It doesn't bother T-Mobile one lick if you use something else.

The operators will do anything to make money - including bend the truth. It shouldn't surprise you they'll do anything to make a buck ;)

The thing is, Microsoft's solution doesn't require any infrastructure to make it work, as far as the operator is concerned. The Microsoft way is nice because it puts the onnus on the end user for buying a device that can speak it, and the IT departments and email providers that want to offer the service.

It cuts down on costs for T-Mobile and others dramatically while providing a similar service. T-Mobile can start selling the devices and plans, and doesn't have to foot the bill for any new in-house infrastructure? They're probably chomping at the bit.

I am not sure if mobile carriers are "tied" to BlackBerry. BlackBerry gives them a lot of revenue, but any data does because they charge so much. I think they will all want to widen their portfolios to offer as much as they can to as many customers they can. That doesn't mean one is better than the other by no means.

BlackBerry seems more tightly integrated to the wireless network to achive its push. It seems to me that when a phone or handheld registeres on the wireless network (which it has to do anyway), the wireless network tells/checks blackberry and pushes new information to the handheld? maybe?

Ok... I see your points, but all I can say is that my expirence hen I was in purchasing, once you go down a road with a company and invest heavily in the resources to support said products, we as a company were ofter resistant to change and we not necessarily early adapters with new technology(ies). I was just curious as to if, say T-Mobile, would jump of trot to join in the market? Time will tell I guess.

I won't get in the middle of this argument but I think I saw somewhere that Exchange has about 40% of the e-mail market??? Novell GroupWise, Notes, etc..will still need a solution no?

I won't even get into our experience with MS smartphones.

I HATED the h6315 with a PASSION! It was a horrid device with terrible UI and lack of keyboard (builtin).

The next wave of SmartPhones will be tight, though. I've seen some of the prototypes and they're awesome!

Well to further fuel the discussion, I just tested the 4.0.2.30 upgrade for the 7100t and it fails to resolve the sound quality/Bluettoth issues so it will be back to 3.8 with all of its bugs. So much for a solid reliable OS and phone from RIM.

Looks like even rim have there little caveats

If this is truly coming out in the near future? RIM should have some plans on making a better one.

RIM needs to make a better product regardless of what anybody else is doing.

What am I missing here?

I thought the MPx bombed because of lack of memory and other Motorola hardware-centric issues. What did Microsoft have to do with that? The very same Microsoft OS that came on the unsuccesful MPX is on many of the other very successful Pocket PC Phones, like the i-mate JAM and i-mate PDA2K.

My major disfunction with the BlackBerry device has been and will always be BES. I am a home user; in that I don't work for anyone and I just have a server at home. I am not about to pay $1,500 extra to have yet another software suite to handle e-mail so that I can have it on my device. I love the devices (I worked for a mortgage co that had the Nextel 7510's) and I was smitten to say the least. But when I quit and tried to replicate at with my "personal" device I found it damn near impossible to afford.

I already have exchange (I have a server running MS SBS 2003 Great deal if anyone cared to know); why should I have a similar application to tackle a similar problem...distributing e-mails.

As for security do any of you guys use OWA (Outlook Web Access)?? If you use OWA you are using the same exact protocol...you guys posted the article but obviously missed this point. From "Solving the Phone Synchronization Problem End-to-End"

Beyond all of this...bottom line is that if MS came out with a decent product. People would complain, that is what consumers do. They love to hate someone. They address the issues...and they could have done better. It's a no win situation for the most part for them; personally I love the strides their making.

My personal opinion is that between the upcoming devices in the caliber of the Samsung SCH-i730 (which I hear will get WM5), and E2K3 SP2 Microsoft and partners could have RIM's back up against the wall. "'Leverage,' says you. 'I think I feel a change in the wind,' says I."

heh "Big Bada Boom"

i used windows mobile phone edition w exchange 03 for over a year. it never ever crashed. (cf to wm2003 which crashes so often it's abnormal when it doesnt).

but, current msft exchange server activesynch requires a 'front end" exchange server outside of your firewall or your lan security is unacceptably weakened.

for larger biz's that's no big deal or cost. for smaller biz it is a deal killer.

Holy mother of HOT.

FWIW, I'd guess that the majority of smaller bizs don't use DMZs and just have their Exchange box hanging off of a router that's acting as their firewall.

How do you figure?

I have an Axim that I sync with...and I don't need my exchange server out from behind my ISA2004 (<- Server class MS firewall)...which is pretty freaking sweet if I might add...

I'm not a security guru...nor do I claim to be...but I don't see how this setup in SP2 is in anyway different than the current settings of OWA if you have it or use it...your already at the comprible risk level. I just think this is one of those 'Chicken Little' things where people claim the sky is falling. It hasn't fallen yet people! Or at least not in my opinion.

I don't beleive your Axim is cellular? It connects via WIFI behind your firewall to the public world. GPRS/1X networks needs to connect via public infrastructure, ie Internet to your Exchange Server which is where the security concerns are... Many organizations also consider OWA insecure but if your already using it then your right it I don't think its very different.

It would be exactly the same.

OWA and ActiveSync both use HTTPS as the transport. If you think you know better than cryptographers regarding X.509 and SSL, then by all means, don't use it.

From a cryptographic standpoint, a BlackBerry is just as "secure" to a mobile phone using ActiveSync.

There are some organizations that choose not to have Exchange touch the Internet. I think this is wise. These organizations use a more robust inbound MTA which shuttles mail back to the Exchange server. This prohibits to use of OWA et al unless you're also supporting VPNs or similar.

That is an interesting idea...

My question I guess is how does Exchange route the mail to DNS? And how does the mail get routed back down if not through a direct connection? Just seems like we have reached the limits of my mortal mind

That's what we do. All our Internet mail goes through a Sendmail gateway.

Exchange doesn't route the mail to DNS.

DNS just tells Exchange (and other MTA's) where to attempt delivery if it hasn't been told otherwise.

You can do smartrelay with sendmail and postfix; so you have a mail exchange handing incoming and outgoing email on the perimeter of your network. You do your content scanning or spam filtering there, and then relay mail back to your Exchange server for delivery to mailboxes.

Then, you can tell Exchange to do the same for outgoing mail - use the SMTP relay outside to handle outbound mail.

Then you can focus on performance of your Exchange server as a repository instead of managing insane queues on something like Windows. You're effectively offloading the SMTP duties onto something else that is better qualified for it.

Extremely informative...
Now in this situation would this change the performance of the Exchange server...essentially making it quicker? And as a by product "safer"?