The guys from ifixit.com flew all the way to NZ to be 4th in line to buy the iPhone G3 as early as possible. And then they went home to take it apart! This is my favorite bit of the post:
The recycle marker on the battery is blacked out with a sharpie. Suspicious...
Sigh, it bugs me how Apple has yet to figure out how to be more eco-friendly. C'mon Apple, don't forget your progressive roots.
iPhone 3G - iFixit: iPod, iBook, & PowerBook Parts and Accessories
The judges upheld the verdict in Quon v. Arch Wireless, which determined that if an employer contracts with an outside provider for messaging -- as most do -- it does not have the right to ask the service provider for transcripts of the text messages employees send out. The same concept can be applied to e-mail communications if the employer outsources that service instead of maintaining it on an internal server.
When I heard this recent ruling I was struck by how it contradicts most US corporate attitudes, especially regarding e-mail. In the United States corporations take the position (and policy) that corporate provided e-mail content is property of the enterprise and employees should have no expectation of privacy. I won't get into whether I think this is good idea or not, it's just they way things are in the US (BTW the attitudes are much different in the EU and other parts of the world).
So why then should users expect privacy when texting? The primary difference is where the information is managed and stored. According to the ruling, if information is hosted by an outside provider and not the employer, then privacy can be assumed. If it's hosted on servers owned by the employer, then privacy should not be expected. This covers any information including e-mail, texting, chat logs, documents and files. Given that model, then one can expect that SaaS-based information management includes privacy and on-premises applications do not imply privacy. Regardless of who's paying for it.
This may throw a spanner in the works of cloud computing for some organizations. Smaller organizations may have no choice and need to figure out other ways to keep tabs on information in the cloud (e.g., journaling and archiving on corporate servers). Larger organizations may select specific users that will not be allowed to work in the cloud. Compliance audits and e-discovery will likely be tested by legal teams citing the ruling as a reason for not providing information.
But here's the real mind-spinning contradiction: the recent US FISA Amendments Act not only paves the way for the US Government to perform un-warranted search and surveillance of hosted information sources but also grants immunity to providers who have already violated customers privacy.
E-Commerce News: Privacy: Workplace Text-Messaging Ruling Wows Privacy Advocates
Sign of the times...
Having an Exchange server in the mix also opens up other possibilities, like further integration with our Cisco VoIP system, integration with some of our manufacturing equipment & systems and even prompted some discussion on evaluating SharePoint instead of Quickr (which we’re now doing).
Read the full blog post for the entire story of how the iPhone is introducing Exchange into a Notes/Domino shop. It's a stark reality check if you think e-mail is dead. Nothing is more disruptive than what's happening in this story and e-mail continues to drive major enterprise decisions. Lately, my friend Volker has had a lot to say on IBM Lotus' iPhone missed opportunity, especially in his June 11th post on mobile support in Notes/Domino. It could be the chink in the Notes armor that Microsoft has been waiting for. Who knew it would come from an Apple device?
I couldn't resist this Consumerist headline to once more validate my opinion that Apple users suffer from "battered customer syndrome." Before you get started on what must be my dogmatic sense of loyalty to the PC, I assure you that I bear no religious affinity for anything technical. I do, however, have my opinions. Lately I've been struggling with the whole Apple market. Yea I like what they have to offer and the local influences (I live in Hollywood) are impressive. My problem is that every time I look at what it'll cost me I break out into cold sweats followed by intense indignation. I want to avoid the pain that I see many of my closest friends go through every time Apple introduces a new sexy thing and they need to shell out more bucks to get "a fix". I've literally been given strategies on when to purchase Apple equipment to get the best deal so I won't feel so bad (read ripped-off) when the price drops hundreds of dollars just weeks after I make the purchase (that's the voice of experience).
Just as I began to ready my argument - bolstered by the following juicy quote and table - for the weekly pub night/Apple love-in I attend, I had to stop myself and check my facts.
The new iPhone is not more affordable. Anyone deceived by Apple's lower price point is going to get a nasty wake-up call when they read their first bill...
The quote is more like one of those passionate cries from an audience that is used to being jerked around and are constantly looking for the hook in a good story. It's the waitaminute syndrome asking "why is Apple giving me a $200 break?" Mind you PC users are skeptics too - it's all good in my opinion. But the truth, in this case, lies somewhere else. The real situation is that the iPhone 3G is actually putting the iPhone into cellular mainstream. As I looked at the numbers provided in the article I decided to do some price comparisons of other carriers and phones. I came up with the following:
My criteria for the comparison included: touch navigation, unlimited data, ~200 SMS messages, and smartphone features. I decided to toss in a BlackBerry comparison for grins. Interestingly the iPhone 3G falls between the competitors prices. In other words the iPhone Original is a actually good deal, and as Gizmodo points out, the iPhone 3G costs more because it is better, uses a faster network, ya da da, ya da da.
What's really depressing me about this is that the iPhone represented a new paradigm for mobile technology, especially pricing models. I liked the fact that iPhone users could get the voice, SMS messaging, and unlimited data for the same price I am paying for my Verizon voice-only plan (BTW: I'm a reluctant Verizon Wireless customer). Sadly that model is going the way of the cellular gulag that all the rest of us are putting up with; 2 year lock-in contracts, paying both ways for SMS with no opt out (IMHO that should be illegal), and paying through the nose for service that constantly drops out on me even though I am in a major metropolitan area (OK there are some canyons, but not on Santa Monica Freeway).
If Apple wanted to be truly revolutionary they could leverage their popularity and strength to break the full nelson that cellular companies have on American consumers (can't speak for other markets). Realistically I recognize that Apple is in the hardware business and not the revolution business (despite advertising claims). It's up to consumers to demand better deals and service. In the meantime we'll keep buying what's offered. I realize that cellular service is expensive to provide and that devices aren't cheap. But, like the airline business, the cellular companies have given the impression that it's cheap by literally "giving away" devices to lock us into expensive and hard to break contracts with mediocre customer service.Talk about battered customers!
IPhone: The New $199 iPhone Is $160 More Expensive Than The $399 iPhone It Replaced. What?
Yesterday I was asked to comment on a series of blog posts my colleague Guy Creese recently made regarding Google Apps for the enterprise and how I felt about his commentary. For background here are links to the posts in Guy's blog, Pattern Finder:
The person who asked my opinion was concerned that Guy was being too biased towards Google in his posts and what I thought about his commentary, especially regarding the challenges he's posited to Microsoft. I think this is a great discussion and thought that I'd share it with you as well.
I actually agree with Guy’s observations on the situation. First, in my opinion, I don’t feel that Guy has ever sung the praises of Google or Gmail as an enterprise solution. I've always found his commentary to be thoughtful and he hasn't been afraid to point out the warts. Read the Guy's recently updated report "Google Apps in the Enterprise: A Promotion-Enhancing or Career-Limiting Move for Enterprise Architects?" if you want proof. However Guy has highlighted some very important dynamics that are making Google disruptive for enterprise e-mail vendors including Microsoft, IBM, and Novell.
Some customers that we’ve spoken with have said that Google Apps is 10% the cost of their current e-mail system (Exchange or other). A 20% savings might not be worth the effort and disruption of changing the e-mail system and the organization can likely manage to squeeze out a 20% savings from within their current environment. However, an enterprise would be negligent if it did not investigate something that might mean a 90% savings. That is what is making Google so disruptive. It isn’t a foregone conclusion that the customer will switch to Google but they at least should do their homework and find out what they are getting for their money. This investigation will likely include looking at other hosted options, including hosted Exchange. The problem Microsoft is facing is a market perception that Microsoft is more expensive. Right now Microsoft is offering entitlements for customers for its hosted services; however that doesn’t address how it will make Exchange less expensive over time. If hosted Exchange could beat Google’s price (say $40 per user, per year) then Microsoft would likely find itself inundated with phone calls for the service.
I also agree with Guy’s reaction to the numbers provided in the Cemaphore Systems' MailShadow Press Release (March 26, 2008). They indicate that something is going on and that people are looking for answers. I agree with his assertion that Google Apps is grounded in the SMB market and that most enterprises are probably looking at Google Apps from a “kick the tires” perspective. Like Guy, I expect that Google Apps will fall short of enterprise requirements. That said, enterprises may find that certain segments of the workforce, those non-information workers who don’t generally use Office, might be fine using Google Apps (or maybe just Gmail). I expect that large enterprises are looking to Google or other hosted options to provide e-mail services to those users while maintaining more robust e-mail services, such as Exchange, for users who need more than basic e-mail. Being able to integrate the two platforms (e.g., common directories, centralized management) will be paramount to these types of customers.
