Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>No, this does completely get it right. Enterprises thought they needed all the control and security features of Blackberry until the iPhone came along and made the UX gap unsustainable.

The iPhone took almost a decade to get to the appropriate functionality. The part you're leaving out is most executives just ended up carrying two devices and whined to IT about "why can't YOU make my iphone as good at email as my blackberry???"

>Enterprises thought they needed on-premise hosting of Exchange, Office and SharePoint instances under their control for email and productivity, until GSuite came up with a better, less configurable user

Except I can count on one hand the number of fortune 500 enterprises that moved to gsuite over o365.

>Slack is another proof point - the "consumerization of IT" trend in general.

I'm not even sure how this is relevant. Companies that were using skype for business or cisco jabber likely still have skype/jabber running alongside Slack.

This reads like someone who lives in the valley and thinks the valley is in any way reflective of corporate America. Hint: It's not.



The iPhone took almost a decade to get to the appropriate functionality. The part you're leaving out is most executives just ended up carrying two devices and whined to IT about "why can't YOU make my iphone as good at email as my blackberry???"

That’s not true. The iPhone became good enough to replace the BlackBerry around 4 or 5 years in. By 2011, the BlackBerry was losing market share as Apple added enterprise features.


And yet neither Android nor iPhone today as as good at doing email as Blackberry was 10 years ago.

They do lots of other things a lot better, but email? Nope.


What did blackberry do so well in email?


I, for example, enjoyed the wheel. Scroll wheel to email you want to read, press wheel to open, scroll to read. To be honest I don't remember how I close email, click wheel again or another button, but the whole experience can be done with one hand/thumb easily, while holding coffee in another hand. Try that with iPhone.


Keyboard. Touch sucks for writing.


I can type so much faster with Swype-style typing. I completely don't understand the die-hard keyboardists


My issue with Swype-style - after having used it for about 8 years before switching to a phone with a keyboard (Android Blackberry) - is that having to wait for each word to confirm it got the right one is where the slowdown is. Touch-typing means I can keep going without confirming, because when I do mis-type, I can feel that my finger wasn't positioned correctly without having to do any visual confirmation.

Based on reactions from co-workers though, it seems I'm much more efficient at touch-typing than most of them, even on a fullsize keyboard. And the experience does translate to a physical phone keyboard, even at the smaller size, so that may well be where some of the disconnect is.

Note also when touch-typing on my phone, I get the full speed by using both thumbs, not just one.


I could touch type on blackberry far faster and more accurate than swype. Swype is better than nothing but it's not as good as the bb keyboard was.


I’ve never had any trouble with typing on a touch screen just as fast as my old Blackberry. Especially if you have autocorrect.


Autocorrect is more often slowing me down. It's only rarely correct.


Yep. Autocorrect's one of the first things I turn off on any device. I'd rather have a misspelled word than an entirely wrong word.

Case in point: people spelling "definitely" as (I assume) "definately" only to be autocorrected to "defiantly" without noticing. That sort of "correction" completely changes the meaning of a sentence.


This does not compute. I am a fast typer on all mediums, but a touch screen is just so slow compared to physical. I think I got around 80 wpm on my blackberry, there is no way I could do that on a touch screen. And iPhone autocorrect is terrible with any sort of tech jargon - frequently causing manual corrections.


it is just a habit. Here is a video from 2010 with 97 wpm on iPhone - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNcTE5WJGdw


I've found that haptic feedback helps. My first smartphone was a handmedown first-gen iPhone, so I didn't really understand the point of haptic feedback because I wasn't exposed to it, but upon switching to a Galaxy SII and feeling a tactile response with each press I've yet to look back.

Every time haptic feedback turns off for "power saving" when I'm running low on battery, I immediately wonder how anyone ever manages to type anything at all without mucking things up all the time.

I'd still prefer a physical keyboard, though.


For me and for a number of email "power users" whom I know, Blackberry strictly dominates iPhone email experience.

Stipulated, it definitely depends on personal preferences and workflows as to what you personally prefer.

But it is pretty incontrovertible that Blackberry was a finely-honed email tool with departures from that core use case being pretty tightly defined around the things you do ancillary to email (setting appointments, reading attachments, etc.).

iPhone is worse at that particular thing -- but vastly more capable broadly speaking for a universe of other things.


I'm still pretty confused about what blackberry did well. It sounds like they had a workflow that people that liked it liked.

Other than that, what specifically did it enable that the other phones didn't?


BlackBerry couldn’t read many attachments let alone edit them. Modern smart phones can run a decent version of MS Office.

The BlackBerry Email client definitely didn’t have a method of integrating third party storage providers like Dropbox which was definitely a thing by 2011.


Search. I could instantly search basically my entire inbox in 2005. That was the power of BES. I still can't do that today on Android or iOS. If I'm looking for an email from 6 months ago or last year it takes FOREVER to find.


I just did a search for a keyword from mail that I knew would be old - 2005. It found it instantly.


I always thought their killer feature was the fact that they'd operate on pager frequencies, so you could get an email (or at least a portion of it) in what was quite often a cellular deadzone. Largely moot these days between the proliferation of WiFi and LTE repeaters.


The BlackBerry phones didn’t operate on pager frequencies did they?


It wouldn't surprise me if the BB push notifications worked over pager frequencies. I can't find anything online about how they actually worked, but the original two-way communications device from RIM was called the "Inter@ctive Pager"[0]. If I were to guess, I'd say it is possible the push notification went over a pager frequency and included a snippet of the message. The device would then be able to request the full message over the cellular data network. The pager networks of the time were more robust (and travelled longer distances), so the BB would be able to received the notice of a message (and part of the payload) even in a cellular dead-zone.

But, that's just me speculating...

[0] http://www.braddye.com/newsletters/2010/n22jan2010.html


So the first ones used pager networks, the next generation used cellular.

The push service was quite good IMHO. Every carrier that supported BlackBerry Internet Service had a leased line or VPN to the RIM NOCs. The phones would connect to BIS servers at the carrier which then communicated over these backhauls to RIM. Because it was all so deeply integrated in the carriers network (I believe the BIS servers acted as a Gateway GPRS Support Node), the BIS servers knew exactly where on the network each phone was, so they could send essentially a UDP packet directly to the device, which was listening on a particular port. No long standing TCP connections, and of course if the device didn't acknowledge messages, they were queued at RIM for when the device reentered coverage.

Email was provided by a server side process that opened MAPI (the original exchange RPC protocol) connections to exchange mailboxes and asked to be pinged if there were changes in mailboxes. When that happened, the BES server would pull the changes, package them, forward them to the RIM NOC over the proprietary SRP protocol, which would locate the right carrier, send the packet over the backhaul, and then from the carrier it would make its way to the phone.

Source: used to run a BES server


This sounds worse than modern ActiveSync - which Apple introduces support for in 2010 (2009?). You also didn’t have to send all of your email through BlackBerry’s servers.

With ActiveSync, my email will usually reach my phone/cellular watch/iPad before it reaches my computer.


True. The messages were encrypted, but ye if RIM went down, no email for you. Even if your email server was working fine.


Well, it being encrypted doesn’t help when RIM had the encryption keys and would give them up to any government entity.

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/blackberry_gi...

https://www.engadget.com/2016/04/18/blackberry-ceo-wont-say-...


So that applied to consumer users. When connecting via BES, the connection was end to end encrypted, RIM never had the keys.


In what ways?


I mostly agree although I also think a lot of businesses think they are a lot snowflake-ier than they actually are.

But in my experience, smaller businesses can actually be worse offenders in this regard. Large enterprises actually do have a lot of complex needs and even relatively small changes affect a lot of people. But I've had someone at a very small company argue with me that they needed their own Exchange server because Gmail (at the time) didn't have some features like sub-labels/folders that they were used to.


> Except I can count on one hand the number of fortune 500 enterprises that moved to gsuite over o365.

That's maybe another way of showing that UX is not the winning differentiator in enterprise that it is in consumer.

> This reads like someone who lives in the valley and thinks the valley is in any way reflective of corporate America.

I don't live in that valley, and I fully know that it doesn't reflect the rest of US or world, and that is why, indeed, enterprise UX does suck! :)

I think we agree... I'm not hearing an argument from you that it's because of superior UX that people are sticking to O365.


> That's maybe another way of showing that UX is not the winning differentiator in enterprise that it is in consumer.

But it is. That and useful features. Both of which Office has, and GSuite has not.

I don't remember the name of that "Word lite" program that was included with Windows for free around Vista/7, which could open less sophisticated .doc files and was a default binding for .rtf files. But compared to Microsoft Office, GSuite is like that program, but on the web.


I have worked in enterprise for 20 years and have always been watching the vast majority of my colleagues (by the numbers) struggle to make anything but basic use of Office. My experience has been that there are a few advanced users who enjoy the mastery of it enough that they know it inside out, but the majority of enterprise workers really just do pretty basic stuff with it.

Meanwhile, the killer app of G Docs (collaboration) is a very frequently unanswered need. People emailing attachments with ridiculous names like "contract_v2_final_finalforreal.docx", making conflicting edits that cannot be reconciled, carrying USB sticks around because their PPT presentation is too big for email and they can never figure out how to use shared folders, etc.


Hey, I'm looking into a solution to this problem, I wondered if there was a way to DM you about your experience? I've been working on something and would love to hear thoughts around how people solve this where gDocs etc don't. Thanks


Again this goes down to usability vs features.

Word has a lot of features and, for certain publishing needs, these are important.

But what gsuite adds is usability. You no longer need shared drives. You no longer need to email docs around, you no longer need Spec_new_v3_new.doc.

I don't even need my computer any more, I can use anyone's.

I also don't need the immense amount of publishing and formatting options word provides. What I need to do is create documents that can be shared and collaborated on easily.


i believe this was called WordPad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPad


Yes, that one, thanks!


Skype for business makes me think of one of Guy Kawasaki’s 3 reasons for a business to exist: to right a wrong.

Skype for business is an abomination, it’s morally wrong, it’s an evil that must die.

I’m hoping Zoom can murder it viciously.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: