iPhone OS 3.1 enforcing Exchange device encryption, only supported by iPhone 3GS
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 11th 2009 2:03PM
posted Sep 11th 2009 2:03PM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
S - sucks to be you.
No one is upgrading from iPhone 2G/3G to 3GS, so Apple just wanted to get some $$$. Come on, they have to do something to make people upgrade!
To all the people in the company I work for using the iPhone for their work email even when told its not supported: HAHA! *Nelson Point*
You mean Sucks to be "you" as in sucks to be you who don't have the S.
I don't see any reason why people who have an existing 2G or 3G won't upgrade.
You get a faster processor, double the memory, which actually computes to about 5 times the available memory after system resources,
and you get a slew of other features that the previous phones don't have (or Apple isn't releasing)
I sold my gently used iPhone 16GB 3G (off contract) for $300 on Craigslist and promptly turned around and bought a brand new 3GS 16GB with money to spare for a new case and screen protector.
If you are going to stick with AT&T anyway, might as well make use of the heavy subsidizing, eh?
Wow, I am officially over the iPhone...
iPhone is boring now...
granted I do have 3 4GB iPhones, oen I use, the other is ready to go and another BNIB...
$149 refurbs from the Apple store...
I don't know how you nubs actually really use this thing in real life..
wasting away time poking a 3.5" screen...
Quite frankly I think people who use more than 1GB/moth on an iPhone are losers...
@Jash
Like making good products you mean.
Eyhk- Because some of use are waiting for our contract to be up so we dont have to pay $600. Which the 4th gen will be just about out by then so...
@Eyhk
So what you are saying is that people like myself who have a first gen iPhone are stupid for not locking themselves into another 2 year contract, stupid for not paying $20 more per month for 3G service (that I don't need), stupid for not giving Apple another $200 when I have a working device, stupid for not wanting to get locked into another device that comes full of promises but falls short over and over again.
But it is an Apple creation, so I guess we should overlook all that and mindlessly buy into the "it is Apple, so you should have it" attitude. Think different unless it is different from Apple, then you are stupid - be a conformist!
And why isn't it supported in the 3G or below? Don't say "CASH FOR APPLE" because Apple is an honest company that doesn't rip off their best customers. No, they don't RAPE their "raisons d'être"
Umm you missed the biggest part of this. When Apple released the update with exchange support only the 1st gen and the 3G iphones were out. Meaning that this wasn't just a bug fix, they intentionally had the device lie and claim to have full device encryption so they could cheat their way to claiming exchange support. Now that the 3GS is out, they covered that up by releasing an update that enforces that requirement, meaning that people who bought the 3G expecting the claimed full exchange support now have it broken. Apple flat out lied to its users to try to boast an ability the iPhone didn't have.
Why is it you only post comments on apple and MS related articles? Is it to share your paranoid delusions and conspiracy theories with the world? Or is it just to be a troll?
My guess is the latter.
class-action suit in 3 ... 2 ...
@Shotgun: Probably because I don't. I post on any articles that capture my interest. Honestly, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, since just taking a quick look at my comment history, of the last 5 articles that show up on the first page that I posted on, only 2 were apple or microsoft related. Pretty damn good, considering that if you look at the engadget articles you'll see roughly the same ratio.
I'd also point out that I came to this article with a well thought out comment that points out a major facet of this news, whereas you came here to bash me for "only post[ing] comments on apple and MS related articles". Who's really the troll?
@ Shotgun
Probably because every-other article on Engadget is an advertisement for Apple, or bashes on Microsoft...
The other articles are devoted to how terrible resistive touchscreen technology is.
Sounds like Palm.
By the way, Shotgun, for comparison's sake I looked into your comment history and, low and behold; on the first page there's 5 different apple or microsoft related threads that you commented on. Kettle? Black?
@shotgun
i think maybe mark posts too much, but his comments are _usually_ dead on
@Josh: True... I have a bit to much free time.
@ Jim - Exactly what i was thinking
Actually your well thought out article is flawed and not well thought out at all. I was going to let it die with my first comment with my first assumption that you do not own an iPhone and second that you probably don't use exchange. But here we go..
Device encryption support is an Exchange 2007 feature only, and does not exist in Exchange 2003 or exchange 2000. Most companies have not yet upgraded to 2007 and are awaiting the release of exchange 2010. Device encryption is an activesync policy that can be easily turned off by an administrator per user or even per group and is not integral to the core function of the phone. The fact that the new iPhone supports it on a hardware level and not software like WinMo is a mystery to me at this point. Apple chose to activate that feature with the 3.1 and nowhere was it advertised that previous iPhone models would support device encryption. So I ask was it just ignorance that inspired your post? Or anger at Apple for enabling a new feature of the iPhone without first warning customers that this was coming?
P.S. The overall articles you comment on may be diverse but I don't recall an apple or ms related article that you haven't commented on.
If that's truly how they did things, then they need to be called out LOUDLY all over the internet(and elsewhere) for that. That is false and misleading, and they deserve a big backlash over that. That's one of the sneakiest things I've heard of.
@Shotgun:
Um, you missed the biggest part of his comment:
"they intentionally had the device lie and claim to have full device encryption so they could cheat their way to claiming exchange support".
Regardless of whether most businesses are using 2003 and 2000, they lied on their reply to the exchange server. No business should even allow a phone on their exchange network if it is doing stuff like that. They are pretty much hacking into a companies email server by not enforcing all of its policies.
Now, like Mark said, they completely disabled a feature that used to work before. While that isn't as bad as the comment I quoted from Mark, it sure as hell must piss off users who were able to connect (although falsely) to an exchange server and have that feature ripped from them, but only introduced on the higher end device, which of course can cost a user the full price depending on when they signed up for their previous iPhone contract.
And did they give any information on whether this will be supported at a later date for older phones? Or is it only 3GS, because thats a completely Applish move if they pull that stunt. Its like giving users the ability to record video then ripping that feature away in a firmware update, but only leaving it enabled on your newest device.
Just imagine if another company did this. There would be a hell storm.
@Shotgun: You missed the point of my comment entirely. Previous to 3.1, the iPhone actually falsely claimed to have full device encryption when it did not. Is the reason for that so much of a mystery? When 2.1 was released, it was claimed that the iPhone had "full exchange support". They made it falsely claim to have full device encryption because the 3G(which was the current generation at the time) didn't support it. Now that the 3GS is out, which supports it, all the sudden they disable that and make it report itself correctly. This is at least as bad as Palm claiming to be an iPod to iTunes, and is actually far worse from a business standpoint since it basically hacked its way onto protected exchange servers. It's also bad for those who bought the 3G because Apple made it look like it supported something and then yanked that out from under them.
Since you asked what inspired my post: It's the fact that Apple made a device pretend to have a feature it didn't really have in order to sell more units and is now pulling that feature out from under those who bought their product because of those false claims.
For your last bit: You're right, I do post on most Apple and Microsoft related threads. I also post on most Android, Palm, Nokia, and thin laptop related threads. As was said: I just comment a lot.
@Shotgun
You make it sound so easy. Just disable encryption for that 1 person....Right, I'll let you get right on that. While your at it, do the same thing for the other 1000 people asking for it...
And for the record, MOST companies REQUIRE encryption and are not about to disable it just to pacify certain groups of people. I know I'm not.
So it's my understanding you think Apple intentionally lied instead of Apple plugging a security hole it had in a previous software version that allowed it to work. Keep in mind that this affects iPhones that are configured to run with exchange 2007 servers only (which isn't perfect itself). I don't believe the affected users are a large enough group to warrant your overreaction. I don't recall anyone complaining when Windows XP's firewall turned out to not be a firewall at all and easily bypassed by any knowledgeable dev.
My apologies, I assumed you missed the point of the article where it states this was the result of a security fix so I failed reiterate it.
@Shotgun: This clearly wasn't a bug. This isn't something where if it's not reported then the server just lets the device on. The device actually has to report to the server that it does have full device encryption. If you're actually buying the line that this was a bug in the software that just happened to be fixed at the exact same time that Apple released a new lineup that actually does provide such encryption, then I've got some snake oil to sell you that can cure any disease.
Actually from what I've seen no devices report anything to exchange servers except identification info, it goes the other way around. Once you enable a policy for a specific group of employees that have devices it sends those changes to the devices and it can either comply or not. If the device is not able to comply with the new policy then the connection is severed permanently or until the policy is removed on the server end. You're assuming the worst without gathering information first and spreading anger where there shouldn't be. I don't see how the release of the software coincides with a new lineup of Apple products, I don't recall them claiming exchange support on the new nanos. There have been several months between the release of the 3GS and this update, I feel it is exactly as they describe it.. a security hole plugged up.
What you are doing here is creating a false hysteria of sorts laden with anti-Apple sentiment without any evidence whatsoever. Once someone with knowledge of how WinMo/iPhone and exchange interact on a technical level your argument doesn't have any ground to stand on.
@Shotgun: Exactly, and the old iPhones claimed to comply, when they actually didn't. If they hadn't made that claim then it never would have worked from the start. And I'm not talking about the Nano's. So far reports are that the new iPod Touch supports full device encryption. Meaning this update came on the exact day that the product line(iPod and iPhone) fully supported it.
The new iPod touch uses the same hardware platform as the 3GS so why wouldn't it support device encryption? The iPod touch is irrelevant. Why would anyone want corporate email on that thing?
I want to see exactly where the claims are that you keep referencing. All iPhones support exchange, specific additional features will vary from revision to revision. The same goes for WinMo devices. No WinMo 5 device will support device encryption either. Apple never claimed device encryption would work on the older devices, how it did in the first place was obviously a mistake. To leave that kind of security hole in place is not only unethical, it is not Apple's modus operandi considering their attention to security and quick response to discovered holes in their desktop/server OS.
I still don't know why you hold anything Apple with such contempt. If you don't have evidence that this was an intentional move then don't post until you do
Also, I'm wondering if you know what device encryption is meant to do.
Please read:
http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsmobile/archive/2007/03/26/windows-mobile-6-storage-card-encryption-faq.aspx
And then ask yourself what it has to do with the iPhone.
Shotgun, sorry, but nobody is talking about storage card encryption. With Exchange 2007, or MS's Mobile Device Manager you can enforce device encryption. Again, that's device encryption. Storage Card encryption is also something you can enforce.
I think what Mark is saying, that with a non iPhone 3GS, and older firmware you could sync it with Exchange and if the Exchange admin was enforcing device encryption, the older firmware would report back, YEAH, I'm encrypted, when it really was not.
Now with 3.1, it is actually telling the truth and erroring out because it was really not encrypting.
So does that not mean that older phones were lying about actually being encrypted. That is bad, very bad.
Dorf,
That is what device encryption is. It encrypts any storage media attached to the device, including the phone's internal storage.
http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/05/23/439541.aspx
Setting
Device encryption enabled
Desc.
For Windows Mobile 6.0 Devices this controls the storage card encryption on the device
Not so relevant to iPhone users at all. And on top of that the exchange setting to enable this is NOT on by default.
Mark, I will accept your apology at any point lol
@Shotgun: I've grown tired of arguing with you so I will bring this to 1 final question: Prior to the date that Apple made all new iPod/iPhone devices that supported exchange have hardware device encryption, did the older versions, or did they not falsely report that they had such support?
Tired of arguing irrelevant points or tired of being wrong?
If you want a definite answer to your question perhaps its best to point you to Apple engineering. But what I believe is that prior to 3.1 the software wasn't capable of handling errors on the device encryption policy failure and somehow it worked. There are a lot of possibilities that could explain why and unless you have some technical knowledge of how it works then I advise not jumping to conclusions.
Apology accepted.
Nope, wrong answer. Via gizmodo: "Before 3.1, firmwares just falsely reported that a user's iPhone supported device-level encryption." The phone can't just ignore the warning and keep on using the server, it has to actually respond back to the server claiming full device encryption or it won't be let in. Your beliefs are misguided and you might want to check the bias behind them at the door.
By the way, with that I'm ignoring this post and moving on. Have fun.
How is referencing another article where the content is the opinion of the author and not based on facts productive at all? Like I said, if you want an answer talk to an engineer.
I read this yesterday and the more I think about it, this is a really serious issue. My wife who works in the financial industry is required by the SEC to have all client information encrypted. Luckily she has a Black Berry and it is actually supported, but there are others in their offices that do use iPhones. HIPPA also requires that client information be encrypted, lots of doctors use iPhones. Any email received on the iPhones about patient information is not HIPPA compliant. Lawyers I am sure would have a similar issue.
Apple lied to the market claiming support which actually is putting companies in regulatory (and therefore financial) risk. Apple should lose their ass on this. This is criminal.
Fat chance of that happening. Most IT departments I've had the displeasure of contacting treat Apple products as toys and have next to zero interest in changing their systems to support them.
What an absolutely stupid thing to do.
I work in the emergency services as IT, and yep we treat Macs as toys and won't support them. We need hundreds of machines to do all the things needed (including the appliance machines) and Macs are waaaaay too costly. Same for most decent sized businesses I'd guess.
This is a prime example of why I/they/we may have that attitude. It is unrealistic to add hardware to your environment that comes from a company that handles security in an under-handed manner. From my experience, and I may have just not spent enough hours researching ONE PIECE OF HARDWARE, I didn't see Apple making customers aware that the 3G did not support encryption. They are only just now acknowledging the issue, and have no viable solution in sight.
With all of the ruckus I've heard about this since 3.1 dropped... what took you so long to report on this, Engadget?
If an iPhone user comes to me demanding that I disable encryption on the Exchange server so he can read his e-mail then yes, I will tell him that his phone is a toy untill it supports proper basic security features that any serious company needs to enforce.
I have to say, for something that is supposed to be "so intuitive", I have A LOT of people lined up at my desk to configure their iPhones
The reason that most IT people/departments feel that way is because Macs are VERY costly and a pain to deal with. For example, I can get a machine from dell, take it out of the box, connect it to the network and it automatically image and configure itself with little to no interaction what so ever. I get 5 Macs in and I have to configure those things one by one.
Personally, I like apple products, but they're not enterprise ready at all and this just proves it.
@PBB
You obviously haven't looked into any Apple enterprise solutions. You can perform imaging on macs just as you can any PC. The only issue as you stated is price.
@PBB
"The reason that most IT people/departments feel that way is because Macs are VERY costly and a pain to deal with. For example, I can get a machine from dell, take it out of the box, connect it to the network and it automatically image and configure itself with little to no interaction what so ever. I get 5 Macs in and I have to configure those things one by one.
Personally, I like apple products, but they're not enterprise ready at all and this just proves it."
Really? In my previous position at a university I imaged/configured Macs over the network without interaction quite frequently. You must be doing something wrong.
@Shotgun & Nicole
Ok, let me rephrase then. Can macs be imaged, Yes. Is that one more solution I have to buy in addition to everything else, Yes. Does that mean I have to spend more money just because its a Mac, Yes. And Yes, I know there are free apps out there to do this, too bad free doesn't fly well with my boss.
For the record, We have experimented with mac imaging and it has proven to be very unreliable.
But I will concede that apple is trying VERY hard to make macs enterprise friendly, just have a ways to go that's all.
@PBB
You have to send more because it's a Mac AND because your current tools aren't designed for them. I could rewrite that sentence with "Windows PC" in it, and it'd be just as true. I'm afraid that if you're trying to broaden the spec of your tools, it is going to cost money no matter if you're branching out to Macs or PCs.
@PBB
No. You are doing something wrong. I work at a school that images over 700 mac's every year and it works perfectly. The only issues that arise are ones relating to bad configuring of the OS inside the image. Usually something stupidly minor our Mac tech's forgot when building them.
@shotgun
And those "enterprise solutions" most likely cost an "enterprise cost" XD
I can haz upgrade?
anyone way to know if encryption is enforced before upgrading?
No. its just 3.1 drama.
Worse, before the 3.1 upgrade the iPhone lies and reports that it does have encryption. This isn't a matter of not checking or not supporting it, its a matter of actually intentionally falsely reporting itself as having something it doesn't. Speaking of which, this kinda reminds me of the drama revolving around a certain Palm-made phone....
What drama is that?
What I don't understand is how the 3GS has all these extra functionalities that the other iPhones don't? Like the voice control can't you just do that with software? How bout video recording? Hackers did it on the original iphone. And exchange encryption requires hardware support? I don't think so.
Don't quite see the logic either, but apple users don't think of these things, reality is as apple says period.
"And exchange encryption requires hardware support? I don't think so."
Clearly then you don't understand the issue at hand. It's not that MS Exchange requires hardware support for encryption it's that MS Exchange can require HARDWARE ENCRYPTION on mobile devices. There is a setting that sys admins can configure on Exchange 2007 Servers that require mobile clients to use hardware encryption. The expectation is that if the device does not support hardware encryption and the server requires it then the server will refuse to communicate with the client. When it released the iPhone 3G Apple KNOWINGLY ignored the server requirement for hardware encryption because they knew that since the iPhone 3G didn't support hardware encryption, any company or government agency that required it would not authorize their employees to use the iPhone and even if they did the email wouldn't work with MS Exchange.
I went to great lengths trying to explain this to people on another forum.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r22999133-iPhone-31-breaks-Exchange-Sync-for-pre3GS-phones
My beef with Apple is not that they are just now complying with hardware encryption it is the fact that they were deceitful and deliberately misled consumers into getting a product that was half baked. This is a much more serious issue than something silly like MMS or cut, copy and paste. Yes, these things are great (although MMS is sooooooooooooooooo over-hyped) but their absence (or future inclusion) does not risk "breaking" more vital features like EMAIL!
When it first released the iPhone 3G Apple had a choice. They could have been more up front about the lack of support for hardware encryption -and I don't mean just have it documented. They needed to educate salespeople and consumers about the potential issues that would arise if IT departments were to enforce the policy. Doing so however would have meant that Apple would have had to admit that the iPhone didn't fully support MS Exchange which would have meant fewer customers. So instead they decided to LIE about it. They knowingly sold a product that would almost instantly become obsolete once word got around to IT departments that hardware encyption was not actually being enforced and refused to allow users to connect to the Exchange server with their iPhones.
It is not good enough for Apple to release an update that would allow the both the 3G and 3GS to work with MS Exchange Servers but have the 3G lie because that would defeat the whole purpose of security. It is also unrealistic and unacceptable for Apple to think that IT departments would, could or should lower the bar for security just because Apple screwed millions of people.
It would have been better had Apple NOT ignored the server requirement for hardware encryption for the iPhone 3G and then consumers could make the choice on their own as to whether or not it was still worth purchasing even though they wouldn't be able to access corporate email. The same message we are now all getting could have been displayed a year ago. Apple made a conscience decision not to include it so they wouldn't lose out to RIM.
Another question I have is why wasn't this "fix" included when the iPhone 3GS was released in June along with the new 3.0 OS? Now that the hardware could support it what was holding Apple back from including it? If you ask me, I would have to say that they didn't want anything to spoil their iPhone 3GS Launch Parade -like say, millions of irate iPhone 3G customers.
Apple has really, really dropped the ball on this one.
What is the point of security if a device can send a deceptive flag about its capabilities? That sounds like an eminently hackable flag for any device..... Presumably a jail-broken iPhone 3G or any other device could similarly mislead the server. Sure, you don't expect a company like Apple to fake a device flag, but it also brings into doubt the efficacy of this type of security on Exchange. It also brings up an interesting point about device compatibility. My workplace is still on Exchange 2004. Employees have all sorts of devices (we're a pretty eclectic lot). If/when IT choose to upgrade the server, they'll presumably have to consider which devices they still want to allow access to and whether they want to engage the security check. That will likely piss off a lot more people than the relatively few with iPhone 3Gs....
excluSive?
apple blows, talk about giving the middle finger to their customers
"contact their Exchange Server administrator and hope that they're willing to change the policy to no longer require device encryption."
Not a solution. Period.
Though undocumented by Apple, the original iPhone and 3G were known to not have encryption (on device). Not requiring devices to be secure is a HUGE problem in the corporate space and, let's be realistic, that's ~95% of the users complaining about this.
Apple is trying to get you to buy new phones, and AT&T is trying to get you to sign on for two more years. This was calculated and intended, just like the lack of MMS. (MMS doesn't matter to me at all, but it's still a feature that damn near every other phone on the market has...)
For all those complaining about Apple not letting the earlier iPhones keep not enforcing the device encryption requirement, that would just makes it more likely that corporate IT departments would continue not supporting any iPhones whatsoever.
Your iPhones' Exchange support must (partly) die, so that others' may live.
This is the most ridiculous bull...
time for me to ditch the iPhone and go back to the berry
that's a good way to get customers to buy your product. piss them off with broken software on your old products.
Well, when you have people locked into a 2 yr contract, you would think the support for the product would last for that 2 yr period. I'm still within my iPhone Edge 2 yr contract. Luckily, I don't see why I should upgrade to 3.1. I might finally jailbreak my iPhone once they come out with a plug-in that makes Exchange support possible on the iPhone Edge, though.
A point many people are missing is that Exchange itself before 2007 SP1 did not enforce this encryption.
You mean the update that came out in Nov. 2007? Almost a year before Apple released 2.1 which added "full" exchange support? And in which they had the device falsely claim to have full device encryption so it could be used on such servers?
Not a chance any IT department is or should change their security policy because Apple screws their customers trying to drum up a few more sales.
What exactly is encrypted on the device? Is it the entire drive? If so, what's the point? If you have the device in hand, isn't encryption essentially useless?
what happens to the people who lose it?
OR - you cvould just not upgrade - no error message!
its strange none of the tech sites have run a negative article about apple's underwhelming announcements this year from the compass, snow leopard & the latest ipod event (with this software upate 3.1). I know apple butters their bread to some extent (with product reviews etc..), but come on, the last 2 out 3 days apple stock has dropped since these stellar announcements. almost 95% of user blogs on various tech sites are disappointed in the meager offerings. Ipod touch users who upgraded to 3.o just a few months ago & less are slapped in the face when hold outs can now upgrade for $5. cmon writers stir the pot a little show some spine, maybe you won't get invited to the next apple announcement, you can watch the live stream - oops lol. Apple can't even host live video feed of their event, maybe their hardware can't support such tech yet, they'll announce that upgrade in about 5 years. good products but terrible customer skills & too much control issues. like my ipod but i won't be getting an apple product next time.
iPod touch owners with 3.0 do not have to pay for 3.1, it’s a free update. If you have an iPod touch running at OS before 3.0 then the cost is $4.95.
Why live stream? With their current policy, they get 15-20 web sites doing live blogs. Cheaper too.... Nothing to do with technology as they used to stream live these events 5 years back and the Apple movie trailer web site is one of the most popular HD sites on the net.
Your post hits on the sad truth between the relationship between Apple and the tech blogs.
It's a machine at its core. Apple puts on a show, the blogs show up for page hits. But because of this, we have blogs that have grown to become cheerleaders, PR agents, and attack dogs for a company because they need to keep getting invited back. It's crack for them. Money, page views, and fanboyism.
Dont be too critical of Apple, and focus more on imaginary Apple products and how company X is ripping Apple off because their icons look similar.
Apple doesn't have to drastically improve its products nor be forthcoming about anything. They know the tech blogs, at most, will just raise a one-post stink about it (CYA), and then keep their mouths shut least they want to lose their coveted invites to the next Apple event.
Apple dosnt just send those things to anyone for any reason. You have to earn that invite.
Wow. I'm really glad I didn't update. 3.1 doesn't really seem to be any different (at least for me) and it would break my outlook! Good times.
I heard that in Egypt, you need to embalm your phone after updating; it'll come back to life eventually.
Make sure you put a few of your iPhone's favorite apps and servants in there with it, or it'll be pissed when it reboots.
They still sell the 3g, why shouldn't it be supported?
So, is there a reason why only iphone 3gs has this encryption? Is it a hardware thing?
Apple should get off their high-horse, and release some fixes to things like this. Software updates that actually allow features to be used. i.e. Encryption support for 3G, video recording for 3G, etc... What makes them think that Im going to shell out more $$ for another device that does things my current device should already be able to do? That just makes you wonder what else the 3GS SHOULD be capable of....
I love my iPhone, but I still hate Apple.
Excuse me? I updated my iPhone 3G... and I'm having absolutely no problem with my Exchange account. This problem obviously isn't as widespread as reported.
Repeat: NOT EVERYONE IS BROKEN.
Stop freaking out, geez.
Then your employer doesn't require device encryption, meaning it's not that serious of a business that they need to worry about such security, or they're just lazy.
Please calm down with the accusations on businesses and IT teams, until you're a part of one you'll continue to have no idea what security actually is and to depend alone on MS software is not good practice.
his company (like mine) might only be on Exchange 2003 so in that case it's not a problem.
Personally, I only use Exchange to sync my Outlook calendar.
makes it much easier to stay on top of meeting and such.
@shotgun
Wait, wasn't it you that was trying to tell us that Exchange Device Encryption only included the memory card? Perhaps you should stop commenting on things above your pay-grade. I still don't understand what "default settings" has to do with anything, as anyone who actually has to use these features, likely depends on them (Which is why BBerry/BES is such a popular mobile email solution). Obviously, Pre-2007 deployments and small companies will not be affected by this. However, for those of us with Enterprise Level Exchange deployments that require quarterly security audits to verify data integrity/security... things like this matter. Which is precisely why we don't support/allow exchange access to phones that we don't deploy in-house.
i just snorted my coffee, NoandThen.
thanks for that.
I upgraded to 3.1 on my 3G last night. We have Exchange 2007 running on Server 2008. I've been sending and receiving emails all day under my Exchange account with no issues. This is news to me.
Just for kicks, can you check the default settings on your exchange server to see if device encryption is enabled?
More info here http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2007/05/23/439541.aspx
I guess they forgot to put that in the keynote... I was too busy laughing at the sheer number of features they ripped off the Zune and Zune software...(though Microsoft can be guilty of the same thing)...
So is the new touch going to have issues too or will Exchange continue to work like it does on the 3GS?
It is on articles like this that I wish Paul Chapel hadn't been banned. It was always entertaining to see him throw immature and irrational arguments supporting Apple at a horde of intelligent people working to refute him. I think Paul would call this a "feature".
ATT (cracks whip at apple): We are enforcing this exclusivity contract. iPhone is not giving us enough revenue for our leet 3G network.
Apple: Um we could enforce encryption for all those exchange users... That would drive up bandwidth usage, more packets = more $$$ for you no?
ATT (smiles): We own all your bases.
Not totally on topic, but 3.1 will also screw up any Smart Playlists on your device. The only way to restore them is to turn off Live Updating for the playlists, until Apple fixes the bug.
Mark posts a lot.. In fact, I kinda feel bad for him. :(
Too bad the 80s and 90s apple is now 20000% dead. Apple formerly made high quality machines that lasted and had support for what seemed like forever. I have many 68k Macs that just keep on going. They dont feel obsolete compared to their IBM Comparables. The old IBMs did not age as well for sure. But both sides of the industry had quality.
Now that they have achieved fad status, they may proceed to rape anybody using recent products.
Apples recent attitude of "Announce and promise, lie, and release on new model" is ridiculous. Its a scheme to buy you in twice.
Is Microsoft any better in this respect? Yes and no. Yes, as they let you use the same old stuff forever on the new platforms, and No as every other new version they change the entire concept. I.E Office 2003 to 2007. Then your employer shoves 07 down your throat, and you have to go buy 07 (Or pirate it) and relearn Office. (Most people dont know how to save as a different format. That is why most people would had ran out and gotten 07 to read documents from work.)
The Tech industry as a whole has adopted a disposable, planned obsolescence scheme, so they can LOWER* the prices at first, but make you buy more units in the end! The entire American society is now Get rid of it when broken society! I know that in the old USSR, people would fix ANYTHING, even a matress. Posessions were not shit you would get rid of easy. Same of electronics in the 80s and 90s. Precious machines. Now they are trash where corporations can force whatever new thing on you, and also force you to upgrade hardware, software.
Anyone who does not see this is ignoring the fact. This example right here is destroying the environment. People get rid of their 3G for a slight bump to the 3GS. Most people throw out old electronics. Its not even old, but they will throw it out as it is old to them.
Wake up world. It was not always like this!
I have a MacBook and an iPhone, but Apple is really starting to look kind of amateurish about all of this. I thought Palm's iTunes support was hackneyed, now we find out how much of a hack Apple's Exchange support was on the iPhone.
This is typical Apple, but truth be told, their ardent supporters are too blind/ignorant to see it and them for what they truly are -- duplicitous opportunists who release crap products and have the audacity to expect people coming back for more by introducing features that should have been there in the first place as must have features for newer devices that they can't live without.
Marketing at its best, products at their worst = Apple
Apple is just catching up with Microsoft. Life's a bitch.
Does anybody know if Google Sync works with 3.1 (using Exchange: http://www.google.com/support/mobile/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=138740)?
My big concern is for us holding back on getting 3.1 who are on a 3G... Are we left in the dark on MMS? Will we need to have 3.1 in order to send and receive MMS when AT&T activates this feature later this month?
If this is the case... Wow. This is gonna really piss off the early 2G/3G adopters... Don't see them falling for these ways in the future by upgrading.