Has Apple ensured the BlackBerry's reign in business mobile?

How is this a big deal when Microsoft Windows Mobile devices have been doing this also (at least from my understanding - older devices that didn't support on-device encryption just ignored the flag).

Hyperbole. Plain and simple. Mr. Snyder assumes that everybody is A) using Exchange 2007, B) enforcing device encryption and C) that the 3Gs is not an option. A) Not everyone uses Exchange. We in fact are moving away from it and will likely move to Google Apps for a MUCH better ROI. B) Also, part of A. Not everyone that does have an Exchange box has upgraded to 2007. Therefore this only affect those that actually have done so, enforced the encryption policy and have 1G and 3G iPhones. C) The 3Gs supports the device encryption and is not affected by this issue. Users/Companies that still want to use the iPhone have the option of replacing the non-compliant units with the compliant 3Gs. The only real threat keeping the iPhone from further adoption is the carrier it is bound too. I for one will jump ship ASAP as soon as another carrier (rumors say Verizon) has it.

Great analysis and we’re doing a similar experiment of our own here. At the end of the day the iPhone is a great device and enterprises are being faced with some difficult decisions when it comes to how they support it, manage it and assimilate it into corporate culture. Clearly end-users want the devices, but you’re right; have the security and management issues brought to light recently barred it from making a serious play? Maybe, but maybe not and I’d encourage enterprises not to give up on the iPhone but rather reevaluate their system for managing these and other devices. Enterprises CAN and SHOULD support complex mobile environments. It allows workers to be more productive and ultimately, by using the latest and greatest mobile handsets, keeps businesses competitive. But the most successful mobile enterprises are those that have great management policies that don’t relegate workers to one device or bar another. It’s all about choice. Julie Palen Tangoe

The overall situation is that IT people are going to be less trusting of the iPhone for secure use. I don't think this faux pas will damage Apple. Apple's strategy is to support business as an afterthought. Unless that is Soho creatives of course. Apple's marketing strategy is to get users to request access to corporate resources. But their strategy is not to provide enterprise level quality or support, they don't sell to I.T. And it doesn't matter to them. Their market won't even notice this issue.

I would venture to say there are many organizations who will enable security outside of the Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 environment, and will not encounter this issue, if they perceive it to be a problem at all.
That said, I also have to think this is blown way out of proportion. Some people in some environments that demand the strictest of security policies may have a problem supporting devices like the original iPhone and iPhone 3G, but there are certainly others out there that fall into that same non-compliant category. Hey, at least Apple decided not to lie about it, rather than simply ignore the flag, as others do!
The other thing I wonder is whether there is not some hidden agenda here... Is Blackberry advertising on your site, while Apple is not?
In any case, while Apple is generally regarded favorably by some of your reviewers, the trade press in general would love to see them get bashed around a bit. After all, Apple bashing is always good for hits to a site.

It seems we have a few issues here. (1) Exchange 2007 seems to introduce the encryption issue, which previous versions didn't have (perhaps because of limited mobile access). The iPhone 3GS allows encryption, and so will work with Exchange 2007. This seems to be just a question of when capabilities become available. (2) Some mobile devices said they did encryption when they couldn't, so that they could talk to Exchange 2007. This seems to be more than iPhones pre-3GS. No-one seems to have made a fuss about this issue in the past. (3) Apple brought the issue into the open through an upgrade, and this started this discussion. Apple haven't said much since then on the subject. Good things: iPhone 3GS will apparently do security properly with Exchange 2007, and we know it. Older iPhone's now won't attempt to fool Exchange 2007, which seems an improvement on the 'ignorance is bliss' situation before, and we know it. We are now all much more aware of the security issues around Exchange for mobile devices. Bad things: Apple didn't attempt to make a big deal out of the iPhone 3GS now meeting Exchange 2007 encryption. Apple didn't attempt to make capital from other devices' not supporting the encryption. Apple made the older iPhones stop lying to Exchange, but didn't do a big publicity splash about it. Security via encryption is important, as discussed above, for a portion of iPhone users. For others, the fact that the handheld can be secured and wiped remotely may be enough. Maybe Apple should have handled it differently, but perhaps a better analysis would be indicated. Is the problem one that arises with a lost/stolen/misappropriated handset, or with interception of data during transmission? There are different work-arounds for each. HIPAA may have issues, but have we seen actual security breaches, and what are they (on any mobile device that lies to Exchange)? Prevention is better than cure, and Apple seems to have moved to prevention, at least on the iPhone 3GS, and to deal with the issue on the older devices. Now we all know about it and with that data, can make informed decisions. That seems a better situation than before. Perhaps Apple could have handled it better, but I don't think it's the end of the world, or Apple's role in the corporate world, as it has been painted by some. At least we know where we stand with the iPhone, which is more than we can say with some other devices.

Seems a lot of people just don't understand the regulatory environment and seem to think you have to work for some goverment / top secret corporation for security to matter. Get up to speed on pending regulation around data protection: The Massachusetts law, 201 CMR 17.00, which takes effect Jan 1, 2010. It's even more restrictive than the state of Nevada's statute, including the following: •"All persons that own, license, store or maintain personal information about a resident of the Commonwealth," which presumably means any business anywhere that does business with Massachusetts residents •Paper as well as electronic records •Secure user user authentication protocols •Secure access control measures •Encryption on all wireless networks linked to personal information repositories •Monitoring and encryption for all portable devices with personal information •Firewall protection for any database containing PII •System security software must be installed and kept up to date •Education and training is also required So pretty much any company of sizable customer base is impacted by this, NY, Florida are drafting similar regulations so expect this in every state before long. So you say who cares - we don't do business in those states! Ahh but who at your company will keep track of all your customers and if / when they re-locate? With fines of 5k per records you could be facing hefty fines for not complying so yeah a device that is not able to encrypt your data is a big deal. Now iPhone 3GS is able to pass the Exchange 2007 flag but the onboard "encryption" has already been shown to be useless and bypassed as it has to unencrypt the boot sequence. So it's worthless to enterprise that needs to ensure data is protected via encryption. Remote wipe is useless as ActiveSync won't work if the SIM is removed. If Apple wants to put all this nit picking to rest. Go get the same security certification RIM has. Get FIPS 140-2 and get through a month after your next OS update without it being hacked in 5 days. And yes Exchange 2007 is not widespread nor the only email platform. So you have even bigger issues adhering to these encryption regulations, you will need to put in a mobile management solution (Good, Sybase, Trust digital etc) so what are you gaining? There goes any cost benefit for using something else. Good luck telling your CIO you need to upgrade all your iPhone 3G's you whined about getting because they were cool and you now need the iPhone 3GS because the security doesn't work. Knock Blackberry all you want about their lack of fart apps and a slick browser but EVERY model blackberry can support the BES security policies all the way back to some really old models (3-4 years old). Apple can't make a device from last year work? They want to ride the margin train just like iPod and offer a slightly better model every year that the Apple faithful all just need to have. Sorry that doesn't work or appeal to enterprise procurement nor refresh cycles. Apple never cared about enterprise support as they would need to provide more details and control then they want to give up. It would've been nice to at least put out a support article stating that OS 3.1 would break ActiveSync where companies require encryption a week or so prior to release so users and support can figure out best action. Eitherway they were screwed as 1. IT support now has devices if less then 3GS that won't work and face at&t ETF's for each 3G so $$$$ if they choose to upgrade or 2. reduce security for iPhone users. Its appalling they actually recommended you ask your company to remove this requirement in their support article! So glad we killed support for iPhone earlier this year and don't plan on offering it until Apple gets serious about enterpise support.

Bill Snyder, you're a loon. If you think inability to access Microsoft Exchange for email is a security crisis, you're completely off the wall. Have you ever used a BlackBerry? You're familiar with how often BIS goes down? By that definition, when I lose email access for several hours several times a year, RIM is experiencing the same catastrophic security crisis. Look, an iPhone upgrade in a corporate environment ought to be tested before end users make the upgrade. That kind of problem would be picked up on and delayed until it was resolved. Big whoop. What's your real beef with the iPhone? Cuz this one is a stretch.