Guest Bloggers

Citrix says 500 ISVs will wrap apps for XenMobile by end of year

2013-05-24T19:16:00Z

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Citrix XenMobile had Synergy attendees abuzz this week, even though some aren't ready for that level of mobile adoption just yet. The product was a big part of Wednesday's fairly in-depth keynote, but a few details went uncovered. Here are some of this week's biggest questions about XenMobile -- and, more importantly, their answers.

How many Worx-enabled apps will there be?

Citrix aimed to make it as easy as possible for developers to add their apps to XenMobile, and it seems to be working. Eighty apps will be available at next month's launch, and a lot more are on the way.

"We're going to have 500 ISVs on this by the end of the year," said Amit Pandey, Citrix's general manager for mobility.

Where do Worx-enabled apps come from?

Independent software vendors (ISVs) can make their apps Worx-enabled (i.e., able to be wrapped and managed by XenMobile) by adding one line of code to their programs. This code points to a library that actually provides the management and security interface to XenMobile, but developers don't have to worry about that.

Once Worx-enabled, the apps go in their respective public app stores (Apple's App Store, Google Play, etc.). The enterprise application store within XenMobile simply provides an IT-managed and -branded interface to those stores, Pandey said.

What operating systems does XenMobile's MAM support?

The mobile application management (MAM) component of XenMobile runs on iOS, Android, Windows, Windows Phone, Mac OS X, BlackBerry and even Symbian. It supports native mobile apps on iOS and Android.

What happened to CloudGateway?

CloudGateway, Citrix's first foray into MAM, is no more. Everything that product did is now available in the MAM-only version of XenMobile, which is called App Edition, as well as the full-featured enterprise edition.

Citrix CEO Mark Templeton says Citrix is not planning to lead with open MAM standards

2013-05-22T21:00:00Z

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Don't expect Citrix to follow VMware in pushing for industry-wide MAM standards.

Citrix CEO Mark Templeton discussed the issue of mobile application management (MAM) standards during a Q&A session with media and analysts today at Synergy 2013. Citrix's focus is on providing the best overall user experience, and MAM is just a part of that, he said.

"If standards evolve ... we'll follow those standards," Templeton said. "We're not a fighter of standards, but at the same time, we're focused on what the customer needs."

VMware CTO Scott Davis said earlier this month that his company may lead the charge to create industry-wide MAM standards, which may make it easier for mobile developers to make their apps available on multiple MAM platforms.

Citrix seems to be taking a different approach with its new XenMobile product. Under XenMobile's SDK, developers only have to add one line of code to their software, which in theory will attract more apps to the platform and eliminate some of the interoperability problems that standards aim to address. Eighty apps are already available through XenMobile's App Gallery.

Why hasn't BlackBerry gone all-in for enterprise mobility yet?

2013-05-21T04:02:00Z

Last year at BlackBerry's annual user conference there was a strange unease blanketing the entire affair. The company was transitioning to a new CEO, it was struggling to get the new BlackBerry 10 platform out the door, and it's big answer to its problems curiously seemed to be a fancy mobile cellphone camera, a luxury car that can run QNX, and hiring Alicia Keys to do whatever it is that Alicia Keys does (I still DON'T KNOW why the two have joined forces).

Fast forward a year later and the company has the same CEO, a new name, its shining BB 10 platform has been dumped into the wilds of the mobile world, the luxury car running QNX has been upgraded from a Porsche to a Bentley, and Alicia Keys is still doing whatever it is that Alicia Keys does. What a difference a year makes.

Instead of unease, the feeling by many IT pros attending BlackBerry Live in Orlando was one of cautious optimism, best encapsulated by the following two quotes uttered to me (the names have been left out to protect the innocent):

"Look, I'm already a BlackBerry customer. I don't need the f***ing constant sales pitch for why I should be down with BlackBerry. What I need is for them to tell me what the new stuff is going to do for me, how much it's going to cost me, and how easy and quick I can get it up and running. I like BlackBerry, I think our users will like the new devices once they get their hands on them, but sometimes I wonder if they get that."
"I told my sales rep that I needed to see the new hotness this week otherwise I'm switching to iOS when I get back to work. I don't know if what I saw will prevent me from switching but I think BlackBerry bought itself some more time before I ultimately decide."

Here's the thing: BlackBerry is in a tough spot. They are truly caught in the middle between the consumers and the IT pros supporting mobile at their organizations. A lot of people I talked to said they have invested in BES infrastructure and still deploy BlackBerry devices, but that's combined with deploying iOS devices, or doing BYOD, and relying on a second MDM vendor (AirWatch and MobileIron were the two popular ones) to manage everything else.

At the same time, the majority of those people said they would ditch the secondary MDM product in favor of BES 10 in a heartbeat on the assumption that it can effectively/securely do all the things for iOS and Android devices it does for BB devices. Really, the biggest takeaway from BlackBerry Live is why haven't they gone all-in for enterprises? During the conference keynote there was almost nothing aimed at the company's core customer-base. There is a disconnect between what BlackBerry seems to be doing and what they should be doing to regain momentum, which is puzzling to say the least.

The disconnect

It's easy to say none of this matters because the end-user has all the power, the company is just going the way of the dodo (there should probably be a more apt tech reference for going extinct that rolls off the tongue), blah blah blah. But, objectively, BlackBerry still has a TON going for it in terms of enterprise mobility, and IT still has the power so long as they are offering end-users tools and technologies worth using.

Allow me this quick tangent: Part of this realization became crystal clear when speaking with a friend of mine who works in the financial industry ahead of a talk I delivered on enterprise mobility for the Wall Street Technology Association. Most organizations I've spoken with in my time covering enterprise mobility, including the large financial institutions attending WSTA, have either stuck with BlackBerry much to the chagrin of its users, or moved to a mixed environment with iOS and BlackBerry, or they allow some kind of BYOD. But, mostly, they are still standardized around BlackBerry. And, in each of the last two instances, much of the management of those devices is predominantly done with just ActiveSync.

My friend said he has a BlackBerry for work, carries a personal iPhone with him when traveling, and that there are thousands and thousands of young professionals just like him across the country. He can use his personal iPhone for work instead of a BlackBerry through Good Technology, but that experience isn't great and he'd rather just carry two devices. Anyway, he has no desire to mingle his work and personal devices into a single device for privacy reasons, mainly, but also others as well. But, the only reason he has an iPhone is because his BlackBerry is only good for email and texting. When I ask him what he uses his iPhone for, he said, mainly browsing the web, online banking, and a few other things.

So, why am I not willing to write off BlackBerry? Because the reality on the ground, from both an IT and end-user perspective, seems at odds with the larger story being pushed that companies can't wait to adopt iOS devices and end-users have all the decision making power. That rift is not as pronounced as everyone in the industry wants us to believe.

The new BlackBerry devices might be something users would be okay with using. I like them. They are on par with Android/iOS. Different, certainly, but no worse. Most users, like my friend and other non-tech people using a mobile device at work I've spoken with, would be more than happy if given a BlackBerry 10 device for work. Companies using BES 5 and ActiveSync (or another MDM vendor) to manage mobility want the least cumbersome path possible to manage all devices and ownership scenarios from a single place. For many of the 76 million active BES customers, that's upgrading to BES 10 and dropping its SaaS-based MDM product. BlackBerry has an opportunity to really push forward with an infrastructure/services play in enterprise mobility even if nobody ends up wanting to use its new devices.

Why are they pushing its terrible BBM Channels, it's Twitter-like thing (I really have NO IDEA what it is?), when they could be building out an enterprise-friendly unified communication tool (imagine Google's spiffy new Hangouts service but without privacy concerns and security baked in) that combines BBM, MVS, and additional pieces?

Further, BlackBerry is never going to compete with Apple for the spending money and love of consumers. Personally, I'm never going to ditch my iPhone for a Z10. But why does it seem apathetic about convincing enterprises to stick with them? Why aren't they rolling out enterprise mobile services that enable productivity? Why were there no major enterprise mobile app partnerships announced? Why did they 100% have no Playbook tablet announcement? Why do they have a lot of positive pieces to offer enterprises, yet seemingly have no plan or desire to go all-in?

In 2013, the only number to pay attention to will be the percentage or number of customers that migrate onto the BlackBerry10 platform. If it's potentially as high as I think it could be that will be huge for the company. Number of devices sold and number of apps in the store don't matter at all. How many companies upgrade from BES 5 to BES 10 is what matters -- if those numbers are good, BlackBerry will be more than forthcoming with those figures.

ONE MORE THING: I have some Steve Jobs in me. For those that care, BlackBerry intends to launch a SaaS-version of BES 10 this summer. I couldn't get much in the way of details to write an actual news story about it, but from what I understand, companies can license a hosted version of BES that runs from within BlackBerry's infamous NOC. It'll have all the same benefits of BES just not be installed on-premises. Of course, like a lot of things BlackBerry announced at BB Live, this would have been great in 2009. We'll try to update once we get more concrete information.

(On another note, it's probably easier to communicate a lot of these things via a podcast, because I'm sure many of ya'll are ready to crucify me in the comments. Let's get on it Jack!)

BriForum 2013 London DEMO Lab videos are posted!

2013-05-20T04:01:00Z

At BriForum London this year, I walked around with a video camera recording booth demos with each of our sponsors. Those videos can be accessed below by clicking on the sponsor logo or by browsing through all of our videos at www.brianmadden.com/videos.

Could Workspot's freemium approach to BYOD shift focus from "access and control" to "big data?"

2013-05-01T12:00:00Z

Over the last several months, I’ve had the opportunity to advise entrepreneurs across several technology segments. What’s common amongst the ones I respect is that they have a deep appreciation of how their target users behave in their lives. This allows them to filter out a lot of industry noise, assumptions, and opinions that can distract from the fundamental exercise of immersing yourself in the user experience before building a product. This enables the formulation of data-driven hypotheses, which leads to product prototypes that better empathize with the needs of the end-user. I especially like that this approach encourages all to ask the Columbo questions. And of course, it’s always fun to take part when one is invited to do so!

BYOD

My observation of the various industry discussions on Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) is that they all to hold similar assumptions about technology approaches. There's sparse discussion about how the products are actually “used” vs. opinion. (Such as, "users don’t like technology approach X," or arcane feature debates).

Let’s take the case of Mobile Device Management (MDM). Money (Airwatch raises $200M) is being thrown at it and consolidation (Citrix acquires Zenprise) is taking place. This is happening despite ample sentiment that MDM is a commodity and users don’t want it. I’ve even heard opinions such as, “The MDM vendors are hiring $12 per/hour sales armies just to flood the market with seats priced as low as $0.60 per user/per month so they can upsell into this customer base with future wares.”

So MDM is heading to free, users hate it because it provides no personal freedom, and it’s not clear for what it's actually used. What do users actually do with an MDM managed device beyond corporate controlled email, browsing, calendar and contacts? Is it really that different to a Blackberry Enterprise Server on a non-RIM device? How much additional productivity does MDM really enable?

The incumbent vendors know this and are tweaking their MDM messaging to now say something along the lines of: MDM is a foundational piece of a larger macro trend called Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM). A classic case of, if you can’t win, you create a new category instead that pushes you into the position of looking like an industry leader.

While vendors are busy positioning themselves, we’re seeing the evolution of the market towards Mobile Application Management (MAM), file synching solutions such as from Box/Citrix’s ShareFile and nascent talk of MIM (Mobile Information Management). We’re also seeing the emergence of SaaS aggregation services such as Citrix Cloud Gateway and VMware Horizon. Have no doubt that these types of solutions, as they mature, will all be leveraged to strengthen the EMM category as analyst’s arms are also twisted to hasten the process to explain to you what EMM is. That’s all business as usual and I have no issue with it. However...

All this innovation is great, but again I have to ask to do what? How? Why?

I’m a big fan of the nascent MAM market, but it’s still unclear beyond email/browser what mobile apps people actually care about for work. I’ve even suggested to Gabe that there should be a place on BM.com where people register what mobile apps they want to be MAM ready for work. When we understand that, we can have a meaningful discussion about what standards should evolve based on market demand.

MIM falls into the realm of "theory" for most, although there are various content protection approaches, (which are still evolving). The file sync vendors gloss over the costs of process and governance that have already been sunk into on premises storage, regulation, and migration costs. They're getting better, but new approaches will be required and need to mature for true enterprise enablement. But even here, thinking of data alone and applying user-based policy to it only partially addresses the end users' need to be productive.

Then there are the aggregators—who are still nascent—trying to figure out how to integrate content and data and apps into their MDM/mobile strategy. These are definitely not simple to use yet—especially if they also have to serve the dual purpose of replacing legacy functionality such as Citrix Web Interface.

With so many options, many end users and IT buyers become confused. As a result, many take a "wait and see" approach, simply trying the lowest common denominator approaches like MDM for now. But it still leaves me wondering, "Does this make the end user more productive?" Even when I try really hard to rationalize it, it’s marginal value at best.

Of course, I’m just one person, so I decided to test assumptions and asked friends and family not in the tech industry how they actually work. Their opinions are summarized below:

The reality for them is that the “stuff” they care about is still mostly at work.
They care about getting access to some of their “stuff” on devices they want.
They are not anticipating a giant move away from PC/Laptop anytime soon but hate the experience IT has created. (Locked down, not personal, clumsy VPN, multi-factor authentication and so on.)
Some of the more technically minded also stated weak CIOs who won’t challenge their CSO or invent anything except status quo, etc.
As a result, they are much more open at the very least to using mobile devices as an additional device, and want to be able to do some work on them, as long as it is relatively simple and painless.
The most insightful mobile productivity use case I heard was. “I want to be able to collaborate outside the firewall with everybody I connect with for work.”
They have virtually zero in-house mobile apps that IT has developed for them. They see this as something that will happen slowly. They expect that business leaders will need to drive this, as IT doesn’t have the business insight to know what to build in many cases. Large IT shops more in touch with business.
Friends working at smaller organizations have far less legacy and feel much more confident and open to tablet workflows.
Universally they have no interest in using remote protocols on tablets on a regular basis for work.

Introducing Workspot

A company called Workspot has just launched with an approach to solving these types of use cases. The solution summary at a high level is a simple-to-use, secured workspace (not dual persona) on a personal user tablet. The tablet acts as a springboard for enterprise applications, and provides frictionless access to applications and data secured behind firewalls leveraging existing infrastructure.

Available from the app store, the Workspot client application at a technical level is a virtual encrypted file system and network stack on top of which various security, data collection and HMTL5 application viewer services are built. Workspot is calling this their unique approach to mobile virtualization.

It’s clear to me that mobile clients are becoming the new rich client. I find too many people still apply a thin client mindset to mobile devices. i.e. "Devices don’t do much and everything is in the cloud." This results in niche solutions that don’t work offline, resulting in a poor user experience. Services and content will be consumed close to where the user performs the execution. As this happens, the security perimeter must move closer to the user/content. We’d be foolish not to take advantage of all the power that devices offer in ever increasing permutations. You can no longer assume your enterprise firewall is your current DMZ perimeter. Your DMZ must extend to the device in a mobile world to enable user experience. To enable this, new mobile client security approaches are required.

The Workspot client is configured from Workspot Control, which is a free SaaS service. The setup is a two-step process: enter the existing VPN address and URLs for applications. Once configured, the client communicates with your existing enterprise infrastructure. Workspot supports enterprise infrastructure products including Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances (ASA), Dell SonicWALL Secure Remote Access (SRA), Juniper SA Series SSL-VPN, F5 SSL-VPN, RSA SecureID, and Microsoft Active Directory.

One thing I really like about the approach is that the data plane is back to the enterprise. So this makes the scalability of the solution as scalable as your existing infrastructure, and avoids high data costs flowing to and from a SaaS service. Additionally your corporate data does not flow through their SaaS service. I’ve learned from experience that many enterprises (due to security and regulatory reasons) will reject your SaaS solution when corporate data does not flow through existing trusted infrastructure.

Once connected, users have access to on-premise applications and SaaS applications. Also, by virtue of being a SaaS service, various analytics can then be collected and insight into the end user experience reported on.

The experience

The overall experience is simple. You set up your company at www.workspot.com and then add your users. Once complete you can add various apps and policies. Users authenticate directly against your VPN appliance and its Active Directory + SecureID setup. The Workspot client only authenticates when the user is successful in unlocking the application with their PIN.

Click to enlarge

Once the company, apps, policies and users are set up, the user simply downloads the Workspot client from a public app store and provides their email address. The Workspot client talks to the Workspot service and determines the configuration for that user. The Workspot client then prompts the user for their usual credentials, most likely Active Directory for most enterprises. These credentials are authenticated directly against the VPN appliance. The user then has access to corporate email using Outlook Web Access, Intranet, content and SaaS applications. The user can browse their work content.

Click to enlarge

That content can then also be edited or viewed using one of the viewers. Additionally, Microsoft has embedded web versions of Office into all their repositories (Skydrive, SharePoint etc.). For editing, Workspot is enabling Microsoft Office Web Edit that is bundled into SharePoint 2010 and above. This allows online editing in place and offline viewing if policy permits. Support for network file shares will be added in a future release, which will support viewing.

I asked the Workspot team if offline editing would be possible. Their opinion at the time was, that without access to the full fidelity document offline it made less sense to edit. They have also deliberately chosen not to enable other Office editing tools, because they feel that the quality of Office viewers/editors currently available on the iPad are really poor.

So overall my impression is that this approach is far simpler than MDM and workspace aggregation solutions on the market today. It get’s a user to the important work “stuff” that’s relevant today on personal devices, while also preserving the freedom to use devices for personal use. As a career enterprise guy, I also really like that the Workspot team is focused on user productivity, simplicity of experience, and low friction for IT, while also taking into account existing sunk cost of on-premise assets/services and avoiding the dual persona approach to BYOD which users don’t want.

I believe when all of this is considered in the context of the freemium business model described below, at the very least many will be compelled to consider this approach to enabling BYOD.

Freemium business model with a new value proposition

Most people are familiar with free products that get you to use their wares, which then upsell advanced features. So what’s different here?

The product is not crippled in terms of features that enable client security and application access. Workspot allows you to use the product for an unlimited number of users indefinitely (others solutions have time limits). In effect, this means that Workspot are trying to commoditize the access and control part of the value chain for a large segment of customers.

It’s a great answer to the $12 an hour sales guy knocking on your door trying to ram MDM down your throat. More importantly, I think this will incentivize many to ask better questions even if they still want to invest in MDM/MAM/other to cover additional application use cases. The conversation can now evolve to: Which approach better enables user productivity? How much of one particular approach do I need and what’s the respective value? The answers will be different depending upon each customer. But with 600 million people working within traditional enterprise today and an estimated 750 million tablets in 2015—representing more endpoints than desktops and laptops combined—there is a substantial segment of customers for whom a free product like this, that is aligned with existing enterprise workflows, will better increase user productivity vs. current alternatives.

That’s a lot of value to give away for free. You may wonder why Workspot would do such a thing. This is true, but it all depends on where you believe you are creating value and what the customer will pay for. For traditional BYOD solutions, the value has been created in access and control. Workspot believes the value will come from insights created via the data generated by users using their service. In other words, end user big data created on mobile devices. They plan to leverage big data techniques to convert massive quantities of end point session data records into greater visibility, security, and performance. The data collected from free access and control represents end point visibility and big data that can perhaps be monetized a la ArcSight and Splunk. I also envision future opportunities to add advanced access and control capabilities to meet additional enterprises needs.

Are they right? I don’t know, but one thing is for sure. It’s a bold move that I admire as something that could be very disruptive. There’s a good team in place. I worked with Workspot CEO Amitabh Sinha at Citrix when he was VP of product management for XenDesktop. So I can certainly attest to his understanding of the problem and am very impressed with progress to date. Early last year, this was just a discussion that we had.

At that time, there certainly was the question of does this cover all app use cases? Well clearly it doesn’t today, it doesn’t directly replace RDS/VDI or offer a solution for native mobile apps. However, the focus for Workspot is to address use cases for mobile that they believe people will use for work today. Other use cases such as mobile apps, can be added in a variety of ways in the future when its more clear what users will actually do. Despite this, what insights customers actually buy via analytic modules remains to be seen.

Perhaps there’s hope for frustrated systems admins as illustrated in this hilarious video, staring Brian Madden as a systems admin struggling to support users who have all just been give Tablets. Brian’s current answer is to return their laptops…

I’m fortunate to be privy to a number of emerging stealth ideas. The BYOD, mobile, consumerization, cloud access market is still young and much innovation is needed to enable user productivity. New ideas are emerging and the value chain is evolving. In such a dynamic market, there is no reason not to rethink everything and develop solutions that people actually want to use. Disrupting incumbent approaches and forcing the pace of change is great for the industry. So congratulations to the Workspot team on their launch. I wish them the very best of luck and encourage the community to not be shy, and ask the Columbo questions.

@harrylabana

Mocana just rolled out a ton of new features in its app wrapping product

2013-04-11T04:03:00Z

When Jack last checked in with Mocana's Mobile App Protection (MAP) platform last summer it was a more innocent time in the enterprise mobility management space. MAM was just something that was garnering buzz, vendors like Citrix, Nukona, and AppSense were just starting to dip their toes into the app wrapping waters, and Mocana's MAP was "only available through partner MDM and MAM solutions, including Boxtone, CACI, Apperian, and Mobiquity, among others," as Jack pointed out.

Fast forward to about a year later. MAM, at least in these here circles, isn't so much a buzz word anymore because it's perceived as a solid approach to enabling mobile productivity while also keeping corporate data secure. That doesn't mean it's not without problems -- as both Colin and Jack have argued over MAM standards recently (MobileIron is trying to address this with an app alliance) and Gabe took a deep-dive into the logistical problem of wrapping and publishing apps.

A quick tangent to address both those issues: the logistical problem of wrapping and publishing apps is much more problematic than the issue of standards. That's because wrapping and deploying apps is an actual problem an IT team needs to solve. It requires planning and thought and rolling up the sleeves to make a reality. Plus, it's not effortless at the moment.

Standards is sort of a straw man kind of thing. Just about every MAM vendor I've talked with has admitted that having a roster of exclusive mobile apps would certainly help distinguish their product and make a great selling point or bullet point in a press release. However, that app vendors focused on making a serious market penetration in the enterprise -- Evernote, Box, etc. etc. etc. -- have no desire to work exclusively with one or two MAM vendors. Those ISVs want their software sold to as many enterprises as possible. That means they have to make their SDK available to as many MAM vendors as possible, just like they've all published open APIs to integrate with each other, even seemingly competing apps. For IT departments that want to wrap apps themselves, many of those same ISVs have said in discussions that they will make their binaries available if the customer just asks. This is why I don't think MAM standards is much of an issue.

Quick tangent over, sorry.

Back to Mocana

The biggest change is that MAP is now available by a per user subscription or perpetual license basis. A MAP server is installed on-premises that acts as an app-wrapping gateway. IT pros can take any unsigned binary application developed in-house via the DevOps team or from third-party ISVs (obtained from the enterprise themselves by asking or from pre-arranged deals worked out by Mocana) and load them into the MAP server. The server is a web-based console that acts like a light weight app catalog or enterprise app store. From the console, an admin can select the application, select which security policies to add to it, and then output that APK as a compiled binary.

After the wrapped app has been signed it can be pushed down to the mobile device in a variety of ways, including an MDM product, an internal app store, linked to from an intranet site, etc. Mocana has also released a series of MAP APIs so IT can use the app wrapping technology as a service in conjunction with an existing MDM product that calls out to the MAP server.

Currently, only iOS and Android are supported platforms and I get the impression that BlackBerry and Windows Phone won't be coming anytime soon. Call it a hunch.

Among the policies that Mocana supports are some standard stuff like remote data wipe, jailbreak detection, passphrase, encryption, and the like. The latest release, however, rolls out some interesting new security policies:

Remote Data Wipe provides the ability to delete application-specific data of wrapped apps on managed and unmanaged mobile devices.
Smart Firewall provides the option of implementing a secure app connection to the enterprise network using an SSL reverse proxy. This option is an addition to the existing per-app IPSec VPN policy. Essentially, this ensures that a specific application can only connect to a specific server when it's connected to the network.
Geo-fencing defines where an app is usable based upon a real-world geographic location. Seems perfect for retail stores, restuarants, schools, military bases or even government that doesn't want their apps used outside the boundaries of a pre-designated location.
Location masking protects the user by preventing an app from obtaining the current location from the device it is running on.
App expiration defines a start and end date for app functionality which can be used with contractors and others needing temporary use of an app, or as a fail safe for ensuring an app can no longer be used by former employees.
App Federation allows a group of wrapped applications to share a single passphrase and have more granular data control and sharing between them. Say you deploy five wrapped application for an employee to use on their personal device. App federation loosely links those apps together but prevents them from interacting with the rest of the device. For example you could copy and paste data from a file syncing tool into a third-party email client but not paste that information into a personal instance of CloudOn or Gmail.

There are plenty of issues that MAM has to continue to iron out, but it's good to keep in mind that some of those issues are definitely on the minds of vendors and with the right amount of planning and understanding the business case your are working to enable, those problems might not be as problematic as some make them out to be.

Bonus: Next week, Jack will take a gander at Mocana's just announced Mocana Developer Program (MDP), which allows third-party mobile app ISVs to upload their app to a testing portal to ensure it works with Mocana's MAP before making their SDK available to enterprises.

Mobile App Management standards will just get in the way of progress

2013-04-05T13:35:00Z

MAM and MIM are promising technologies for securing and enabling an on-the-go workforce. The more you look at them, however, the more you see potential problems that could prevent widespread adoption.

Jack Madden has done a good job outlining these problems in recent posts about mobile application management (MAM) and mobile information management (MIM). I agree with his basic premise, that to prevent these problems, we need MAM to tie into the apps people want to use. (And in the case of MIM, we need our protected data to be accessible by the right apps.) But I disagree that formal standards are the way to make this happen.

Standards get messy. Just because some vendors get together and slap the word "standard" on a particular initiative, it doesn't guarantee adoption. Sometimes you even end up with competing vendor-driven standards, which defeats the whole purpose of having standards in the first place.

It's better to have user-driven standards, which is how things work in a lot of industries. Take the cloud storage and file-sharing market. There are no formal standards for getting your app to tie into Dropbox or Box. But tons of apps tie into those services, and you almost never hear people complaining about interoperability or fragmentation in this market these days. Why? Because Dropbox and Box ARE the standards. Everyone uses those services, and that motivates app developers to make deals with them.

We have problems in MAM and MIM because these technologies are so new. There's not enough critical mass behind any one or two MAM or MIM vendors that would force app developers to work with them. And honestly, there aren't many enterprise apps that have that critical mass either, that would be must-have apps for MAM vendors to wrap. Most mobile workers just use their devices to check email.

As more robust enterprise mobile apps become available, we'll start to see MAM vendors jostle for position, making land grabs to wrap the most popular ones. Eventually, a small handful of vendors will boast strong rosters of wrapped apps. The rest will fall by the wayside. And choosing the right MAM vendor will become an easier choice for businesses -- without those pesky standards getting in the way.

This post is an expanded and cleaned-up version of the notes I used to argue against Jack's standards proposal on Episode 21 of our Consumerization Nation podcast.

Growing pains for a new iPhone user, comparisons to my past life as an Android user

2013-03-29T04:03:00Z

In my recent piece on the first two-weeks of being a new iPhone user, I jumped right into the application experience because that seemed to be the logical starting point. Mobile devices are personal and what makes them personal are the apps we eventually come to rely on. It's also the more interesting thing to talk about. Everyone has their favorite apps or apps that drive them crazy, etc.

Yes, Swarna, I really do use Evernote for snapping recipe photos. But, I also use it for snapping receipt images and really anything that I want to save, organize, and be able to search later on. If I come across something that I want to cook, I just dump it into Evernote -- recipe link, image from grandma's cookbook, whatever. Evernote is great for immediately never forgetting anything ever. If that makes sense.

Someone else asked how I define the separation from work and personal apps. The truth? There is none. I just want apps that let me get shit done, organize my life, and help compensate for the things I'm not good at as a person. That's no small task. At the same time, I won't be playing Letterpress at work anytime soon but the notion of work vs. personal is really tricky on a mobile device. It takes a lot of mental energy to unplug the phone and devote that energy to my family and non-work endeavors. Otherwise, I'd probably be "working" in some fashion for the duration of my waking time.

Anyway, I should have began that first post with setting up my iPhone because it's a great lesson to keep in mind that security and ease of use are often at odds with one another, but don't necessarily have to be. The sad thing is the cumbersome nature of setting up my iPhone was my own fault. No one to blame but me. But the point is still relevant for IT admins that if you don't make the mobile devices you support (corporate issued or BYOD, doesn't matter either way) easy for users they'll just find a way around the gate like the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park.

Security vs. Ease of Use

The delicate balance between IT's desire for draconian security and control with the end-user's desire to play Angry Birds at work is one of the most prevalent themes of enterprise mobility and consumerization -- at least according to all the press releases I get. Obviously, it's not that drastic, but there is a consideration to be made with how much security is necessary when it comes to a mobile device. That comfort level is going to be different for every organization, but what isn't different is that users will find a way if the experience you give them is sub-par.

For example, the initial excitement of firing up my iPhone was quickly dashed by the stone-cold reality that I've set up two-factor authentication for every web service that allows it. I also use LastPass to manage my online usernames and passwords. Installing all my shiny new apps was the only easy thing about getting my iPhone up and running.

It is my own fault -- certainly -- for being overly paranoid about my identity and protecting my information by having 150 unique and complex passwords for every website or service that I use. I don't care about my privacy in the least, but there's no way with all the recent hackings into Dropbox or Evernote that I'm going to use the same password for those sites that I'll use for email and my online banking.

I was able to download the LastPass mobile app, pay them $12 for mobile access to my passwords and get access to my services. My inherent laziness finds it ridiculous, however, that I have to log into LastPass, search for my stored Evernote or Dropbox credentials, then copy and paste both my username and password into an entry box, and then enter the two-factor authentication pass code sent to me via SMS just to start using these apps. And in the case of my Google services I would further have to create application specific passwords and enter that once I got past the two-factor authentication. Have you tried setting up an application specific password on a mobile device? It sucks.

Let me rant for a second. You can't set up an application specific password on a mobile device because you have to log into your Google account first, navigate to the user settings section, etc. etc. The easiest way to do this is to sit in front of a laptop to generate the password, and then enter it in manually on the mobile device. It's a user experience nightmare. Sure, I feel more secure about my online accounts, but after spending two or three days copy and pasting usernames and passwords from LastPass into various mobile applications I really contemplated whether I needed to jump through so many security hoops.

There is money to be made from someone like me that wants a certain level of security but also an ease of use to access those accounts. I would gladly pay $5 per month to an enterprise IAM vendor such as Okta, OneLogin, or Ping Identity to make a consumer, single-sign on password manager that automatically recognizes my stored services with the apps installed on my device and logs me in without me having to do anything. This would especially come in handy when I need to change a password for whatever reason.

If my experience is but a microcosm for what IT admins go through to enable enterprise mobility without pissing off the end-user than I'm amazed enterprise mobility makes it past the discussion phases. It's enough to make a person wave a white flag in defeat. At the same time, as a user, I realized that too much security was a pain in my ass. Certainly enough to make me say, "forget it, I'll just figure something else out." I'm glad I inflicted this upon myself because if my IT department was responsible for such a bad experience I would have been really upset.

What about Android?

I don't know if the current version of Android is as good as iOS because I stopped using Android sometime between when my HTC Incredible's screen cracked into a thousand pieces and either HTC or Verizon made the decision for me that my phone's OS would be forever stuck on Android 2.3.

Mostly, I remember Android 2.3 being good enough. It was a serviceable mobile operating system. I liked that I could customize it to my heart's content by adding third-party app launchers, different keyboards, whatever floated my boat. But there was plenty I didn't like about the experience. Android was not necessarily good enough that I was eager to upgrade to another Android phone immediately. Maybe it's different if you are using the 4.0 version and the wrinkly problems I had with it were ironed out. I would consider getting another Android device with some caveats -- the biggest being OS upgrades. Fragmentation isn't just a headache for IT departments, but it's also a hindrance to user-loyalty. If I know my Android device is perpetually stuck on Android 4.0 when version 6.0 has just been released and that's the case for most Android phones, well, that's a recipe for disaster.

As configured, my iPhone feels like a work device first and a personal device second. As it should! This is a nit-picky thing, but I wished that were reversed. I wish it felt like a personal phone that had access to my work stuff rather than a work phone that has access to my personal stuff. For example, the entirety of my personal contacts are managed through Google Contacts. My work contacts are managed through Exchange. When I update a contact on my iPhone it updates and syncs back to Exchange regardless of whether it's a personal contact or not. I don't have the option of choosing to update my contacts synced through Google. This might not be a problem for some, but I don't need or want to store my friends and family's contact information to my work exchange.

I use a Windows laptop with Exchange at work and I live and breathe in Google's web services for my personal life. My iPhone should bridge those two worlds more seamlessly in a bi-directional manner. I should be able to update and sync personal contacts saved on the iPhone back into Google Contacts just as effortlessly as that happens for work.

Is this easier to troubleshoot on Android? Again, I don't know, but it's something I never considered as being a crucial factor until now.

Another reason I would consider switching is Android's notifications are far superior and more user-friendly. I don't need widgets or live tiles, frankly, but I loved that Android made adjusting essential settings such as turning Wi-Fi on or off or controlling the screen brightness so much easier than Apple does. This is low-hanging fruit that Apple should be able to fix in the next version of iOS. The notifications tray was something I came to rely on with Android. With iOS, it's pretty much a feature I would prefer to disable. It just doesn't do anything for me at the moment.

Further, I find it interesting that Android gets a ton of crap for carriers loading bloatware onto the OS, but there's no way I can delete some of Apple's pre-loaded apps I'm not using. I also can't set Chrome as my default browser which can frankly be frustrating when links open in Safari. I get that there are massive differences between the two scenarios, but the point is each mobile platform comes with frustrating liabilities that should be easily correctable for users.

One more thing! It's worth paying a few bucks for apps that are advertising-free. I was okay with it when I had an Android phone because at the time I didn't know any better and there didn't seem to be many apps worth paying for. There are plenty of iOS apps worth paying for and I gladly do on iOS.

The Takeaway

In the end, it feels like the debate between iOS and Android is a silly one. They both feel like great platforms that offer something slightly unique for users. Nearly every mobile device article's comment section inevitably devolves into a frothing fanboy contest pitting iOS against Android in the Thunderdome. Mobile platforms all have significant pluses and minuses; it's far more interesting to talk about what each one brings to the table to enable mobile productivity instead of who's arbitrarily winning the market share battle. Anyone ranting about closed vs. open or whatever is missing the boat entirely.

In thinking about my time using both an iPhone and an Android device, factors such as battery life, quality (not quantity) of apps, ease of use, continued feature and OS upgrades all matter. There are also plenty of Android-esque features I wish Apple would offer to let iOS's freak flag fly just a little bit. As it stands, the iPhone itself feels like the dichotomy of someone driving a high-end luxury automobile (the hardware) while wearing a reliable yet unremarkable, off the rack navy suit (iOS).

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, either. I love that I have access to all these incredible applications. I love that I have the best hardware and can go out and find the best software -- whether that's from Google, Apple, or an independent developer -- to power my mobile life. I love that when I'm working on my desktop and my iPhone is right next to it, work emails get pushed to my mobile device quicker. I love that my laptop is a terrible computing device that often spins its wheels because it can't handle having Chrome and Outlook open at the same time, but that never happens on my iPhone. I love that it has the potential to be an amazing communication and productivity device. I love that developers are just figuring out how to build apps that are truly native experiences -- visceral apps, as someone recently put it.

Anyone that says an iPhone or iPad or even an Android device is for consumption-only clearly hasn't been around the block. I can see the unique appeal for either Android or iOS as an end user depending upon a panoply of personal preferences. Maybe one day I'll get to use a Windows Phone or BlackBerry 10 to see what the appeal of those platforms might be. If any at all.

BlackBerry earnings: 1 million Z10s sold, 3 million subscribers lost

2013-03-28T13:08:00Z

BlackBerry held its first earnings call of the BlackBerry 10 era today, and the results were decidedly mixed. The beleaguered smartphone maker is making strides to regain respectability but still has a ways to go to right its ship.

On the plus side, the company reported its second consecutive quarterly profit and 1 million sales worldwide of its new flagship device, the touchscreen Z10. These signs are promising, but it's too early to tell what they'll mean for BlackBerry's long-term viability. The Z10 just went on sale in the United States over the past few days, and its physical keyboard cousin the Q10 isn't out anywhere yet. (For what it's worth, I don't think the Q10 will have any effect on BlackBerry 10's overall success, but some QWERTY-loving physical keyboard loyalists disagree.)

The bad news from the BlackBerry earnings call was that 3 million subscribers left the company during the quarter. It's not a good sign when someone who has stuck with BlackBerry all these years says, "You know what? It's time for an iPhone!" just months before a new, reinvented BlackBerry hits the shelves. Also, the company's revenue of $2.7 billion didn't meet Wall Street's expectations.

There were some other interesting tidbits from BlackBerry, which I'll leave up to the good people of Twitter to share:

$BBRY The most important note : Blackberry CEO Heins Says Interest from Corporate Customers is High
— Antonio Costa (@ACInvestorBlog) March 28, 2013

#BlackBerry CEO Thorsten Heins says 55% of #BlackBerryZ10 customers are converts from other non-BlackBerry phones
— David Friend (@dj_friend) March 28, 2013

Q10 will launch in April, Thorsten says. $BBRY
— Iain Marlow (@iainmarlow) March 28, 2013

#BB will contnue to sell #BB7 in markets despite pushing #BB10 So BB7 will become the lower end devices to compliment #BB10
— Jack Gold (@jckgld) March 28, 2013

About the new BB10 apps, Heins says 70% are "native" to #BlackBerry 10 platform. The others are Android apps that have been emulated. $bbry
— Dan Gallagher (@MWDanGallagher) March 28, 2013

BlackBerry pursuing other services opportunities. BlackBerry 10 Licensing is still on the table. $BBRY.
— Bloodhound Report (@BloodHoundRP) March 28, 2013

#Blackberry reports profit and increased cash for Q4 despite lower shipments Puts it in good shape for mktg investment it must make in #BB10
— Jack Gold (@jckgld) March 28, 2013

Heins: "Our vision is to expand from being a smartphone company to being a leader in mobile computing." $BBRY
— Julianne Pepitone (@julpepitone) March 28, 2013

Citrix's recent mobility report reveals some interesting trends in mobile applications and security

2013-03-28T04:03:00Z

First, all of the numbers I'm about to cite should be taken with a grain of salt as the data is based purely on Citrix customers deploying enterprise mobility management in the cloud during the fourth quarter of 2012. That's a lot of qualifying statements and therefore by no means a definitive way to suggest grand overarching trends in the mobility space. But, the report does offer some interesting insight that may or may not be useful for future discussions.

iOS was the platform of choice for enterprises, accounting for 58% of devices enrolled within the Citrix products. Android was the fastest growing platform, gaining 11% from one quarter to the previous, with the majority of that growth occurring in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Overall, Android accounted for 35% of activated devices. Windows Phone clocked in third with 7%. Obviously, there's no need to enroll BlackBerries in a Citrix device management scenario.
Android devices showed a strong preference amongst field service workers, including those in transportation and utility companies. There was a strong preference for iOS in just about every other vertical.
Blacklisting also seems to be growing in popularity, with 18% of companies banning certain apps from its network -- up from 11% in the previous quarter.
Android accounted for 97% of all mobile malware issues. As we used to say in Spanish class, "no bueno."

And what about mobile policy? The use of a passcode as a security mechanism was required by nearly two-thirds of companies. The use of two-factor authentication was only required in 14% of organizations. Other policies for mobile devices include the restriction of device resources and certain apps.

As for applications? Well, organizations typically deployed more than 100 applications on either iOS or Android, plus custom and homegrown apps. The most common third-party apps deployed on mobile devices include: Citrix Receiver (obviously), NitroDesk Touchdown, Adobe Reader (really?), Numbers (but not Pages?), Box, Concur, Salesforce, Dropbox, and Evernote.

The really interesting stuff is when you cross-pollinate the list of apps above with the list of commonly blacklisting apps. Evernote went from being a commonly blacklisted app in the third quarter to becoming the most commonly whitelisted app in the fourth quarter. That's kind of insane, but shows how much Evernote has progressed in becoming an invaluable mobile productivity app.

The most common blacklisted apps, include: Facebook, Angry Birds, YouTube, Dropbox, and Skype. Oddly, Skype was the only app that seemed to fall right in the middle. It was also listed as a commonly whitelisted app. Not sure how an app can be both commonly whitelisted and blacklisted, but it seems everybody hates and loves Skype. Sounds about right for a Microsoft product. I'm not surprised that Dropbox was on the blacklist, but I wonder how long it becomes until Dropbox follows Evernote to the other side. Clearly, there's a disconnect at the moment if the popular app is not only one of the most commonly used and blacklisted mobile applications.

With Citrix AG and CSG going away, how far can you get with NetScaler VPX? The answer: pretty far!

2013-03-27T04:03:00Z

If you are following Citrix’s networking product line I guess that you are already familiar with a fact that Citrix has finally decided to “End of Life” the Access Gateway product line in 2014. While we can debate for hours if this decision makes sense or not, from purely field perspective I don’t believe it will be a life changer. The NetScaler product line is absolutely capable of addressing almost all AG use cases. The only exception might be an AG + AAC setup in some measure, but let’s be honest; AG+ AAC setup pushed to its limits is definitely a rare occurrence these days.

The Citrix networking world wouldn’t be as fun as it is if the only problem we had is an AG EoL, though. There is another thing that causes concern. Have you ever asked yourself a question what will happen with CSG? Every once in a while you hear people saying that CSG is dead, but in spite of that, Citrix delivers a new version with every major product release.

Well it looks like this time it is really over.

Currently, Citrix Secure Gateway is the only component that offers free ICA-Proxy connections using SSL. Secure Gateway 3.3 is supported up to 2016, but Secure Gateway-based configurations will become partially unsupported in 2015 due to the End of Life of Web Interface 5.4. At that time, StoreFront will be the only “web interface” to Citrix environments. StoreFront does not, and will not, support Secure Gateway in any way.

That means that all of you happily running 1000-1500 users over single CSG + Web Interface will have to get highly creative when explaining to your customers that they will have to migrate to a new platform and respectively start paying for a service they previously had for free.

Is that really a bad thing? The answer to that question is tricky, and I would have to say “yes” and “no”.

You can argue that it is a big deal because CSG is free and easy to setup. It’s been around a long time, and so we’ve come to know it well and depend on it. Of course, you could also argue that it is not such a bad thing because NetScaler is a much better product.

For starters with NetScaler you will get out-of-the-box XML load balancing and health checking capability for your farms. Web Interface load balancing, seamless failover to a working appliance in HA setups, smart access capabilities if you need them etc. The details of these features are worth an article by themselves, but suffice it to say these are important.

Let’s admit, having three different solutions (AG, CSG, and NetScaler) to wrap ICA sessions into SSL and route them to a single point of access must be overkill from product support perspective. It’s understandable that something had to change. I guess your next question now would be, “so know what?”

If you are not comfortable running unsupported components in production I would suggest that the best course of action is to try to find a replacement for your CSG setup. Do you really need to spend 150k in hardware to do so? The answer is “definitely no.”

This brings us at last to the moment of truth, one of the reasons why I wrote this article in the first place. The fundamental question on NetScaler VPX product line is ultimately expressed and answers start varying depending on who you ask. That question, of course, is:

How many users I can take on a single NetScaler VPX instance?

The Official Citrix position on the matter is something like:

“NetScaler VPX performance is dependent upon underlying server infrastructure”.

At the same time Citrix also states that AG VPX supports 500 concurrent users. I suppose that “Underlying server infrastructure” criterion applies only to NetScaler VPX product line (or I must have missed something).

On the other hand, the answer to the same question from a skilled sales professional might be:

“You can support 500 users max on a VPX. If you need more than that we have beautiful MPX 7500 that will take you up to 1500 users. For anything above 1500 users you will be invited to check the brand new MPX 11500.”

But, I am neither a sales professional nor a Citrix representative. I believe that if you have a large farm environment, the NetScaler VPX will be nothing more than a DEV appliance for you to do your testing and sandbox work on. If you have over 200 users, it’s currently best practice to deploy the physical appliance instead of the VPX.

With some perspective it appears that the vague answer that you can expect from Citrix is, ironically, the most accurate (if you forget the part on AG VPX limitation of course). Let’s see why:

Two years ago I was working on a frontal infrastructure redesign for a major corporate investment bank here in France. Without entering into details, I needed a solution capable of supporting around 3000 concurrent sessions running heavy trading applications in multi-screen setup. At the same time, the solution should load balance all production XML and Web interface servers.

Being faced with same questions, I decided to try NetScaler VPX myself. The first thing I realized is that the VPX and MPX are using exactly the same firmware.

That led me to a bold assumption that a VPX and MPX should perform similarly on equally performing hardware when it comes to ICA proxy.

My initial bandwidth analysis was more than promising, so I decided to check with the hypervisor guys to see how they felt about my idea to go with VPX. The virtualization architect responsible for the hypervisor stack, probably one of the best engineers I ever worked with, agreed to try. We provisioned two NetScaler VPX 200 appliances in HA, one in each datacenter and we were ready to roll.

Some say that one picture is worth a thousand words.

This is how NetScaler VPX 200 dashboard looks like with around 1900 concurrent sessions.

You can see that this implementation of NetScaler VPX is, not surprisingly, barely using any of 4 GB of RAM allocated. When running on latest generation hardware, 400 users will consume just 1 % of CPU. Additionally, network throughput really in my scenario it rarely goes over 30 Mb/s, although this is bound to be different in other use cases.

Personally, I would feel confident to scale up this environment to at least five times these numbers without a blink before considering any architectural change.

So in case you’re looking for an ICA proxy solution based on NetScaler VPX, I would say that a sky is the limit as long as underlying server infrastructure is ok. And that is the only thing you should have in mind when going VPX for ICA proxy.

On the other hand it would be a great thing if Citrix could make a clear stand on this subject. I believe the time has really come to stop with arbitrary limitations or senseless expert recommendations and let this product work the way it has been designed for.

Part One: My Shameful Mobility Secret Revealed

2013-03-07T16:01:00Z

About two weeks ago, this lowly consumerization reporter – one that happens to cover enterprise mobility for a living – finally upgraded from an LG Cosmos dumbphone to an iPhone 4S. It's not my first trip to the smartphone rodeo, having previously used an Android device up until a year ago.

A year, however, is an eternity when it comes to mobile devices. Becoming a member of the smartphone club once again, but with a different mobile OS, seemed like a good opportunity to personally dive into the tech segment I cover. I ended up splitting this post into two parts because, holy shit, I had a lot to say and reading 2,500 words on this seemed like a lot to stomach.

Now, it's worth noting that my LG Cosmos was a perfectly acceptable tool for ignoring phone calls, sending texts, setting a reliable alarm clock, and peace of mind if I ever needed to bludgeon someone to death courtesy of the phone's brick-like design. Man, on the other hand, the iPhone 4S actually elicits "ohs" and "ahs" from strangers and family even though everyone supposedly has an iPhone and this specific device was released back in 2011. The hardware is indeed unparalleled and the retina screen impresses me every time I look at it.

In short: yes, the iPhone more or less just works. Yes, I'm able to stay hyper-connected to my digital world. Yes, iTunes Match is probably the greatest $25 you can spend as a music lover with an admittedly ridiculously large music collection. As a platform for applications iOS is superb. However, two weeks in, I'm still not entirely sold on iOS or most of Apple's bundled services.

I want to embrace the iPhone as a productivity tool, but I too often feel guilty that I use the device to mostly delete junk email, scroll through Twitter and Facebook, and play video games when I'm not physically in the office. My device has enough computing power to send someone to the moon for crying out loud and the best I can do with it at the moment is no different than what I do on my laptop. I'm hopeful this will change in due time as I break the device in, but for know I feel like Luke Skywalker trying to harness The Force in 'Empire Strikes Back'. I know the the potential is there, but I'm not sure I know how to unlock it.

The power of the apps side

What I need and want from a smartphone is quick and easy access to the apps and information I need in an organized fashion. That means having one location for all the games and puzzles I play, having another folder for work and productivity things, and another folder for entertainment apps, etc.

It's all about being able to quickly get in and out of apps to get the data I need when I need it. Whether it's checking the weather, email, my calendar or finding a contact I don't want to futz around in the app to get the information I need.

I understand this is also a good argument for constantly updating informational widgets or live tiles on the home screen, but I don't need my phone to double as a stock ticker. I want to control the flow of information and access it on my own terms, rather than have it shoved in my face. This is purely a personal preference and differs for everyone.

Also, battery life is important. I'd rather launch an app for the information I need if it means having the battery last a little bit longer throughout the day. It's a trade-off I'm willing to make because the extra ten-seconds needed to launch an app instead of just having it AVAILABLE NOW isn't the difference between life or death.

As of this writing, I'm mostly relying on the built-in email and calendar app for my TechTarget stuff courtesy of Apple. They're not great, but not terrible. They remind me of a Soviet Cold War-era utilitarian building -- perfectly useful, but it ain't the Bilboa Guggenheim Art Museum, either.

I've heard most people with smartphones have like 80-100 apps on them and use only 15 regularly. I'm a Spartan-type of person where I try to pare down everything in my life to the uncluttered essentials. I don't want to waste intellectual effort deciding what winter coat to wear every morning.

I'll be taking the same approach for my mobile apps. Why use Yelp and Foresquare when just one will do. Why have Rdio, iTunes Match, Pandora, Spotify when iTunes and Rdio meet my needs. With that in mind, here's what apps I am relying on (this could change, but maybe not):

Gmail for my personal email, but hoping to try out Mailbox soon.
Evernote. It's perfect for taking pictures of receipts, organizing notes and files and keeping me organized more than I've ever been.
Dropbox and Box for file syncing, obviously. I have both SkyDrive and Google Drive accounts, but haven't bothered installing those apps yet.
Safari and Chrome are currently battling it out for my browser of choice. Leaning towards Chrome because I'm very Google-centric for my services.
Google Maps has replaced Apple Maps.
The official Facebook and Twitter clients for my social media needs. Facebook's app is good enough to keep, Twitter's client is on the chopping block once I find a replacement.
CloudOn is my Office productivity app at the moment, but let's be real – extended editing of documents on an iPhone is no different than getting a colonoscopy. It's installed merely as an emergency needed type of app.
I'm using a few food-related apps like Chef's Feed, Nara, Epicurious, and Untappd.
Clear is the app I use the most for managing to-do lists. Rise has become my alarm clock app and Solar is my weather app.
Letterpress for smart fun, Infinity Blade for mindless competitive fun.
Timbre for surfacing live music events around Boston.

I'm considering hopping onto the Foursquare and Instagram wagon, but it's also two more social apps I don't have the emotional resources to invest in. I'm considering installing Camera+ to beef up the photo capabilities of the phone.

Oh, sooo that's what a crapplication is?

When Brian Katz crusades against crapplications, I now get it. I no longer have to silently nod my head and pretend I understand what the heck he's talking about. One of the dirty secrets about the tech press is we're encouraged to write about "native apps" as if that indicates the app developer put some extra thought and care into the functionality and design of the app. The phrase "native app" implies that the app in question is not a crapplication. But, it doesn't matter to me as a user how the app was compiled -- whether it be HTML5 or Objective-C or whatever.

What I've come to realize is that the UI and UX paradigm (barf, but it's the best phrase I can come up with) of mobile devices is vastly different from Windows or OSX and matters a whole lot more than the programming language used to write the app. Brian previously wrote about how touch and swipe gestures changes how software should be constructed on a mobile device because it's so different than the interaction a user has with a mouse and keyboard. It's worth revisiting in light of what I'm about to say.

Clear, Rise Solar, and Timbre are exquisite examples of developers building a limited-purpose application that relies strictly on a mobile UI/UX. Those four apps are some of the best computer software I've ever used on any platform because they only use touch and swipe to navigate through the application environment. They are intuitively mobile apps, not just an app on a mobile device. It's an important distinction.

If you use those apps, you're probably nodding your head in agreement. There is a remarkable difference between the UX for Clear and Apple's native task reminder app. Many apps are still designed as if they were simply ported from its desktop version. It sucks. If you design your app like this, do us all a favor and just stop!

For example, CloudOn is practically useless since it crams the Microsoft Office ribbon into a mobile app. Why should I have to pinch and zoom in the app to guarantee my clumsy sausage fingers will tap the functionality I need? Even Gmail, which is one of the better designed email clients, still feels like most of its design cues are ported from the existing web app. Why am I trying to check tiny little boxes to select an email in order to delete it? These apps are so unintuitive and I would argue borderline crapplications.

Conversely, this is why I've come to love Evernote. The designers have managed to create a unique experience for using Evernote on the web versus on a mobile device, but it still feels like a great, cohesive experience regardless of the platform. The Apple's, Google's, and Microsoft's of the world should take heed of this new reality.

Tomorrow, we'll dive into my experience setting up my new iPhone (not as easy as I'd hoped) and have a few comparisons between my experience with Android and iOS.

You can't solve BYOD because it's not a problem

2013-03-07T05:02:00Z

Not a week goes by that I don't receive a press release or read a news article about some new product or other that "solves BYOD." Vendors and customers that look at BYOD as a problem to solve, and not an opportunity to take advantage of, are missing the point.

The bring your own device (BYOD) trend is happening because workers want to be more flexible, efficient and, ultimately, productive. That is not a problem. The problem is that the tools you've given your employees all these years -- the three-year-old BlackBerry, the Web app that only works in Internet Explorer 6, the VPN that takes five minutes to sign on to -- no longer cut it. BYOD is users' response to the problem. What will your response be?

You can adopt a formal BYOD program, putting policies and products into place that strike the right balance between user freedom and corporate security. Just make sure you choose this route for the right reasons. (Hint: Don't do it expecting huge BYOD cost savings.)

If the idea of letting any old smartphone or tablet off the street onto your corporate network freaks you out, you can limit the personal devices you'll support, or you can buy specific devices for employees. This corporate-issued model is something a lot of organizations are familiar with thanks to BlackBerry, so it may be a better fit for some -- as long as you buy devices that employees will want to use, and you don't lock them down so much that you take away their consumer appeal. "WHAT? NO YOUTUBE?!?!?"

The enterprise mobility management approach you choose will depend on your organization's goals, security requirements and risk tolerance, as well as your users' needs. It really doesn't matter which technologies and policies you implement, as long as they enable employees to be more productive and give IT the level of security and control it needs (not wants; those are often two very different things).

BYOD is disruptive. It brings challenges. It takes control out of IT's hands. But these issues are simply the natural fallout from IT's inability to keep up with users' technology needs. That is the problem that needs to be solved.

Think users will blindly agree to MAM? Think again!

2013-02-28T15:32:00Z

Mobile application management isn’t a cure-all for the problem of controlling corporate assets on personal devices. Users will still need a good deal of convincing and persuading -- or, if you prefer a gentler term, “education.”

During this week’s SearchCIO tweet jam on mobility, I got a wakeup call regarding users’ trust (or lack thereof) in IT and the general lack of knowledge around mobile application management (MAM). We typically accept the fact that mobile device management (MDM) won’t work for BYOD because users won’t give IT permission to delete their personal apps and data. What we don’t expect, however, is for that same resistance to exist around MAM.

It does.

When the issue of MDM and BYOD came up in the tweet chat, I posted what I thought was a generally accepted statement: “If IT can wipe corporate, containerized data and apps and leave personal stuff alone, users will consent.” That led to this conversation:

@tdprice How would that be a hard sell? IT wouldn't touch personal content. #CIOchat
— SearchCoIT (@SearchCoIT) February 27, 2013

@rachelattt @searchcoit @tdprice #CIOChat Totally legit. Corp wiping personal data is the BIGGEST fear!
— Christopher Steffen (@cmsteffen) February 27, 2013

@rachelattt @tdprice It's not a trust thing with #MAM and #MIM. It's a "we literally aren't able to wipe personal stuff" thing. #CIOchat
— SearchCoIT (@SearchCoIT) February 27, 2013

The mobile elite may see MAM (and, to a similar extent, mobile virtualization/ dual-persona technology) as an easy way to separate corporate and personal assets (and control over those assets) on the same device. But some users will see it as a piece of software that YOU’RE installing on MY phone that will give YOU control.

As MAM continues to make inroads -- remember, a lot of IT people haven’t even heard of it -- we must keep in mind that the technology alone will not solve any problems. Organizations will need to prove to users -- through training, demos, etc. -- that they have no desire to view or control their personal content, and furthermore, that they couldn’t do it even if they wanted to.

Just like any other mobility initiative, without user buy-in, MAM will fail.

Google’s Chromebook Pixel as a play for the enterprise? It’s not so crazy.

2013-02-22T07:20:00Z

Yesterday, Google unveiled its rumored high-end netbook replacement—the Chromebook Pixel. While I haven’t gotten my hands on one yet, I was really impressed by the specs and apparent build quality. It’s the closest thing I’ve seen to a Macbook Pro, from the anodized case to the super-high resolution Retina-like display. Unfortunately, it also comes with a price to match, as the starting price is $1299. LTE and a larger SSD notch it up to $1449.

This new Chromebook did get me thinking about the target market. Up to this point, Chromebooks have mostly been a geek-gadget. They’re relatively cheap, require little-to-no maintenance, and necessitate a constant internet connection. And of course running only Chrome apps can be limiting (albeit, a smaller challenge everyday as the catalog grows). Gabe tested one a year and a half ago and hated it due to its low performance and lackluster use case.

But this new piece of hardware is clearly a jump beyond netbook-like performance. And while I still think it’s incredibly expensive for what it does, it opens up a world of possibilities in the enterprise.

I should start with a disclaimer: I realize no corporation is going to run out and replace all their cheap $600 Dell Latitudes with $1300 Google Chromebooks. But by developing this, Google has signaled it wants a halo product to show off the capabilities of their ChromeOS ecosystem.

And while a cursory glance at the product and its price might leave you scoffing, a closer look at what comes in the package changes the landscape a bit. Besides the Chromebook, you also get a terabyte (!) of cloud storage from Google. For free. For 3 years. Current rates for Google Drive storage for 3 years are $1800 by itself even without the Chromebook. Tack on the LTE option and you get 100 MB a month for two years as well.

Google has undercut their own pricing model to put a device in your hands that allows you to do all your work from wherever you are on a premium machine inside a secure environment that requires little-to-no management. Presuming your corporate enterprise can find its way to porting their apps into Chrome, or using one of the thousands already inside the ecosystem, you begin to realize that Google has removed almost all the requisite in-house management from companies and given users storage, management, and remote access, hosted reliably by Google servers—all for $1299.

Of course still making the sales pitch that this is the way to go versus cheaper alternatives to Dell or HP in an entrenched ecosystem isn’t exactly an overnight proposition. And let’s be honest here—from the perspective of many businesses, this product doesn’t do anything better than what they’re already using and may in some cases actually do things worse. Reviews on the Chrome Store show that Citrix Receiver and similar RDP solutions are middling at best on ChromeOS. Google Docs still has a long way to go before unseating Office (keeping in mind we do have Office365 in the pipeline).

But if Google can prove the robustness of the platform and offer a laptop priced in line with current competitor offerings, we might be on to something not too far down the road where the top-to-bottom packaging of the hardware, ecosystem, storage, and management becomes appealing for the price-point and those RDP options don’t matter as the Windows environment's necessity fizzles.