Discussion on:

Why IT departments should support iPad users

How are you going to control security of the device like you can with blackberries and BES.
How are you going to remotely wipe a lost IPAD.

Laptops in our Organization are encrypted, how can you encrypt the IPAD so when it's lost the data isn't there for anyone to see.

I think the IPAD is a toy and any good business with any sense of cost benefit analysis would not even think about getting the IPAD.

There are many more tablet PC's that are much better then the IPAD and offer way more features.

You would really want to RDP to servers/workstations with IPAD rather than a laptop??? I can't really see doing anything complex with the IPAD..

This is the same reason we also do not support the iPhone, despite an increasing demand for it.

For us, it's less about people wanting tablets and more about people wanting the cool new toy. And we are unwilling to support that toy at the expense of security. There is more risk with the iPad than any other corporate laptop - as petersonm mentioned, you can't encrypt the iPad, but you sure can encrypt the hard drive of a laptop.

When are we going to be done hearing about this TOY and it's use in business. I do not understand the Tech Republic writers obsession with this over hyped device. If the OS was based off of OSX it might stand a chance. Instead Apple dropped the ball by using an un-scalable mobile embedded OS that is terrible at best.

The reason in one word: Management! The device is not managed by the organization's internal IT department but by Apple. Apple may or may not have a vested interest in my company but it is a fact that they have a vested interest in themselves. If they deem a policy is good for them there is no regard as to how it will affect us, or if we even exist. Most of our business apps are custom developed in-house and are specific to our special needs. That doesn't fit well into the "App Store" business model. I understand that the device does have encryption, and remote-wipe in the event it is lost or stolen but that is just a small part of what is required. Corporate acceptance, at least here, is a non-starter until we can completely control and vet the configuration and operation of the machine.

Apple doesn't belong in businesses period.

* "How are you going to control security of the device like you can with blackberries and BES.
The author did say "... securely connected to the Exchange server..."
* "How are you going to remotely wipe a lost IPAD."
How about the same way you do with a lost iPhone or iPod Touch?
* "Laptops in our Organization are encrypted, how can you encrypt the IPAD so when it's lost the data isn't there for anyone to see."
How about password-protecting access, as is done on the iPhone/iPod Touch?
* "I think the IPAD is a toy and any good business with any sense of cost benefit analysis would not even think about getting the IPAD."
I think you need to start looking for solutions rather than excuses, or you won't be keeping your job much longer.
* There are many more tablet PC's that are much better then the IPAD and offer way more features."
Then why aren't they selling as quickly as the iPad? Why haven't they sold to the point that the iPad would have never been released? The iPad simply doesn't do things the same way as those "many other tablets." As a result, the iPad gets the job done because people want to use them. If nobody wants to use them, they don't serve a purpose, do they?
* "You would really want to RDP to servers/workstations with IPAD rather than a laptop??? I can't really see doing anything complex with the IPAD."
This is the blindness that could cost your company its ranking in whatever industry you're in.

Anything that stands a chance of improving efficiency needs to at least be considered. Improved efficiency means less time and money lost on administration which means more profits in the long run. I could run off a list of jobs where almost any corporation could put the iPad to use in management, sales, accounting and IT. It could be especially important for those people who are on the road a lot and currently have to contend with using a too-big device in a constrained area. The potential uses are endless--surely even you could figure out how to use one to your benefit on the job.

* "How are you going to remotely wipe a lost IPAD."
How about the same way you do with a lost iPhone or iPod Touch?

I can't speak for an iPod Touch, but an iPhone has a cellular connection. The current model of iPad has only WiFi capability. If an ex-employee restricts his use to a closed network, I can't remotely access it.

"Then why aren't they (other tablet devices) selling as quickly as the iPad?"

Because the iPad is being marketed to consumer device. Previous Windows-based tablet devices have been oriented toward businesses, with accompanying price tags and features. There's a lot more consumers than business users. McDonald's sells more meat than Ruth's Chris, but one is aimed at consumers and the other at the expense account crowd.

As I said below, this isn't about the iPad; this is about allowing privately owned devices on the company network. We're not treating the iPad any differently from other employee-owned equipment; we don't allow any of it. If there's a business case for an employee to have a tool, be it a computer, phone, forklift, stethoscope, or flux capacitor, the company will provide one.

... anyone can buy a PC tablet on the open market any time they want--equipped with Windows 7 as well. This is even before the HP Slate hits the market. It simply doesn't sell.

Maybe you'll remember 10 years ago when Bill Gates announced Microsoft's Windows Tablet Edition. He gave it high praise and claimed, "Everyone will be using a tablet PC by 2005!" One year and almost no growth later, he made an almost identical re-introduction. 2005 came and went, and tablet sales were so low that at best, companies like Toshiba or HP had maybe two tablet models on the market. Now, ten years after that initial announcement, Apple officially releases its version of a tablet, and acceptance goes through the roof. Why? Could it be simply because the iPad does what no other tablet before it did? No. It's because it does the job right!

Windows Tablet Edition (and subsequently Win7's 'touch' capability) does nothing more than replace the mouse with touch sensitivity, either through resistive or capacitive sensing. It's not that the technology is anything new, it's how the technology is being used, and Microsoft simply didn't use it in an intuitive manner--they basically said "It's the Windows way, or no way."

People are Touch-centric. We are a 'touchy-feely' species. As children we touch and grab; explore and taste; we don't like to sit still and hold our hands in one position for hours on end. We've had to do it up to now because technology couldn't figure out how to do it any differently while maintaining some level of efficiency. That's changed.
Before computers, paperwork that required signatures had to be hand-carried from place to place. Charts, graphs and other meeting materials had to be carried in big portfolios. These same charts, graphs and materials had to be created in a professional-looking manner which either required the presenter to spend hours or even days to create them from scratch or delegate the graphics work to a separate employee based on the data given. Any changes would either force a reworking of all the graphics, or have to be hand-drawn after the fact at the presentation. All that was changed with the adoption of the computer, but now those business meetings had everybody 'hiding' behind the upraised screens of their laptops and meetings becoming ever more impersonal. The iPad, on the other hand, brings the 'touchy-feely' back to our lives and makes many of the things that we've done one way for so long easier and more natural.

I'm not arguing about the 'privately-owned devices' being disallowed, but I am arguing that those 'private' devices are going to create a demand for 'company' devices--not equivalents, but the same devices. It's already been mentioned on this thread more than once that your companies 'give' Blackberry phones to their management and select other staff; how many of those people have turned the Blackberry down? I can tell you now that a number of IT professionals in one major company I have constant contact with have not only turned down a Blackberry offer, but have specifically requested that they be given iPhones instead. I'll grant that they haven't received them, but nearly every one of them uses an iPhone personally, now, and the company has multiple iPod/iPad apps for their customers. By that metric, allowing iPhones and iPads in-house can't be that far away.

To my knowledge, no one has turned down a company-provided BB yet. Several have asked to have their Storms replaced with models that have physical keypads. Only one person has approached me and asked to have his personal phone access the company Exchange server. I don't remember the model, but it wasn't an iPhone. The IT manager at the time turned him down.

I'm only responsible for the 12 or 14 users at this site, and not the several dozen at our other sites, so I can't speak for their preferences. Me, I don't have a cell phone and have turned one down at work on several occasions. I've only received six calls at home in sixteen years; it doesn't make business sense for me to have one, regardless of model.

"...those 'private' devices are going to create a demand for 'company' devices--not equivalents, but the same devices."

Odd, they don't insist I install the same make and model of laptop that they use at home. How can you be so sure the competing models released later this year won't be superior? In this case, 'superior' is defined as 'fits the job requirements HERE better'? Bigger screen, USB, camera, built-in projector, Ethernet port, AD compatible?

"...those business meetings had everybody 'hiding' behind the upraised screens of their laptops and meetings becoming ever more impersonal. The iPad, on the other hand, brings the 'touchy-feely' back to our lives..."

Okay, bullsh!t. How is an iPad going to improve human interaction in meetings? Instead of 'hiding' behind laptop screens, they're going to be looking down at their tablets, IM'ing each other with snide remarks just the same way they do now. They're still not making eye contact, they're still playing Sudoku; only now it can't be seen from behind. At least with laptops their heads were raised. That's an organizational issue - if you don't want people screwing off in meetings, pay attention to if they're paying attention.

"...those 'private' devices are going to create a demand for 'company' devices--not equivalents, but the same devices."
People who want to use an iPad will not accept an HP Slate as an equivalent. Why? Because the only similarity is the size and shape.
People who want to use one of the Android devices will want an Android device, not a Win7 or Win7Phone device. Why? Because they want Android, not Windows.

Get the point?

"How is an iPad going to improve human interaction in meetings? Instead of 'hiding' behind laptop screens, they're going to be looking down at their tablets, IM'ing each other with snide remarks just the same way they do now."
They'll also be much more obvious in the process and will attract the attention of not only the meeting chair but also anyone else who is truly interested in what the meeting is about. Yes, some will do exactly as you say, but it's much easier to look attentive when your head is up than it is when your head is down. If they're playing Sudoku or something else, their head will be down and obviously they're not paying attention to the meeting. Quite literally, as you say, it's an organizational issue, and one that will be somewhat resolved by eliminating the means to 'hide' their real activities. And you'd be surprised at how well you can see what they're doing from behind, even if the pad is on their laps.

Get the point?

How are their heads going to be up if they're looking at device that's sitting flat on the table?

"... if they're looking at device that's sitting flat on the table?"

Why are they looking at the device sitting flat on the table, if they're paying attention to the meeting?

If they're not looking at the iPad (or laptop, or smart phone), why did they bring it at all? An iPad is going to make meetings more personal because the user is going to leave it at his desk?

I'm truly not following how this device is going to improve personal interaction over a laptop. In both cases, the user is going to spend part of his time looking at the device and not at other people.

To take notes. Of course, with the right apps and hardware, the presenters could 'beam' their diagrams directly to each attendee, which makes the note taking that much easier.

Conversely, the attendee could beam any questions (i.e. sketching on the whiteboard, for instance) directly back to the presenter where the others can understand the question, too. Again, the possibilities are endless.

Everything you suggest can be done with existing tablets and even some laptops, and the people are still looking at the hardware.

You complained about people hiding behind laptops in meetings, and that iPads would improve the human interaction. I still don't see how this is any different; it just replaces focusing attention on a vertical screen with a horizontal one.

Sure, if they are in charge of IT then go for it. If not then they should get back to the day job.

We finally got ours approved by senior management alng with the Delorean so we can go back in time and fix stuff.

Find that first monkey who climbed down out of the trees and shoot him. Repeat until they quit coming down.

I could make a business case for a flux capacitor. Can you provide one?

Yes, and I can create it on my iPad.

We don't modify DeLoreans where I work. Try making the case to your own Accounting department. The capacitor itself is an easy sell; it's persuading them to allow you buy the plutonium that's difficult.

Hot enough for you?

It is hot enough for me, yes. Too hot. I'm ready for fall. I wish the iPad could do something about that. While it can control the AC/HVAC in some buildings, it can't do anything to change the weather outside.

I'm reminded of Clarke's first law: "When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Whenever I see such negative reaction to a new technology I cringe, simply because it's nothing more than arrogance and ignorance speaking. IT people had similar reactions to personal computers in the 70s and 80s, when financial analysts were spending their own money on Osbornes and hauling them into the office to do spreadsheet analysis.

Maybe the iPad won't work out in the corporate world, but no one will know until they try. And by the way, the iPad and the iPhone OS don't use a "cell phone OS." They use a modified version of OS X.

is an OS that runs on a phone.

so.....

So Unix is a cell phone OS, despite the fact that it can be run effectively on other devices, including mainframe computers. Can Symbian? Can the Palm OS?

Cool!

where, show me...

Vulpine makes sense. If a sales person is on the road and their job is made easier by a new "toy" and that is reflected in their sales results, what do you think will happen? I recall when staff wanted to connect by wireless anytime anywhere and IT Departments would put up their sign "we need to standardise and control". The same conversation has happened in major educational institutions and you see a myriad of different devices connected to the network. The idea is to be proactive and ahead of the game. Sure your responsibility is to protect the network but the other responsibility is to support your clients.

Remember when WEP security was broken and people stole lots of creditcard info from stores that used a insecure system? Ah good time..

If you see the concerns about the iPad its security security and the complete lack of purpose..

Start by getting a encrypted ipad with windows domain access and we can start to talk about it..
Not saying it cannot be done but jumping on new tech because its "new" is an asshat approach..

The responsibility to protect the network OR responsibility is to support the clients.

Equally would just a cop-out answer BTW

I agree there are other tablets out there, but they are really just laptops with tablet screens. And they are a hell of a lot more expensive. Dell XT2 starts at $2423 and HP EliteBook starts at $1599. We have a test tablet (XT2) that cost us over $6000 when we added features to the build. How is using a laptop with a tablet screen the same or better than a true tablet like the iPad?

However, with the locked-down, embedded phone operating system what can you really do with an iPad? Yea, there are thousands of apps at the Apple Store, but you can't install any "real" software. And everyone talks about using software like Keynote and Pages, but how are you going to get your documents on the device? Email? FTP? There are no USB ports and no expansion slot for even an SD card. And you can't use Google docs... so I really don't see the point of the iPad in business.

Starting at the top, you clearly present the fact that previously existing tablets were far too expensive for what they were. Even at $1599, the HP EliteBook is more equivalent to the MacBook Air (underpowered for the price considering the 'features' given) and as you said, they're essentially nothing but laptop computers given a desktop OS which doesn't have any real tablet software available to use those features anyway. In all honesty, this is why the tablet form factor has been a failure these last 10 years.

However, the iPad, using a version of UNIX as its base, not just a cell phone OS as you describe it, is where the tablet form factor should have been for all of those ten years. Maybe you can't install the kind of software that you're used to, but then, none of that software is touch-centric, either. In every case that I know of, where a tablet is used in the enterprise, they are using software custom-coded for their purposes and no other. Even when you think of the medical field, where a doctor used to carry a clipboard on his rounds, he's not using a tablet, but rather a laptop mounted on a cart, because the tablet just didn't do enough for the high cost associated with it. On the other hand, the iPhone is already in use in many hospitals and the iPad is likely to be the next step for them, eliminating the need for those pricy laptop/cart mashups that become an obstacle and a hazard in emergency situations as well. The doctor can get back to being patient-oriented rather than data-oriented.

I'll grant that many of the apps available for the iPhone/iPad are consumer-centric, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that there are specific enterprise-oriented apps as well, including those that, using a specific docking device, can wirelessly read a patient's vital stats and transmit them to a central database, accessible instantly by the doctors and administrators of the hospital. Enlarging that docking unit to fit the iPad makes the data clearly legible to the doctor without having to squint at a 3" screen and provides more real estate for more and better-detailed data. Quite literally, the iPad (or direct equivalent) could become the new clipboard for the doctor.

As far as all the ports so many people complain about, I have to ask the simple question: Why do you want them? What purpose can they be used for when you're walking down the corridors of the hospital/enterprise? This thing isn't intended to be all things to all people, but a mobility device with different specific uses in different enterprise/consumer environments. The documents can originally be imported when docked to the 'mother' computer or wirelessly accessed via Wi-Fi anywhere. It's easy enough to email, and Pages for the Mac is almost perfectly compliant with most Office documents as well as having its own formats. Keynote is almost fully PPS capable, but in my opinion easier to use and can output in PPS format. There really is little to argue about here, as the iPad is intended for on-the-go content manipulation, not all-out content creation in an enterprise setting. That doesn't mean it can't do the job, but as so many others have said, it's not meant to do that job.

Unlike you, I can see, as I've said before, many places where the iPad could do just as well if not better than a laptop in the enterprise. On the other hand, most enterprise laptops are being used more as portable desktops rather than mobility devices, at which point why carry your desktop to a business meeting when a clipboard would do just as well? Get my drift?

you say "isn't intended to be all things to all people, but a mobility device with different specific uses in different enterprise/consumer environments"

Is that not the same thing??

What it isn't is a desktop computer, which is essentially all things to all people. It's a science tool, it's an educational tool, it's an art tool and it's a management tool... and many other things. It can be all of these at the same time.

On the other hand, the iPad can be much more focused in any particular environment. Its limitations force it to be a more task-specific device rather than a general device; making it a much more useful tool in any given environment. Just as the iPhone is currently used in so many fields, including the military, the iPad can complement or even replace the iPhone in those same fields and do the job better because of its larger capacity and larger screen. Operating on a UNIX core, the iPad is far more capable of becoming task-specific and yet reconfigurable to a different task far better than anything else currently on the market.

Now, I'll grant that a Windows-based device could probably do all the same things; but can it do them as easily and as securely? Honestly, with Windows being the most-attacked OS on the market, do you really want to trust sensitive data to Windows? I'll grant that Win7 is far superior to the older versions, but when Microsoft chooses to perform a security update to Win7 "just in case,' despite their assurance that a Win2K exploit can't touch Win7, that says the Win2K code is still there and they don't know if the protections preventing access to that code can't be bypassed somehow, so they put another wall around it. Maybe Win7 is more compact, but they've definitely proven that Win7 still includes legacy code; it's not a complete re-write as they once claimed.

In other words, the iPad can be narrowed down far more tightly than any Windows-based device. The coming Android devices should have that same capability. At the moment, this means that they can be more effective at specific tasks than a more generalized Windows-based device. The iPad is limited when you need an all-purpose device, but superior when you need a task-oriented device.

"the iPad can complement or even replace the iPhone in those same fields and do the job better because of its larger capacity and larger screen. Operating on a UNIX core, the iPad is far more capable of becoming task-specific and yet reconfigurable to a different task far better than anything else currently on the market."


Tell me what exactly would the iPad be suitable for? Don't give me this theoretical nonsense. Give me a real example. Give me an actual name of an actual application that would be used. Now tell me how I'd secure it. Give me links to technotes on how to integrate this in an existing environment.

They're already using the iPhone in the field--and not just as a communications device.

You didn't add anything new. You just said the same thing you already said. What specifically are they using the iphone for? Link an article or something. Don't just say "they do stuff".

http://www.army.mil/ciog6/_appsforthearmy.html
http://www.army.mil/-news/2010/03/22/36178-army-apple-meet-to-discuss-hand-held-solutions-for-soldiers/
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/11/25/31022-g-6-says-iphone-approach-could-help-army/?ref=news-arnews-title11
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://euro-police.noblogs.org/gallery/3874/iphone_military.jpg&imgrefurl=http://euro-police.noblogs.org/post/2009/01/07/us-army-to-use-iphone-and-ipod-touch-for-tactical-training&h=325&w=769&sz=174&tbnid=vgoqNCyCLcuUdM:&tbnh=60&tbnw=142&prev=/images%3Fq%3DArmy%2BiPhone%2BPhotos&usg=__kgD2F4Fru4WMmfF1gFR8DI3p7OU=&ei=zn3HS6ioHIGKlweLk8jEAQ&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=1&ct=image&ved=0CAYQ9QEwAA

There's a few for you.

First of all. I highly doubt the military using the same piece of equipment that we'd get and don't try to tell me they are not. This is war we're talking about. If these things do anything less than literally fry themselves if they are physically tampered with then we have a national security issue.

I don't want the enemy to be able to get a hold of these and get access to battle plans.

In the very articles you posted is a whole spiel about the importance of standardization and security

The issue of standardization and security are at the very hard of the issue. This is why we, the "IT people", don't like the iPad. The one that would be available for us to purchase doesn't have the capabilities to be secured or made standard.

We're not against 'new technology' or mobile devices. We're against nonstandard insecurable devices.

Thing is, none of them are in use - they are all prototype or suggested ideas.

You say

"What it isn't is a desktop computer, which is essentially all things to all people. It's a science tool, it's an educational tool, it's an art tool and it's a management tool... and many other things. It can be all of these at the same time."

So that is - It can be all of these at the same time which is essentially all things to all people.

Unbelieveble!!!!

"Maybe you can't install the kind of software that you're used to, but then, none of that software is touch-centric, either. In every case that I know of, where a tablet is used in the enterprise, they are using software custom-coded for their purposes and no other."

Unfortunately, in many of the cases you describe, touch-centric versions of those apps, especially the custom ones, don't exist yet. For some companies, the reduced cost of an iPad may not offset the cost of having replacement software developed.

As to "what you're used to", aren't you the guy who told me IT would have to incorporate iPads and iPhones, and not equivalents, because that's what our users wanted, ie, what they're used to?

First off, you seem to think that the personal 'you' used to identify the person I was talking to was the generic 'you' implying all users. Why would I be talking to all users when I'm replying to a specific person's comment? Ok, then allow me to narrow this down to, "Maybe you can't install the Windows software that you're used to, but none of that Windows software is touch-centric, either." Does that clarify the statement for you?

And equally unfortunately for you, because of three years of iPhone/iPod Touch development, you'd be surprised at how many touch-centric apps are already available to the enterprise, in almost every field from manufacturing to trucking. Add to this the fact that the iPad SDK is far simpler than those used for Windows, this means that the applications are more compact and more easily written to the customers' specific purposes than they would be for Windows.

And being smaller and more tightly coded, this also means there's less risk of the app leaving a security hole that can be exploited by a generalized attack. You (general meaning) aren't as likely to see an OS exploit sneaking through Apple's tight controls as you would through Windows, as so many exploits now use Adobe's Flash and Acrobat Reader as the path of choice to infect users' machines.

"Unlike you, I can see, as I've said before, many places where the iPad could do just as well if not better than a laptop in the enterprise."

Where did I say that there were no uses? I do see where it could be used, but I dont really care enough to discuss those uses.

And what is with personally attacking me throughout your entire post?

You don't need to reply, because I don't really care. I made my post and said what I wanted to say.

Al of your points are right on the mark except that I believe the author has more the marketing dept in mind than IT. I would not want to RDP to anything any more from an iPad than I do from my Droid. In a pinch to reboot or other super quick fix, sure, but not the hours of work I typically do over RDP.
This guy is coming at it from the perspective, pleading on their behalf to let them have their new toy on the network for which we're responsible.

He also neglects to take into a account our already heavy workload. Supporting it does not just mean allowing it onto the network, it means fielding trouble calls when a user can't figure out a new app or widget.

I am grateful for the work, but where do we draw the line everytime an employee snivles, Bob gets to use his iPad on the network. Why can't I use my ?"

As IT professionals we do embrace new technology, but we also have to guard the environments we're entrusted with.

F all this effing toystuff. Just draw a line, business here, your entertainment here.

Word!

This is a pretty classical mindset from techo's who don't see the big picture. You start by labelling the iPad a toy then find a number of rationalisations for that. Is that because it challenges your self image as one who has the keys to the technical jewels? God forbid that users might actually like to use these things and worse, that they could improve efficiency.

There's been a paradigm shift in smart organisations where techo's resolve technical challenges to simplify users' integration of easy to use, effective and pleasing (don't let me say 'fun') solutions. By all means critique its weaknesses and find technical solutions but to arrogantly write it off as a toy makes you look foolish. You probably hate the iPhone too but there are millions of very happy customers (and large/small corporations) realising huge cost benefits from their adoption. I'm afraid you just don't get it.

I think your last line clearly sums up your flawed perspective. "I can't really see doing anything complex with the IPAD."

Most of what most users do isn't complex - if this is a better way (read more efficient, better ROI, better user engagement and takeup), then roll on.

And if you must get techo, I know a few sysadmins who are very excited about having a fast, instant-on device that will do realtime system monitoring with remote admin, wirelessly and for ten hours at a stretch.

The iAnything devices are sold to consumers. How many of these buyers are real corporate mobile users? Not many, I think. Until they are purchased by companies for business use like laptops or Blackberries there isn't a business need. The iPad will likely never have the capabilities required,as mentioned above, for coporate use. I see the Slate or Currier having a much better chance of becoming a corporate device.