Myself, as a Comm's consultant, I don't sell phone's to the public as such, I consult to large firms on VoIP, and mobile phone's for business usage. I'm seeing a strong trend of business requesting me to do research into them using Blackberry, especially from clients with Sun Solaris environments. As a Sun sys admin I can see why they are requesting these options, security wise...

 Is anyone else seeing this trend in the market place ?

 While Blackberry is technically capable of a slightly higher level of encryption out of the box I can't see why you'd want a Blackberry over a WM device in a specifically Solaris Environment. As far as I know (and I could be wrong, I'm no solaris expert) there's no native Solaris mail system that supports Blackberry. In this case you'll either be looking at a hosted solution or a TP solution like MS Exchange. In these cases both the BB and WM are equally suited for a Solaris environment. From there it would boil down to the regular choices between a mail focused solution (Blackberry) or a functional extension to your work desktop as I see Windows Mobile (Phone).

that has to be one of the most succinct descriptions of the brand differences ive heard in a while.

ive also noticed a trend leaning towards the blackburys with regards to security aware clients, in all likelyhood whilst the benefits may be minimal its the brand recognition they are paying for

Welcome, pageweon! Glad to have you here. And thanks to Dave for his expert view, as always!

pageweon:

that has to be one of the most succinct descriptions of the brand differences ive heard in a while.

 

ive also noticed a trend leaning towards the blackburys with regards to security aware clients, in all likelyhood whilst the benefits may be minimal its the brand recognition they are paying for

Yes, Dave really nailed the difference between the two platforms very succinctly.

RIM did have an unparalleled level of security back in the day, but Microsoft really closed the gap with WM 6+. As I like to remind the security conscious, the differences are now, at best, minimal, and with Windows phone, there's no middleman between your own servers and your mobiles. It seems to me that the truly security conscious would want to maintain total end-to-end control in-house, rather than hand off their data to an outside system, regardless of how trustworthy it is.

That's a fair point Todd, except if you think about it, you've still got both your mobile providers networks and the internet between your WM device and your Exchange server. I do admit having RIM in there as well just adds another level of possible failure though. Interestingly, when we were all talking about Blackberry's and Obama a while back didn't turn out that the only device capable of providing the required level of security was actually a souped up Windows Mobile device? Wasn't that actually more secure than the BB's?

Dave Parker MVP:

Interestingly, when we were all talking about Blackberry's and Obama a while back didn't turn out that the only device capable of providing the required level of security was actually a souped up Windows Mobile device? Wasn't that actually more secure than the BB's?

This is the thread that talked about this.

 Cheers Laura!

Dave Parker MVP:

That's a fair point Todd, except if you think about it, you've still got both your mobile providers networks and the internet between your WM device and your Exchange server. I do admit having RIM in there as well just adds another level of possible failure though.

Yeah, but you'll always have the internet and mobile operator between your server and your mobiles- that's why everything's encrypted and authenticated. With middleware, though, your putting the actual data in someone else's hands. (though I'm certainly not suggesting RIM isn't trustworthy or up to the task!)

Dave Parker MVP:

Interestingly, when we were all talking about Blackberry's and Obama a while back didn't turn out that the only device capable of providing the required level of security was actually a souped up Windows Mobile device? Wasn't that actually more secure than the BB's?

Yeah, I doubt the US Government wants all of their top secret data to filter through a NOC in a different country, even if it's Canada!

Those General Dynamics devices are interesting- they make the secure voice calls over CSD (dial-up 9.6k data) to bypass the carriers' voice networks completely. The voice audio is digitized and securely encrypted and sent through as a data call.

Todd Allcock:

Those General Dynamics devices are interesting- they make the secure voice calls over CSD (dial-up 9.6k data) to bypass the carriers' voice networks completely. The voice audio is digitized and securely encrypted and sent through as a data call.

The technical side of it is very cool, but blimey, aren't they UGLY? 

Dave Parker MVP:

The technical side of it is very cool, but blimey, aren't they UGLY? 

Yeah, but I kind of like ugly tech.  It says "I'm so darn functional my designer didn't even bother trying to make me look good to trick people into buying me.  You'll buy me whether you like me or not!"

Todd Allcock:

Yeah, but I kind of like ugly tech.  It says "I'm so darn functional my designer didn't even bother trying to make me look good to trick people into buying me.  You'll buy me whether you like me or not!"

I wonder if the marketing people get this ??

 Does it matter? They are so darn functional after all. Maybe they market themselves as well.

Dave Parker MVP:

 Does it matter? They are so darn functional after all. Maybe they market themselves as well.

and thats the ultimate goal really, just so *** good people come to us