I think Xbox is owed a lot of credit for keeping Microsofts bankroll where it is, not windows.Microsoft screwed this up big time. It's amazing they still make alot of money these days.
I think Xbox is owed a lot of credit for keeping Microsofts bankroll where it is, not windows.Microsoft screwed this up big time. It's amazing they still make alot of money these days.
Security; letting officers personal devices have access to the police databases is probably a big No No and the NYPD would prefer to deploy devices that are locked down to their standards. That and the custom software packages that would be required to access the database, doubt that they would ever want to support that for all platforms. It’s more preferable to stick to one platform for simplicity.Why not a more modern BYOD approach?
Because then you have to support a bunch of different devices and more than one OS.
Security; letting officers personal devices have access to the police databases is probably a big No No and the NYPD would prefer to deploy devices that are locked down to their standards. That and the custom software packages that would be required to access the database, doubt that they would ever want to support that for all platforms. It’s more preferable to stick to one platform for simplicity.
The cheap man pays twice.
That's what he said. Cities are always looking for the cheapest option, even if it doesn't make sense, because of the myopic desires of the taxpayer for full service at self-serve price.No the TAXPAYER pays twice
Clearly NYC and the NYPD weren't thinking of future proofing due to the fact they chose WINDOWS phones. Also many municipalities dont update their technology and software as rapidly as other types of organization. Allowing BYOD does not guarantee interoperability, software compatibility or future proofing. IMOThis may be true for non-sensitive (data) applications controllable by MDMS. The police will run most of their applications in a secure bubble device independent environment (a kind of VM). Runs on all devices/ platforms.
Best to create an environment independent of vendor software update cycles. As a business you don't want to get stuck by non functioning apparatus simply because the manufacturer pulls the plug (because Tim or Lee wants you to buy a new device).
What an absolute waste of tax payer dollars to have choosen windows phones.
This is the type of clueless leadership that doesn't clearly think through how to future proof their technology requirements and better equip officers with stable and functional tools.
On the contrary, at the time they were no doubt believing Microsoft (and pundits) who were predicting that Windows 10 and Windows Phone would allow universal apps that ran on both laptops and phones.
That would've been very appealing from the dual standpoints of future proofing and saving money.
No the TAXPAYER pays twice
The cheap man pays twice.
I think Xbox is owed a lot of credit for keeping Microsofts bankroll where it is, not windows.
The article specifically mentioned the Windows phones were cheaper. Did you even read it?
Hence, if you go the cheap route, you'll pay more in the long run.
Why not a more modern BYOD approach?
Most MDM/EMM solutions include a containerization solution that separates corporate and personal data. These are dedicated apps that provide access to corporate email, file storage, etc.What is the name of this “secure bubble” software for mobile apps that you’re referring to? What sort of mobile VM is there that runs on all the mobile OS platforms?
Why did they bother with Windows Phone to begin with?
Equipment gets replaced on a fixed schedule, most electronics every 3 to 5 years.
If **** sucks, it sucks, nobody cares, you have to wait.
If your stuff is working great and doesn't need replacement, taxpayer money is still going to get wasted on something new when time has come.
There is a whole industry filling their pockets, so don't expect any changes.
Actually, is doesn't say that they chose the phones because they were cheap, they chose Windows platform because it worked with their existing surveillance systems and databases. As it turned out, they were cheaper, but it seems better integration was the deciding factor (ie, able to roll out faster without having to start everything from scratch).