OS and Software > All Things Macintosh > [iPhone] 3.1 breaks Exchange Sync for pre-3GS phones

reply to godlikesme

Re: [iPhone] 3.1 breaks Exchange Sync

reply to ptrowski
Agreed. My gripe is that I (along with anyone else who was also lied to by Apple) should be compensated fairly. I called them serveral times with my issue. I said I would even accept a refurbished iPhone 3GS since it wasn't like I hadn't benefitted from the use of my current iPhone 3G for the last 10 months. I tried to be as accomodating as possible -especially since I was the one that was "misled".

I put it to them very simply. I said that if they would have been forthcoming from the get-go and not "spoofed" the whole MS Exchange hardware encryption support I would have immediately known that the phone would not meet my needs with respect to the corporate email functionality and I would have promptly returned it within my 14 day window. I could have then opted for another phone or stuck with my existing one until a newer version of the iPhone launched that did support my needs. This was a chance for Apple to set things right with me. I didn't immediately jump up and yell lawsuit. I only started pursuing the idea after I exhausted ever other attempt at resolving the dispute.

You know how the entire ATM banking system has an agreed upon set of "guidelines" which all participating banks must adhere to (i.e. Plus, Star, Most etc.) and failing to adhere to those guidelines would result in the cards issued by those banks being refused access to the ATM network?

If Apple ran a bank you could probably expect something like this to happen...

Most people using an ATM card are under the impression that as long as no one knows their 4-digit pin their money is safe. Not with the "Apple Computer iDebitCard". With this wonderful piece of plastic the whole 4-digit pin is bogus and in reality if someone got a hold of your card they could have entered in any 4-digit combination and cleaned out your account.

Now in the case of a bank it didn't cost me anything to open up the account and I might have even received a free gift or $50. In addition there is no penalty for me closing the account. In the case of the iPhone however it cost me $300. Are you starting to catch my drift here?

reply to philr5150
philr5150,

I agree with mostly everything you've written in your last post. I realize that I am living in a dream world by thinking I can beat Apple in court. Life is not a Disney movie.

I also realize that there are many other options for phones and I HATE AT&T as a provider -they are absolutely attrocious. In the end I may very well end up getting another phone but that wouldn't make what Apple did right.

I emphasize this specific issue over any other shortcoming on the iPhone to date because it was done deliberately to deceive consumers and arguing that no one forced me to update the iPhone OS software is like telling you not to update Windows or your antivirus definitions. When people buy hardware or software these days they expect that at some point in the product's lifetime at least one or more software updates will need to be applied. Granted there are always disclaimers about the risks involved and how the company assumes no reliability etc. but this case is different. In this case Apple falsified functionality when the 3G was initially released knowing it would ultimately deploy updated software that would effectively render the MS Exchange functionality useless when using the iPhone 3G in a secure corporate environment. For over a year (i.e. June 2008 through September of 2009) Apple continued to sell the 3G without providing any information to existing or potential customers that this was an issue. In my mind this constitutes fraud.

I totally disagree with you, and here is a quote from the Apple's "iPhone in Enterprise" PDF made available July 2008:

quote:

---

Exchange ActiveSync security policies
• Remote wipe
• Enforce password on device
• Minimum password length
• Require alphanumeric password
• Require complex password
• Inactivity time in minutes

---

reply to bbarrera

Re: [iPhone] 3.1 breaks Exchange Sync

This will hopefully be my last post regarding this issue.

Again, I never expected the device to work under all circumstances from now and until the end of time. I understand that updates happen (both by Apple and other vendors like Microsoft) that may disable functionality for some and enhance it for others. I am also not saying that enforcing the additional layer of hardware security is a bad thing. Apple did not release a bug in 3.1 by plugging the security hole with hardware encryption, they fixed one. The only problem is that it wasn't a bug. A bug is unintentional. This was clearly a deliberate move. In addition, to this date they are still not informing potential 3G customers of the issue up front. Having verbage in the 3GS manual or expecting people to know about a press release burried somewhere on the Internet which acknowledges the issue does not help inform 3G customers of any shortcomings. The only people who really know about the issue are a few tech support people at Apple, Gizmodo, enGadget and the rest of us who got screwed. Not even the people at the Apple or AT&T stores are aware of it so they can't warn customers. I mean how long would it take to update their website to alert users who purchase an iPhone 3G and opt for the MS Exchange service that the 3G doesn't support hardware encryption???

I just got an email from Apple yesterday informing me about the 3.1 iPhone OS update and that if I haven't downloaded it yet, I should. How ironic is that? Guess what was noticably absent from the marketing email? If you said "any warning about blocking MS Exchange for iPhone 3G" then you guessed correctly! If Apple isn't trying to hide anything then why is there no mention of this in the email? Not even in the fine print!

Lastly, your comment about Apple never stating that the 3G would work on MS Exchange indefinitely is also missing the point. I am not saying that they ever claimed this. What I am saying is that it was not legitimately compatible with MS Exchange from day one but they deceived the public into thinking it was. There is a very, very big difference between Microsoft making an update to MS Exchange that breaks the iPhone ActiveSync support after the release of the iPhone 3G and Apple ignoring a security requirement from the get-go when they knew full well that the server required it.

reply to philr5150
@philr5150

Thanks for the intellectual discussion and understanding at least some of my points. It's been a frustrating last couple of weeks.

Regards.

reply to Matt
Do you work for a bank?

reply to godlikesme
While I understand your disappointment this is a problem that Microsoft created, to maintain backwards compatibility with Windows Mobile 5 and 6.0 devices (many of which can't be upgraded). When SP1 was rolled out I read Microsoft's release notes about the new ActiveSync policies, repeated here:

quote:

---

Exchange 2007 SP1 introduces new Exchange ActiveSync policy settings. The policy settings introduced in Exchange 2007 Service Pack 1 require Windows Mobile 6.1, or a later version, or other compatible mobile phone operating systems. Windows Mobile 6.0 and earlier versions only support the Exchange ActiveSync policy settings available in the original release (RTM) version of Exchange 2007. For more information about the additional Exchange ActiveSync policy settings, see New Client Access Features in Exchange 2007 SP1.

---

By the way, in my spare time I assist supporting an Exchange 2007 Server with 150 users. The biggest offenders of 'can't honor Exchange device encryption' policy are:
- owners of WinMo 5.x and 6.0 phones
- owners of Sprint phones, using Sprint's Mobile Email Services that grabs email from Outlook Web Access and forwards to the phone

The 2nd case exemplifies how opening up Outlook Web Access to Internet username/password login (w/o 2 factor auth) immediately allows a software app (like Sprint mobile email services) to talk directly with OWA, and broker email on behalf of a mobile phone, completely bypassing Exchange server mobile policies. To cut off those users, you'll need something like RSA SecureID to stop users hell-bent on sidestepping security policies.

iPhone users are the least of my worries, at least we've got a chance of remote wiping their devices.

reply to bbarrera