[Macworld]

Post your comments for iPhone 2.0 beta gets hands-on test at major financial firm here

[montgomery_burns]

"A clear concern is that iPhones 2.0 is likely to require using iTunes, given that the current version of the smart phone requires the Apple-built application."

It's a good point. In many corporations, end user PC's are often locked down so tight that people can't even install iTunes. So end users cannot even activate an iPhone from their work computers. Hopefully there will be a way for corporations to activate and distribute iPhones to their employees without requiring employees to have iTunes on their PC's, or requiring employees to sign up for iTunes accounts.

One reason why the Blackberry is attractive to corporations is that it does not require any software to be installed on the employee's computer. The Blackberry receives all data wirelessly from the server, thus eliminating some PC support issues.

While iPhone 2.0 is supposed to support push email, push calendar and push contacts, there is still no word regarding support for Notes and Tasks content on Exchange servers. Support for Notes and Tasks is a crucial Exchange client feature, one that Microsoft seems to purposely cripple in Entourage. And while Leopard Mail may have its own implementation of Notes and To Do's (which have yet to sync with iPhone), they do not provide as much functionality as Exchange Notes and Tasks. For example, Exchange Notes and Tasks folders can be shared with other users. So a secretary using Outlook can enter items in the boss's Task list and it will show up on the boss's handheld, for example. Finally, it's worth remembering that not all iPhone users are Mac users. Hell, these days not all Mac users are Mac OS users.

[lenn]

Most IT people i've known resist anything new that will force them to change the way they do things. Put on top of that most IT people's negative attitude towards the MacOS.
IT people are telling anyone who will listen that the iphone isn't secure without any facts to back it up.
lenn

[montgomery_burns]

In all fairness, IT people are not the only ones engaging in dubious statements:

http://weblog.infowo...s_blackber.html

[woode]

"...the Safari browser is not standard enough to interoperate with already crafted custom applications."
You mean, "Safari isn't Internet Explorer, which poorly-written custom applications require to run," don't you? I'd argue that Safari on the Mac and Mobile Safari on the iPhone are far more standards compliant than IE. (See results of Acid2 and Acid3 tests). And have you forgotten the numerous announcements of CRM and enterprise software packages that were declared ready for the iPhone?

[Jeffco8]

As a web developer and designer I create sites based on standards then spend the rest of my time fixing IE incompatibility issues. Banks and large corporations code to IE's proprietary non-conformities and ignore other users.
The bottom line here is the iPhone and iPod touch will represent the largest mobile platform, which will be difficult for these companies to ignore. They may actually have to code to standards!
Then again with Safari and the Mac approaching 10% of web traffic many of these companies continue to ignore this market segment on their websites. I still receive notices telling me to switch to Firefox or even IE!

[dssstrkl]

My company allows iTunes, but blocks the iTunes Store (phobos.apple.com), as well as certain podcasts like anything from Revision3. If they configure their firewall properly, there shouldn't be any problems with iTunes sucking up bandwidth.
Even though several people have mentioned this already, I just need to join the questioning about Safari not being standard enough, where by "not standard," they clearly mean "not IE." Just as another example, my company's internal apps use Java that work with IE and Safari, but not Firefox (weird). The IT guys bitch and moan about the Mac stuff, but the company needs to keep all us scientists happy!

[Luis_Alejandro]

quote:
On March 18, Gartner issued a report raising its assessment of the device, saying that iPhone 2.0 “corrects the basic omissions of the first iPhone release … and [iPhone] becomes attractive to enterprises.”
Or, maybe, it was the whole Apple's strategy!
Deliver a non-business iPhone, so to be free to test it in the consumers' market... and after conquering the soul of the masses, add up whatever it needs to become a goof business-citizen.

[fibercut]

lenn said:

Most IT people i've known resist anything new that will force them to change the way they do things. Put on top of that most IT people's negative attitude towards the MacOS.

IT people are telling anyone who will listen that the iphone isn't secure without any facts to back it up.

lenn

I see this also in my world and it is sad. On a bright note I am seeing a crack in management's attitude because of yearly Windows domain licensing costs. That should be Network worlds next story.

[zekeg]

Apple should be able to write an enterprise version of ITunes that lets corporations design their personalized options easily and restrict things it does not want usable.
ZekeG