BlackBerry Forums Support Community
              

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-29-2005, 07:40 AM   #41 (permalink)
CrackBerry Addict
 
sempai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Providence, RI, US
Model: 8xxx
Carrier: T-Mobile, US
Posts: 728
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Please Login to Remove!

Quote:
Originally Posted by blkberryboy
This brings up a great question begging to be asked. How can RIM or T-Mobile consider the Microsoft option after T-Mobile has invested so much in BlackBerry. Last thing I read was T-Mo sells the most BB's, if that is the case would they really try and jump ship? Thoughts on this would be appriciated.
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.
__________________
Offline  
Old 06-29-2005, 03:35 PM   #42 (permalink)
CrackBerry Addict
 
T-Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Model: 8800
Carrier: Darth Vader
Posts: 704
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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?
Offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 06:53 AM   #43 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
blkberryboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dearborn, MI
Model: Repl.
Carrier: Cingular/ATT
Posts: 1,146
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
JASON
iTurned to the darkside.
Offline  
Old 06-30-2005, 08:59 PM   #44 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Model: 8100
Carrier: Cingular
Posts: 157
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
Offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 05:59 PM   #45 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Model: 7100T
Carrier: ATT
Posts: 51
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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!
Offline  
Old 07-01-2005, 08:25 PM   #46 (permalink)
BlackBerry Extraordinaire
 
barjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Riverside, CA
Model: 8700
Carrier: AT&T
Posts: 1,068
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
John

For more information see barJohn Reviews It
Active PIN 203A5535
Offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 02:11 PM   #47 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Model: 7100T
Carrier: ATT
Posts: 51
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Looks like even rim have there little caveats
Offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 08:37 PM   #48 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
earpon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Orlando, FL
Model: 8900
OS: v1.231
PIN: 24B4E64D
Carrier: T-Mobile USA
Posts: 191
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

If this is truly coming out in the near future? RIM should have some plans on making a better one.
__________________
Proud owner of a BB 8900.
YM: evwarpon, AIM: Tremor223
Txxx8729;xxx8729;xxx8729;Mobile ... Stick Together.
Offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 08:49 PM   #49 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Model: lots
Carrier: t-mobile
Posts: 75
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

RIM needs to make a better product regardless of what anybody else is doing.
Offline  
Old 07-02-2005, 10:27 PM   #50 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Model: 7130e
Carrier: VZW
Posts: 444
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by southwestcomm
While I like the idea of the solution I just don't trust Microworst to really have a solid solution. They couldn't get the MPX product right and even Cingular quietly pulled the product from their product line.
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.
Offline  
Old 07-03-2005, 11:27 PM   #51 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Model: 7100g
Posts: 13
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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"

Quote:
By eliminating the NOC, isnít this solution less secure? This is among my favorite questions, and itís usually followed up with some hand-waving about the connection to the enterprise "somehow" getting "hijacked." The answer is, it is exactly as secure as the last online purchase you made with your credit card, exactly as secure as the last time you checked your email with OWA, and exactly as secure as the last time you used Outlook with RPC-over-HTTP. That is, we use SSL (which itself negotiates over-the-wire encryption using RC4 or 3DES) to communicate between the device and the server. I suppose that you could run this with SSL disabled, but you also risk a concussion if you run top-speed into a brick wall. Just a little fyi.
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."
Offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 12:21 AM   #52 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Rancor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Dathomir
Model: 7730
Carrier: Zefr
Posts: 171
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

heh "Big Bada Boom"
__________________
!

Last edited by Rancor : 07-04-2005 at 12:28 AM. Reason: wasn't what I was going to grunt
Offline  
Old 07-04-2005, 11:30 PM   #53 (permalink)
Thumbs Must Hurt
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: emeryville, ca
Model: 9700
Carrier: att
Posts: 68
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
Offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 04:41 AM   #54 (permalink)
cmk
Knows Where the Search Button Is
 
cmk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Germany
Model: n/a
Posts: 35
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Holy mother of HOT.
Offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 11:01 AM   #55 (permalink)
Talking BlackBerry Encyclopedia
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Virginia Beach, VA
Model: 7130e
Carrier: VZW
Posts: 444
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenemery
for larger biz's that's no big deal or cost. for smaller biz it is a deal killer.
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.
Offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 11:35 AM   #56 (permalink)
CrackBerry Addict
 
sempai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Providence, RI, US
Model: 8xxx
Carrier: T-Mobile, US
Posts: 728
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenemery
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.
How do you figure?
__________________
Offline  
Old 07-05-2005, 03:26 PM   #57 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Model: 7100g
Posts: 13
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lenemery
but, current msft exchange server activesynch requires a 'front end" exchange server outside of your firewall or your lan security is unacceptably weakened.
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.
Offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 12:55 PM   #58 (permalink)
CrackBerry Addict
 
T-Roy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Model: 8800
Carrier: Darth Vader
Posts: 704
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
Offline  
Old 07-06-2005, 01:31 PM   #59 (permalink)
CrackBerry Addict
 
sempai's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Providence, RI, US
Model: 8xxx
Carrier: T-Mobile, US
Posts: 728
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

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.
__________________
Offline  
Old 07-07-2005, 02:55 PM   #60 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Model: 7100g
Posts: 13
Post Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
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
Offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Vintage Letterpress Print Type Ornament "An Apple A Day Bugs The A.M.A." Adcut
$9.5
Vintage Letterpress Print Type Ornament Vintage Letterpress Print Type Ornament Apple for Teacher Adcut
$9.5
Vintage Letterpress Print Type Ornament Apple for Teacher Adcut pictureVtg Vernier System Parts Kit PGK-DG-Photogate Windows Macintosh CBL IBM Apple2
$14.99
Vtg Vernier System Parts Kit PGK-DG-Photogate Windows Macintosh CBL IBM Apple2 pictureVINTAGE Photo Box with Handle and Index Holder - apple for a day floral design
$9.99
VINTAGE Photo Box with Handle and Index Holder - apple for a day floral design pictureVintage APPLE RED Retro SWINGLINE CUB Small Desk Top Stapler So CUTE
$8.95
Vintage APPLE RED Retro SWINGLINE CUB Small Desk Top Stapler So CUTE picture






Copyright © 2004-2016 BlackBerryForums.com.
The names RIM © and BlackBerry © are registered Trademarks of BlackBerry Inc.