I commented this on Q Daily News. But since the comment is almost a blog length and I think I'm right, I'm cross posting it here.
I think you and Gruber are both right (I that's possible).
Whilst I never had a Blackberry I did work for a big corporate for 9 years so I am familiar with big corporate IT. The BB is a device oriented squarely (and possible only) and the corporate IT department and decision makes, and not at all at the users. It has all the IT integration done really well and hence it's success. I don't think they spent the same amount of detail and effort focussing on the end user experience (which is fair of most mobile and smart phones)
John is entirely right when he says, that corporate users will want iPhones and will find ways around it. I suspect the amount of people setting up rules on their email to forward their corporate email externally will spike massively on June 29th.
The iPhone is not ready for the enterprise world. I don't think it was ever intended to be, in this incarnation. Jobs and co are releasing a new product onto the market. New for apple, and almost a new product in itself (it is a rather big fundamental shift away from it's competitors). They would be utterly insane to try target the corporate market on day 1.
I think they will easily sell 10mil+ on the consumer sector alone. This gives them months or even a year or so, to tweak the product, fix the problems, enhance it, and really get the consumer level product working they way it should.
Then Apple with a strong product and a strong installed base, can, if they choose, and if they think it's economically viable, go after the corporate market. They can either target the SME by building a competing product to exchange using Leopard server and corporate versions of iCal server and mail etc, or follow the same path as RIM and integrate with existing tech.
Just because Apple is not doing it day 1, (when if we're honest they have enough to contend with and plenty of publicity anyway), doesn't mean they aren't or can't or won't do this in the future. Wars are not won by opening up battle fronts an all sides (hear that Google), but by starting by targeting the areas you are strongest in, which is exactly what Apple is doing.
I suspect in 5 years there will be an iPod range, and iPhone range and and iPhone only range. i.e. no iPod functionality, just the communications functionality stripped down (iPhone nano?). The deep level security is not necessary for many many people and companies and I suspect will be the last targeted.
And John is right, the demand for this will come from the bottom. Enough people start bending corporate IT rules to use the iPhone, the demand will be there and people will clamouring for proper IT integration. Not to mention that there is a strong space for a third party to get in, if Apple is lax on this. Especially since, I think it's pretty inevitable their will be an iPhone SDK, when Apple is good and ready.
On the other side of things I as a consumer can't wait to have decent push email. And I think Apple will start offering the consumer level calendar, address book and mail via .mac (which is so due an overhall). Plus the European or second or third revision of the iPhone will be 3G (or HSDPA) so I think this is not that big a deal. it's another inevitable.
Whatever happens, unless the iPhone is a Newton, I think the industry is going to shift post June 29 and change rapidly.
1. Matt
I saw a screenshot yesterday (can’t find it now) showing the iPhone email setup screen. There was an option for “Exchange”, which suggests there’s an option to use it with MS’s corporate email solution.
Which suggests that setting up rules to forward corporate emails externally may not be necessary.
2. cian
my only question is how many corporate people in senior management will be able to get the iPhone to work with their push corporate email solution (given Exchange 2007 isn’t currently particularly widespread). I know you will but can the CEO?
3. Destructor
I find a good way to determine whether I should use the word ‘oriented’ or ‘orientated’ is to simply change the tense and see if the word still makes sense in the new incarnation. So for example if you have a sentence like “The BB is a device orientated square.” you are more or less saying that there has been an orientation for the BB and it has now been appropriately directed in the correct surroundings. Except I suspect that what you actually meant was that the BB itself is tailor-made for its device applications, or that they have tried to orient the BB towards device applications. So I think what you might have meant to say was that it was a device oriented square, rather than a device orientated square, which would have been redundant.
Although on further analysis, even once you correct that one word, the sentence itself does not make a huge amount of sense. The BB is a device oriented square? What does that actually mean?
4. Adrian
The sentence has been corrected now.
orientated == orient square += ly
5. Destructor
I am much happier.