Delta Employees 'Fought Hard for the iPad' as Microsoft Announces Surface 2 Deal

[Plutonius]

I just hope the pilots have a backup. Reminds me of a navy cruiser incident in the late 90's.

 

[alent1234]

This is a prime example of management assuming they know what's best..it's all about saving money in this one. If the surface pro2 is anything like the original - stay away from Delta.

MS gave them a good price and they signed a corporate travel deal for MS to fly on Delta

 

[CylonGlitch]

I am in the process of switching jobs. I have been using my MBP for work for the last 5 years (semiconductor engineering) using virtual machines to keep my work isolated from my primary machine. It has worked exceptionally well and I'm a lot more productive with it. When I go to the new company, being quite a bit bigger with a dedicated IT department I'm sure that I'll get a PC and deal with it that way. Not something I look forward too, I have a ton of little tools I use on my mac to improve my efficiency. But I understand the companies point of view, and will make due with a windows machine.

If given the choice I would ask for another MBP; but I doubt I'll be given a choice. I'll use the PC and just adjust my workflow accordingly. Oh well, that's how things go, you have to bend when then wind blows, otherwise you'll snap and be useless to everyone.

 

[Digitalclips]

Another upside for Delta -- the potential for tablet thefts just completely vanished. Who in their right mind ever stole a Surface tablet?!

That is true.

 

[myemailisjustin]

It's not irrational. IT guys take care of many systems, not just yours. In a big company with potentially thousands of machines, they want everything to be consistent. They learn one set of commands, one set of settings. They follow scripts. It's very by-the-book. That's good for their training as well as for company security (if they have validated one particular configuration as "known good and safe", they can roll it across the whole company and not worry about it). They can also manage spare parts and repairs better if everyone is using the same sets of hardware. This also works in their favour for software licensing agreements.

They also often deploy custom-written apps or scripts for various tasks relating to setting up, connecting to your network, rolling out patches or software upgrades, etc.

You want to bring in your Mac -- in a small company with a flexible IT staff, maybe that's no problem. But it's easy to understand why IT would be hesitant. They don't know how your Mac will behave on their carefully configured network. They don't have spare parts for it. They don't have software licenses for it. They can't verify or guarantee its security on the network. (Yes, yes, we say it's MORE secure than Windows, but can you prove that? Are they willing to sign off on it because you say so?) They won't know how to fix it if you have problems. That moves the liability on YOU. Which management doesn't want to risk. Plus, it sets a precedent -- if you can have a Mac, why can't Suzy? Except Suzy doesn't know anything about how to connect it to the company intranet, so she keeps calling IT, and IT can't help her, so now they have to learn to set up another system, and...

It's not that they're "lazy" and "don't want to learn". Learning more costs the company more. More documents, more training, more scripting, more hardware to test deployments, more configurations to manage, more licenses to buy (and less volume per license, so potentially higher cost). In a company that cares about things like ISO 900x or CMMI or whatever, that also means more certifications, more compliance management, more paperwork.

Again, in a small company, maybe the IT staff is happy to say "Sure, if you're willing to configure it, support it, and fix it yourself and pay for your own software licenses, go for it". But in a large company, where corporate security, network compliance, etc. are important -- it isn't irrational.

My company considered iPads for deploying products we develop. But it was a non-starter. Why? Cause you can't deploy anything on an iPad on a wide scale without submitting your code to the Apple app store. Then it's open to anybody and everybody. We do military and defense applications with proprietary and secret code. You can imagine why that would be a problem. Is it possible that Delta felt the same way?

Well it's evident that your company doesn't know that you don't have to go through the Apple App store to get your proprietary military and defense apps on an iOS device.

 

[alent1234]

you can buy an Apple Enterprise license and deploy your code directly onto your company's IOS devices. we do it here all the time

It's not irrational. IT guys take care of many systems, not just yours. In a big company with potentially thousands of machines, they want everything to be consistent. They learn one set of commands, one set of settings. They follow scripts. It's very by-the-book. That's good for their training as well as for company security (if they have validated one particular configuration as "known good and safe", they can roll it across the whole company and not worry about it). They can also manage spare parts and repairs better if everyone is using the same sets of hardware. This also works in their favour for software licensing agreements.

They also often deploy custom-written apps or scripts for various tasks relating to setting up, connecting to your network, rolling out patches or software upgrades, etc.

You want to bring in your Mac -- in a small company with a flexible IT staff, maybe that's no problem. But it's easy to understand why IT would be hesitant. They don't know how your Mac will behave on their carefully configured network. They don't have spare parts for it. They don't have software licenses for it. They can't verify or guarantee its security on the network. (Yes, yes, we say it's MORE secure than Windows, but can you prove that? Are they willing to sign off on it because you say so?) They won't know how to fix it if you have problems. That moves the liability on YOU. Which management doesn't want to risk. Plus, it sets a precedent -- if you can have a Mac, why can't Suzy? Except Suzy doesn't know anything about how to connect it to the company intranet, so she keeps calling IT, and IT can't help her, so now they have to learn to set up another system, and...

It's not that they're "lazy" and "don't want to learn". Learning more costs the company more. More documents, more training, more scripting, more hardware to test deployments, more configurations to manage, more licenses to buy (and less volume per license, so potentially higher cost). In a company that cares about things like ISO 900x or CMMI or whatever, that also means more certifications, more compliance management, more paperwork.

Again, in a small company, maybe the IT staff is happy to say "Sure, if you're willing to configure it, support it, and fix it yourself and pay for your own software licenses, go for it". But in a large company, where corporate security, network compliance, etc. are important -- it isn't irrational.

My company considered iPads for deploying products we develop. But it was a non-starter. Why? Cause you can't deploy anything on an iPad on a wide scale without submitting your code to the Apple app store. Then it's open to anybody and everybody. We do military and defense applications with proprietary and secret code. You can imagine why that would be a problem. Is it possible that Delta felt the same way?

----------

IT departments in general don't like or trust Apple. It's pretty irrational.

I remember in a previous job one of the IT guys went mad at me and starting calling me a "hipster" because I wanted to switch my Windows workstation for a Mac. The Mac would actually have been cheaper and had advantages related to the job, but that's the way these guys think.

the issue with Mac's is that the IT people know Windows. most problems can be solved fairly quick. with Mac's you have to spend a long time figuring out what the issue is and the users are usually no help at all

 

[tann]

Like everything these days, it'll be all about the money!

 

[notjustjay]

Well it's evident that your company doesn't know that you don't have to go through the Apple App store to get your proprietary military and defense apps on an iOS device.

you can buy an Apple Enterprise license and deploy your code directly onto your company's IOS devices. we do it here all the time

Thanks, I stand corrected - I am not in that particular division and only parroted what I (thought I) understood from another coworker.

 

[roadbloc]

As far as tablets go, Surface 2's are pretty good, especially the pro. The question I have is, what difference will having an iPad instead make? I'm certain whoever made the call would have ensured the software the pilots required is available on Windows RT.

A pretty pointless thing to be boycotting an airport over.

 

[springsup]

It's not irrational. IT guys take care of many systems, not just yours. In a big company with potentially thousands of machines, they want everything to be consistent. They learn one set of commands, one set of settings. They follow scripts. It's very by-the-book. That's good for their training as well as for company security (if they have validated one particular configuration as "known good and safe", they can roll it across the whole company and not worry about it). They can also manage spare parts and repairs better if everyone is using the same sets of hardware. This also works in their favour for software licensing agreements.

They also often deploy custom-written apps or scripts for various tasks relating to setting up, connecting to your network, rolling out patches or software upgrades, etc.

You want to bring in your Mac -- in a small company with a flexible IT staff, maybe that's no problem. But it's easy to understand why IT would be hesitant. They don't know how your Mac will behave on their carefully configured network. They don't have spare parts for it. They don't have software licenses for it. They can't verify or guarantee its security on the network. (Yes, yes, we say it's MORE secure than Windows, but can you prove that? Are they willing to sign off on it because you say so?) They won't know how to fix it if you have problems. That moves the liability on YOU. Which management doesn't want to risk. Plus, it sets a precedent -- if you can have a Mac, why can't Suzy? Except Suzy doesn't know anything about how to connect it to the company intranet, so she keeps calling IT, and IT can't help her, so now they have to learn to set up another system, and...

It's not that they're "lazy" and "don't want to learn". Learning more costs the company more. More documents, more training, more scripting, more hardware to test deployments, more configurations to manage, more licenses to buy (and less volume per license, so potentially higher cost). In a company that cares about things like ISO 900x or CMMI or whatever, that also means more certifications, more compliance management, more paperwork.

Again, in a small company, maybe the IT staff is happy to say "Sure, if you're willing to configure it, support it, and fix it yourself and pay for your own software licenses, go for it". But in a large company, where corporate security, network compliance, etc. are important -- it isn't irrational.

My company considered iPads for deploying products we develop. But it was a non-starter. Why? Cause you can't deploy anything on an iPad on a wide scale without submitting your code to the Apple app store. Then it's open to anybody and everybody. We do military and defense applications with proprietary and secret code. You can imagine why that would be a problem. Is it possible that Delta felt the same way?

OK, lots of points there:

1. This was a massive company. I heard there were already Macs around the company (e.g. in Marketing), and the network infrastructure was pretty simple. In fact, we already had a Mac Mini in our office (predating my time there) because of the "advantages" I mentioned before. Apparently that was also a struggle to get. The network infrastructure wasn't anything particularly amazing; our files were on a shared file-server, and 90% of my time was spent in an SSH window to a supercomputer cluster. They allowed VPN access, which could been from any kind of machine, so there really wasn't much of a good reason to be so fussy about adding another Mac, IMO. They already had a mixed network of Windows and Linux machines.

Yeah, I know, it's all about the specific circumstances. But then, what kind of hyper-sensitive network would you need that would buckle by adding a Mac?

2.

Cause you can't deploy anything on an iPad on a wide scale without submitting your code to the Apple app store

This is categorically false. As long as there has been an iOS developer program, there's been an iOS Developer Enterprise program. It is designed exactly for the situation you're talking about.

EDIT: Ah, others already pointed it out.

 

[beeh]

My IT guy told me he would be out of a job if everyone was Macs

He's obviously never had to support them then.

 

[ja7mz]

I'm surprised Microsoft won't be unloading all of their first gen Surface tablets on Delta!

 

[turtlebud]

they'll be back

my hunch is that in 6-12 months, delta will do an about face and go back to ipads if they find the surface tablets are difficult to use the simple things. if not, good for microsoft - more competition in the tablet market will be good for apple products as well.

 

[Tyler23]

As a Delta employee, this saddens me..

 

[AppleFan1984]

Oh come on.
"A pilot for United States-based Delta Airlines...". So a broad, definitive conclusion was made on account of one pilot. Frightning.

Oh wait the source for this 'factual information" is Apple Insider. That explains it.

Most of AppleInsider's blog posts are just rehashed from other sources, and frequently their headlines bear little resemblance to the source story.

On the rare day when they do any actual reporting of their own, it's often like this one, a single comment from a single person extrapolated to fit their editorial agenda.

MacRumors, do your readers a favor: if you can't find any other source beyond AppleInsider to verify a story, just let it go.

If there's any meat to this story it'll show up in other sources which are more worth your reputation to link to. And if not, well, that speaks for itself.

There's a reason MacRumors has earned itself a much higher Alexa rank than AppleInsider: it's because you've earned our trust. Don't squander it by trying to rely on random bloggers as sources.

 

[SockRolid]

... Microsoft yesterday announced that the carrier will be equipping 11,000 pilots with Microsoft Surface 2 electronic flight bags ...

Surface 2 will teach Delta several new meanings for "crash and burn."

 

[scaredpoet]

My IT guy told me he would be out of a job if everyone was Macs

Which is unfortunate, because it's simply not true. I work in IT and I manage Macs, Windows PCs and linux boxes. If I were managing all Macs and linux boxes, my job would still be here, but it would be a lot different: I'd be spending more time on network deployments, servers and data storage expansion - things we need to do - rather than fixing repeated, piddly problems that come up all the time on the Windows side - things we HAVE to do because the software and hardware are what they are. I actually would like my job even more, and I'd be more productive. My performance summary every year would look better, because I'd have more accomplishments on them: I don't consider "fixed multiple issues on windows workstations, again" to be much of an accomplishment, and neither does my manager, really.

There are two different types of IT people: those who like to earn their paycheck by solving problems creatively, and those who like to earn their paycheck by going though rote repetition and following instructions to fix repeated issues that shouldn't be cropping up repeatedly. If you're the first type, then you shouldn't feel threatened because a few people in your organization want to use Mac hardware and can justify it.

it still happens

I get a few of these at work

Yup, they still do happen.

 

[notjustjay]

This is categorically false. As long as there has been an iOS developer program, there's been an iOS Developer Enterprise program. It is designed exactly for the situation you're talking about.

EDIT: Ah, others already pointed it out.

Yeah, and I took out that segment of my post because I didn't want to perpetuate false information. My company did evaluate iOS and iPads and decided to go with an Android platform instead. I thought the reason was what I stated but obviously there were other factors, not App Store deployment. Again, I don't work in that group. I apologize for making misleading and misinformed statements.

Actually, wait. That in-house enterprise program says that it's for deploying apps within your own company. What if I want to sell you, my customer, a customized iPad running specific software to do specific things? Does that get covered under this program?

Anyway, the reason I brought that up was to point out that, however it works, there can be technical reasons why the Surface was a better choice for Delta's deployment. It's not just a case of "the employees like the iPad better, so let's use that". Maybe it was cost. Maybe it was politics. Maybe it was technical. We don't know.

 

[alent1234]

As far as tablets go, Surface 2's are pretty good, especially the pro. The question I have is, what difference will having an iPad instead make? I'm certain whoever made the call would have ensured the software the pilots required is available on Windows RT.

A pretty pointless thing to be boycotting an airport over.

you assume too much
this was done at the C level and once they try to implement it they will run into problems and it will probably cost more money to fix

 

[parish]

Windows has detected that your throttle settings have changed.
Your engines must be restarted for this change to take effect.

Restart now?

[YES] [NO]
​

 

[PracticalMac]

The pilots have the right to refuse to use the RT, citing any reason they want to.

And lug the books around.

 

[uknowimright]

Yup, they still do happen.

not nearly as often as they used to, so using it as a jab is just silly

iOS and OSX both crash as well

 

[roadbloc]

you assume too much
this was done at the C level and once they try to implement it they will run into problems and it will probably cost more money to fix

Um... what? You're going to have to explain that one fully to me because I'm lost.

 

[aolbites]

Now all they'll talk about after crashes won't be the black box, it'll be the BSOD.

 

[myemailisjustin]

Um... what? You're going to have to explain that one fully to me because I'm lost.

I'm assuming he means C level as in CTO, CIO, CEO - tested at those levels. Those guys/gals bought in and so then the full deployment starts. But..that is an assumption based on the same thing you read.