Is this the most expensive Mobile Phone ever?

This article caught my eye as it's not about the Vertu range (which it seems few people realise are owned by Nokia) but actually about the problem of execs wanting a 'Blackberry'

I liked the breakdown of costs which call out all the necessary components to give that one executive a 'Blackberry'


Comments (5)
  1. Rob Evans says:

    you could also apply the same argument as to why companies buy MS windows machines (laptops etc) and not buy Linux.

    there is an ease of use/support element that hasn’t been factored in.

  2. irblinx says:

    This is one of the (many) reasons that we (alright, I) chose to implement WM instead of BB at work. Our previous owners could have supplied us with corporate BB devices at a cost of around £1,300 each per year, i.e. slightly more than a corporate laptop! Whereas WM devices are running at considerably less and the per unit cost keeps going down with every device we roll out as the infrastructure is bought and paid for and very scaleable.

    Add to that the attractiveness, and choice of devices and the total ownership of security for the solution and it really was a no brainer.

  3. Stephen Mulligan says:

    This article is terribly over simplistic and ignores some basic realities.

    Setting up any infrastructure for one user is of course going to be expensive but WM and Blackberry would both fall into the same pit there.

    If you have an exchange server in place and you want to set up either BB or WM, you need to put kit on the deck. For WM you have to set up an ISA in your DMZ and a Front End Server inside (not everyone has these remember); for BB, set up your BES server.

    I’ve now been involved in setting up both in our organisation and I’d have to say the BB setup was easier. Time will tell how well WM performs by comparison…

  4. alasdair says:

    Hang on a moment Stephen, I don’t think I was ignoring any realities.

    You are of course correct in the old days costs for the first user for either Blackberry or WM would have been equally excessive, however I was clear in stating that the customer already has exchange activesync installed and working, so additional work in this instance is none existent. The problem is not provisioning it’s the short sightedness of the toy throwing individual concerned.

    To be honest these days we always work backwards from the end user and that almost always leads to the deployment of  OWA, Outlook anywhere and exchange activesync at time of exchange commissioning.

    These features are available at  a relatively small incremental cost and we’d be selling our customers a car with a wheel missing if we didn’t at least offer the capability to use the remote working facilities within exchange.  

    This applies equally for migrations upgrades and new provisions so it follows that most of our deployments have ISA or a configured firewall and a front end / CAS role in the infrastructure so there’s no additional kit on the deck.

    If the company concerned had BES then of course the exec could have simply picked up his 8800 (after buying the CAL and assuming the server had capacity)  but they don’t.

    The point I wasn’t actually trying to make but seems to have been forced upon me is that you probably won’t need BES anymore in an Exchange environment that’s been optimised and designed with the end user benefits in mind from the outset.

  5. MSDNArchive says:


    It’s a common misconception that you need ISA Server to use Windows Mobile – you can use any firewall…  You also can install the Front end and Backend servers on one box… (look at Small Business Server as an example)

    The reality is that Blackberry is a parallel architecture in addition to Exchange.

Comments are closed.

Skip to main content