree. I think BYOD caused modern security to happen. It wasn't about saving money, it was about better design. Once you went to what I call the "citadel" design of your network, BYOD was trivial. In the enterprise, I saw functionality drive BYOD, not cost savings. The cost savings thing I only heard about in the SMB a decade later.
-
As an individual product - meh.
As the first of a new line of windows 10 mobile devices... could be interesting. I like the focus on one device with the brains that docks with everything else. I could see this having legs.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Kelly said:
BYOD was never something that was good in the view of securing and maintaining company communications. It was initially a way to save money, and then became normal.
I don't agree. I think BYOD caused modern security to happen. It wasn't about saving money, it was about better design. Once you went to what I call the "citadel" design of your network, BYOD was trivial. In the enterprise, I saw functionality drive BYOD, not cost savings. The cost savings thing I only heard about in the SMB a decade later.
I feel like I'm inviting a @scottalanmiller firehose of information here, but what functionality gains were seen by using BYOD? The devices were unchanged generally. Perhaps it is the difference in our experiences, but I don't even see how what your describing makes any sense. The decade thing seems a bit farfetched as BYOD really only became a thing, in SMB afaik, in the late aughts. To put enterprise BYOD back into the late '90's seems a bit incredible.
-
@Kelly said:
Perhaps it is the difference in our experiences, but I don't even see how what your describing makes any sense. The decade thing seems a bit farfetched as BYOD really only became a thing, in SMB afaik, in the late aughts. To put enterprise BYOD back into the late '90's seems a bit incredible.
SMB wasn't really into quite by then and by the early 2000s it was old hat in the enterprise space.
-
@Kelly said:
I feel like I'm inviting a @scottalanmiller firehose of information here, but what functionality gains were seen by using BYOD? The devices were unchanged generally.
Devices didn't change, but thinking did. The era before BYOD people used to assume that end points were secure. Of course, they are not. The changes were that the network was designed such that BYOD happened naturally by securing resources assuming that the end points were insecure. They didn't do it "for" BYOD, BYOD became a natural extension of the improvements in security.
