4 ms·

Not saying this is typical, but here is my experience of Blackberry. I was in IT support at the time they came out. One of the things I hated about IT support,

by alan_cx 13y ago

Not saying this is typical, but here is my experience of Blackberry. I was in IT support at the time they came out. One of the things I hated about IT support, and I found it common with most colleagues, was the idea that if you are in IT, every thing with a plug or batteries is some how part of an IT person's skill set. Because we are the clever mysterious people who can fix the server, we must also be able to explain the MD's new HiFi to him, fix the microwave or mobile phone, or some such. So, out comes Blackberry and it suddenly becomes the executive's toy of choice, and we were expected to support them. No one asked, there was no meeting or consideration, they just bought Blackberrys themselves, bought them in and expected us to be configuring and supporting them. Its was like a suddenly change in infrastructure that just arrived because individuals insisted on it. And because usually these were senior people, management expected us to play ball. It was kinda like the whole system being windows and one day some one installs Linux and expects it to be instantly supported and integrated, regardless of whether or not the company software actually ran on it. And early on, that wasn't trivial. So, what happened in my IT circles was that Blackberry got a bad name because its was a toy executives lumped on us with out any consideration, let alone some sort of discussion, and heaven forbid, planning. So, the sort of back ground vibe was negative, and for many I know, remains so. So, even though all these years on it is likely to be very unfair, I still see Blackberry as representing arrogant unthinking executives and the resulting headaches, and there for negative. Edit: And I missed the obvious. Im so brain dead at times.... It is suggested that employees buying their own phones killed the Blackberry. Yet, ironically, in my experience at least, it was employees buying Blackberrys that got them their traction in the first place.

ghshephard 13y ago
Totally agree - I know of at least one IT manager in 2000 who was fired by the CFO (acting CIO) because he wasn't prepared to support her Blackberry on the mail server (we weren't an exchange shop - Netscape Mail server).
- sgt101 13y ago
  More like he was fired because he didn't have the social intelligence to say "Sure boss, we'll sort that out for you, I'll pull together a business case for the migration and let's meet on monday pm to go through it for sign off." "No, I won't" is the wrong answer. The above comes to the same thing, but in my experience is not going to result in dismissal.
  - sudomal 13y ago
    That's more about understanding big business politics than it is about social intelligence.
    - oneweekwonder 13y ago
      She was his Boss, and she told him to support it. He could advise her and tell her why it is a bad idea, and if she still wants to use it, he must support it. Instead he said no, which is fine from his side. But If you don't want to do something the company expect from you, don't be surprised if you get fired.
      - ghshephard 13y ago
        He was the kind of guy who thought he knew best. He also refused to add a new VPN technology when he was asked to add PPTP to our already existing Netscreen IPSec environment. Basically, he didn't like being told by the not particularly technically knowledgeable CFO/CIO what technologies to deploy. We had Netscape Calendar/Email. He knew Netscape Calendar/Email. He wasn't interested in deploying a new Calendar and Email technology that he didn't know. The new boss really wanted support for her Blackberry. To some degree it worked out well for everyone. He was fired, and went to a new job where he got to work with Unix Technologies, and the new IT Manager was hired to deploy Microsoft Exchange.
      - antocv 13y ago
        I concur, and still see that sometimes it really is the right way to just say flat out No. Ive tried to play ball and call to meetings for distasteful and wasteful requests/requirements from business/manager people, but its such a drain on my energy as a developer, I just began saying flat out No. I take the risks of getting fired, but I will not be bitter 10 years from now for sitting in meetings discussing what is a change request and what is a requirement with people who have not read one paragraph on software engineering, trying to get me to once again change the functionality of the app because of their change in opinion, or trying to just get me to do things just because they say so. Fuck that, and fuck no. Im out. If I am expected to be a code monkey at a workplace, thats not the workplace I want to be at.
- hnriot 13y ago
  And I'd fire him too, any IT manager that can't support a Blackberry doesn't deserve to be an IT manager. Not to mention his bad attitude in not even trying.
mattmanser 13y ago
Yes, the article itself is a load of nonsense, with this gem in it: BlackBerrys have never been particularly attractive, cutting-edge, or user-friendly. As you say, they were definitely seen as attractive, cutting-edge, and user-friendly at one point because the execs forced them into companies. Pretty much right up until the day the iPhone came out. They went from great to old fashioned almost overnight.
- ngd 13y ago
  In my experience the same "force" occurred with the iPhone. Execs bought them and wanted their corporate mail on them.
- alin_enache 13y ago
  http://waltherpragerandphilosophy1.blogspot.com/2013/09/fit-for-clothes.html http://waltherpragerandphilosophy1.blogspot.com/2013/09/fit-...
melling 13y ago
A little aside... Developers really should read your post twice and understand exactly how admins think. These types of departments are usually slow moving, and really hinder progress. When you read about the people who are stuck on old browsers and need legacy IE support, it's probably because of all the "planning and work" that would be required to upgrade. Anyway, I've always advocated dumping legacy browser support because once the right people have problems viewing the web, fires get lit and the job gets escalated. The only people who can't upgrade their own browsers are the ones with an IT team standing in their way.
- johnpmayer 13y ago
  I think that's a little unfair. Admins' responsibility to keep everything running, all the time, is their top priority. As an organization scales, it pays off greatly to enforce some homogeneity - especially as the ratio of non-technical users increases. Not everybody can manage their own browser/office suite/mail client, but they always need it to do their work. If you want bleeding edge software across the organization, admins need to have enough extra free time to coordinate the rollout and get the training to support it. Recall the administrators "prime directive" - fix what's broken. If the admin team is swamped with tickets all the time, you'll be stuck with legacy stuff, because they don't have enough time to adapt. We have a joke at work that new stuff gets done during our "infinite amount of free time".
- scott_karana 13y ago
  It's normally not an admin's choice to stay slow and out of date. This is especially the case in a non-IT-centric business, which nonetheless uses technology to function. Typically, the issue is like this: 1) Management demands that a specific solution is installed, and ignores IT's complaints 2) The solution requires an environment IE 7 (or Windows XP, or... take your pick) The admins now have two problems: they need to convince management to move away from the old solution to a new one (another capital expense), in addition to maintaining a hateful, old environment so that the business doesn't break. Senior management doesn't realize they dug their own grave, and refuses to pay for the capex "just" to have the latest version of the solution, when the business is seemingly working just fine on the current environment. Eventually, after much praying and finger crossing, only one of the two things saves the admins: 1) The solution is upgraded to support modern software 2) The environment becomes unsupported, and management is forced to reconsider the upgrade. Have some sympathy, mate! :(
hnriot 13y ago
it doesn't like you're a great fit for IT support. It's people like you that give IT a bad name. The same people that tell employees that can't upgrade Firefox 3.6.23 because they don't "support" newer versions. IT either reboot or reimage to fix any problem anyway. The first thing I do it get off the IT support system by installing Linux. IT keep servers machine running, they don't care that those machine aren't doing anything useful. The server software stopped being useful years ago yet they keep it running at all costs because their job performance is tied to uptime. When I work our yearly mandatory training requires Firefox 3.6.23, IE6 or Netscape! People have to borrow loaner laptops that nobody dare upgrade just to do the training classes. This is thanks to our IT department not wanting to support "newer" technology. Eventually we get a new VP who fires all these people that don't understand that people want to use iPhones and VPNs and WebEx on their iPad and it's not ITs job to put roadblocks in their way, but instead to figure out how to support it. "I still see Blackberry as representing arrogant unthinking executives and the resulting headaches" - you mean the people that pay you and figure out how to stay in business despite your best efforts to thwart it?

by alan_cx 13y ago

ghshephard 13y ago

Totally agree - I know of at least one IT manager in 2000 who was fired by the CFO (acting CIO) because he wasn't prepared to support her Blackberry on the mail server (we weren't an exchange shop - Netscape Mail server).

sgt101 13y ago
More like he was fired because he didn't have the social intelligence to say "Sure boss, we'll sort that out for you, I'll pull together a business case for the migration and let's meet on monday pm to go through it for sign off." "No, I won't" is the wrong answer. The above comes to the same thing, but in my experience is not going to result in dismissal.
- sudomal 13y ago
  That's more about understanding big business politics than it is about social intelligence.
  - oneweekwonder 13y ago
    She was his Boss, and she told him to support it. He could advise her and tell her why it is a bad idea, and if she still wants to use it, he must support it. Instead he said no, which is fine from his side. But If you don't want to do something the company expect from you, don't be surprised if you get fired.
    - ghshephard 13y ago
      He was the kind of guy who thought he knew best. He also refused to add a new VPN technology when he was asked to add PPTP to our already existing Netscreen IPSec environment. Basically, he didn't like being told by the not particularly technically knowledgeable CFO/CIO what technologies to deploy. We had Netscape Calendar/Email. He knew Netscape Calendar/Email. He wasn't interested in deploying a new Calendar and Email technology that he didn't know. The new boss really wanted support for her Blackberry. To some degree it worked out well for everyone. He was fired, and went to a new job where he got to work with Unix Technologies, and the new IT Manager was hired to deploy Microsoft Exchange.
    - antocv 13y ago
      I concur, and still see that sometimes it really is the right way to just say flat out No. Ive tried to play ball and call to meetings for distasteful and wasteful requests/requirements from business/manager people, but its such a drain on my energy as a developer, I just began saying flat out No. I take the risks of getting fired, but I will not be bitter 10 years from now for sitting in meetings discussing what is a change request and what is a requirement with people who have not read one paragraph on software engineering, trying to get me to once again change the functionality of the app because of their change in opinion, or trying to just get me to do things just because they say so. Fuck that, and fuck no. Im out. If I am expected to be a code monkey at a workplace, thats not the workplace I want to be at.
hnriot 13y ago
And I'd fire him too, any IT manager that can't support a Blackberry doesn't deserve to be an IT manager. Not to mention his bad attitude in not even trying.

mattmanser 13y ago

Yes, the article itself is a load of nonsense, with this gem in it: BlackBerrys have never been particularly attractive, cutting-edge, or user-friendly. As you say, they were definitely seen as attractive, cutting-edge, and user-friendly at one point because the execs forced them into companies. Pretty much right up until the day the iPhone came out. They went from great to old fashioned almost overnight.

ngd 13y ago
In my experience the same "force" occurred with the iPhone. Execs bought them and wanted their corporate mail on them.
alin_enache 13y ago
http://waltherpragerandphilosophy1.blogspot.com/2013/09/fit-for-clothes.html http://waltherpragerandphilosophy1.blogspot.com/2013/09/fit-...

melling 13y ago

A little aside... Developers really should read your post twice and understand exactly how admins think. These types of departments are usually slow moving, and really hinder progress. When you read about the people who are stuck on old browsers and need legacy IE support, it's probably because of all the "planning and work" that would be required to upgrade. Anyway, I've always advocated dumping legacy browser support because once the right people have problems viewing the web, fires get lit and the job gets escalated. The only people who can't upgrade their own browsers are the ones with an IT team standing in their way.

johnpmayer 13y ago
I think that's a little unfair. Admins' responsibility to keep everything running, all the time, is their top priority. As an organization scales, it pays off greatly to enforce some homogeneity - especially as the ratio of non-technical users increases. Not everybody can manage their own browser/office suite/mail client, but they always need it to do their work. If you want bleeding edge software across the organization, admins need to have enough extra free time to coordinate the rollout and get the training to support it. Recall the administrators "prime directive" - fix what's broken. If the admin team is swamped with tickets all the time, you'll be stuck with legacy stuff, because they don't have enough time to adapt. We have a joke at work that new stuff gets done during our "infinite amount of free time".
scott_karana 13y ago
It's normally not an admin's choice to stay slow and out of date. This is especially the case in a non-IT-centric business, which nonetheless uses technology to function. Typically, the issue is like this: 1) Management demands that a specific solution is installed, and ignores IT's complaints 2) The solution requires an environment IE 7 (or Windows XP, or... take your pick) The admins now have two problems: they need to convince management to move away from the old solution to a new one (another capital expense), in addition to maintaining a hateful, old environment so that the business doesn't break. Senior management doesn't realize they dug their own grave, and refuses to pay for the capex "just" to have the latest version of the solution, when the business is seemingly working just fine on the current environment. Eventually, after much praying and finger crossing, only one of the two things saves the admins: 1) The solution is upgraded to support modern software 2) The environment becomes unsupported, and management is forced to reconsider the upgrade. Have some sympathy, mate! :(

hnriot 13y ago

it doesn't like you're a great fit for IT support. It's people like you that give IT a bad name. The same people that tell employees that can't upgrade Firefox 3.6.23 because they don't "support" newer versions. IT either reboot or reimage to fix any problem anyway. The first thing I do it get off the IT support system by installing Linux. IT keep servers machine running, they don't care that those machine aren't doing anything useful. The server software stopped being useful years ago yet they keep it running at all costs because their job performance is tied to uptime. When I work our yearly mandatory training requires Firefox 3.6.23, IE6 or Netscape! People have to borrow loaner laptops that nobody dare upgrade just to do the training classes. This is thanks to our IT department not wanting to support "newer" technology. Eventually we get a new VP who fires all these people that don't understand that people want to use iPhones and VPNs and WebEx on their iPad and it's not ITs job to put roadblocks in their way, but instead to figure out how to support it. "I still see Blackberry as representing arrogant unthinking executives and the resulting headaches" - you mean the people that pay you and figure out how to stay in business despite your best efforts to thwart it?