How is Microsoft’s Direct Push better than the BlackBerry
October 20th, 2006 by Paul Mah
15,342 Views
I thought long and hard not about the contents of this article, but about the title. While sure to generate some controversy, this is what I believe to be the case. My personal opinion is that the current implementation of Direct Push overall is better than RIM’s BlackBerry device where it comes to push mail access on Microsoft Exchange. In fact, I consider Direct Push to be superior to any of the other offerings on the market when it comes to using Exchange as a backend mail server.
As it is, the BlackBerry is still very much a de facto standard in the push mail market which it created practically single-handedly. Hence we have this little comparison with it, and the corresponding title – “ How is Microsoft’s Direct Push better than the BlackBerry?”
Because we don’t live in a world of black and white, I have decided to segregate the discussion on the various features into three distinct parts in which I categorize certain features in which Direct Push is superior, inferior, and where it is competitive with the BlackBerry. I must qualify that I have previously used both a 7290 and a 7730 with both BIS as well as with BES 4.0/Exchange 2003. I am interested if you have any feedback or comments regarding features that I might have inadvertently missed.
Scalability
Microsoft might have got into the push mail playing field relatively late. However, with the improvements in Direct Push which is being built directly into Exchange 2003 SP2, it offers superior scalability in terms of the number of handheld clients that can be supported per server. Read here about how Direct Push works if you have not done so yet.
Anecdotal evidence from a Microsoft staffer indicates that they have internally deployed and are supporting over 45,000 Windows Mobile devices using this technology already. That was end-2005 – probably on a pre-release version of Direct Push and Exchange SP2. These handhelds are supported on a total of two dual-processor Pentium Servers with 2GB of RAM each. I am unsure at this point of the implementation architecture as the link on a public white paper pertaining to it was broken. However, extrapolating from Exchange’s rather heavy-duty requirements itself, it is likely that these two servers are only serving the Windows Mobile devices and do not run the mail-handling portion of Exchange itself. (I have sent in an Email enquiring about the missing white paper – hope I get a reply soon!)
The minimum requirements for the BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BES) version 4.1 – which is required to link-up Exchange with the Blackberry handheld in an enterprise, is quite different. The systems requirements for the BES is pegged at a minimum of a dual-processor Pentium with 4GB of RAM for a 2,000 device setup. You can find systems requirements page for the BES here.
There is no mention of scalability beyond 2000 BlackBerry devices; though I am pretty sure that more devices can be added with some sort of clustering or manually partitioning the clients to be supported per BES. However, even assuming a linear scalability for the BES, 45,000 clients looks set to require over 20 BES boxes. It is clear here that a Direct Push implementation wins hands-down here.
Implementation Cost
You can try to accuse Microsoft of being a monopolist on this, but the fact is that if you already use Microsoft Exchange 2003 SP2 or are planning to migrate to it, the TCO is extremely compelling due to the fact that Direct Push technology is already built into Exchange.
All other push mail solutions that I am aware of on an enterprise level – including the BES, that runs off an Exchange server, all require a separate per-device licensing fee of some sort. With Direct Push on the other hand, there is absolutely no additional cost. This translates immediately into an unbeatable total cost of ownership (TCO) and significantly less complication when it comes to managing the licensing.
True Remote Mailbox Access
There has been earlier complains about Microsoft’s AUTD in which users complain that read status of Emails are not synchronized properly back to Exchange. Happily, this is no longer the case with Direct Push and Exchange SP2. Direct Push now offers complete access to your entire Exchange mailbox, read status and moving of mails into subfolders are synchronized immediately be it reading your mail on your handheld (Handheld updates Exchange) or using your Outlook client at your desktop (Exchange updates handheld).
With the BlackBerry on the other hand, you are limited to the most recent 1000 Emails. In this regard, Direct Push offers superior access, giving you the option to synchronize your entire Exchange mailbox if so desired. Every single mail can be made accessible, not just new ones. The best part is that even if you opt not to synchronize your entire mailbox, all folders are nevertheless still accessible to the user while on the road. If you need something, simply select the appropriate folder and synchronize away.
14 Responses to “How is Microsoft’s Direct Push better than the BlackBerry”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. Free Registration »
My two cents based on actual experience in an enterprise setting (BES 4.x talking to Exchange 2003 SP2, versus WM5 talking to Exchange 2003 SP2). Most of my comments about shortcomings of the WM5 platform can be addressed by 3rd party software or by waiting for Crossbow/Exchange 2007.
The “read status” is not as well-implemented as you might think. The chief complaint from our users is that if you read a message on your WM5 device, and then immediately delete it, it shows up in your Deleted Items folder (on the server) as unread. Also, synchronization is not immediate when you update/delete items on your WM5 device.
On the security side, you did not mention on-device encryption. BlackBerry’s capable of running the 4.x client have the option of encrypting the locally stored data. This can come in handy when you “wipe” a device, since a wipe does not do much as far as actually erasing (by writing over) your data.
Also, on the security topic, WM5 devices do not wipe any memory cards (SD, miniSD, microSD, etc.) if you do a remote wipe. I think Crossbow fixes this.
Finally, there is the topic of Intranet access. BlackBerry’s can communicate through the BES to internal web servers. WM5 devices cannot do something similar. Again, I think Crossbow, Exchange 2007, and the unnamed management server enable this. Sadly, I’m guessing that the management server licensing $$ will add enough to the TCO that it will be very close to BlackBerry/BES cost.
This posting looks very, very biased and is actually based on something you have been told, rather than something you have experienced in real life.
You happily forget to mention that the battery life on any Windows Mobile device is about 12-14 hours when Direct Push is used as apposed to a BlackBerry (which depending on the model) is 3-7 days.
You also forget to mention that BlackBerry Connect is available so the Blackberry experienced can be used on Symbian, Palm OS, and Windows Mobile.
There are also tons more third party apps for the BlackBerry than you are letting on.
You are also forgetting how your firewall/proxy infrastructure will have to be beefed up to handle thousands of constantly open https sessions. This is a real cost that you are not talking about. The BES requires one outgoing SRP connection.
As the previous poster noted, device security is not available for Direct Connect. No easy access to the corporate network as offered via the BlackBerry MDS connection.
Direct Push has 4 “IT Policy” settings which do not include things like what apps the user can or cannot install, device-side encryption, etc., etc.
Here in the real world, RIM still wins. Microsoft has an immature product right now.
Its BlackBerry, not Blackberry.
If you want to sound intelligent when writing about something, at least write the name correctly.
Going more into security, I’m not sure how many security officers like the idea of direct ActiveSync access from the Internet to the internal exchange server. even if you move the exchange to the DMZ, attackers may gain access to more users information then only the ones who use WM5.
Now I love EAS/DirectPush, but it doesn’t work for receipts. If you read a message on your device, it doesn’t update status until you receive a new item FROM the server. Read Receipt status on the device NEVER initiates a Server resync…
Totally agree with the vast majority of what you say here. I have rolled out 30 devices using the MS push solution, and have plans for a further 100 (Smartphones) without any additional infrastructure costs.
You are absolutely right about device stability, and as you point out, the avarage WM device does a hell of a lot more than the RIM equivelant. However WM devices are getting more and more stable, I haven’t had a crash on my current device for a few months and a soft reset always fixes the problem.
Just to pick up on the security comment, I work for a company with very strict security rules and we had no problems getting a secure solution authorised (I don’t want to go into details for obvious reasons!) but I also suspect that the “2 servers” which MS use for push may well be for security. In addition, if you really want to get paranoid over security there are well documented options for integrating certificates and even tokens such as those supplied by RSA to restrict access.
Some other advantages are the huge selection of devices available (including some very good smartphones which give real convergence), the ability to use UMTS or even WiFi for downloading those chunky attachments on certain devices and lastly the integration of major MS applications (SharePoint, LCS etc)that is starting to appear for Windows Mobile.
About security… think about if a hacker publicize a security hole on newsgroup, guess who will fill up that hole faster, Microsoft or RIM? Who will let you know when it fixed the problem?
WM devices are connected to frontend Exchange server (client access), not directly to those backend Exchange (storage). In a standard deployment without registry hacks, admin have to separate the mail solution into at least two servers, firewall inbetween is optional. But hey, it’s common practice to protected internal server from DMZ.
If your network got Outlook Web Access, admin will not need to configure additional port for Direct Push. Both OWA and MSFP runs on top of IIS on same port. And it is secure connection.
24/7 Direct Push run for a month will only cost you slightly more than 1 MB of data flow (assume no e-mail receive).
HTTPS traffic served by a proxy is in its *purest* form. As proxy cannot read/parse data in HTTPS connection, therefore, proxying HTTPS data is actually doing nothing but just copying raw bits from client to server. Since HTTPS is so simple (just copy data, no cache at all), all web proxy server on the market support HTTPS. And it’s the beauty of HTTPS too. No one worry about HTTPS proxy at all!
Direct Push is also available on WM2003 platform by third-party product. No intermediate server is required too.
The beauty of MSFP solution is that it works on all kind of network, GPRS, EDGE, UMTS, EVDO, Wi-Fi, HSDPA. You name it, MSFP support it! As long as you can use a web browser to connect to Internet, MSFP rocks!
In BlackBerry solution, you have to pay the mobile operator a premium. And you are limited to what device they offer, and slow GPRS/EDGE network.
Gold blasts Win Mobile 5 security
http://www.mobilemonday.net/mm/story.php?story_id=5045
Timo Poropudas
1 Nov 2006 at 19:47
The security architecture of Windows Mobile 5 is faulty, claims analyst Jack Gold of J. Gold Associates in a report published last week. Gold says that Microsoft Exchange and Windows Mobile 5 cannot sync encrypted data.
Gold’s report, “Microsoft’s Direct Push Insecurity”, says that the problem lies with AirSync, a derivative of ActiveSync used to transfer data to devices. ActiveSync and AirSync can only transfer datasets with specific types of formatting; meaning encrypted data can’t be transferred from Exchange Server to Pocket Outlook.
The data is encrypted while in transit, via an SSL link, but not on the device. “We believe that companies considering the use of Microsoft Direct Push Exchange technology should be very cautious,” Gold says in the report.
That leaves only a password mechanism between unauthorised users and corporate data. That is not enough for many companies. In particular, companies such as financial services firms and health-care organisations, which operate under tight regulatory restrictions, are likely to need on-device encryption.
Windows Mobile will be the topic of the November MobileMonday event in Helsinki. The participants of the event will have a chance to put a security question directly to Microsoft representatives.
Not really a security loophole. That’s the problem every mobile worker is facing. Harddisk on notebook is not encrypted, flash memory in Pocket PC is not encrypted…
I heard that both Vista BitLocker feature and next release of Windows Mobile will encrypt both internal and external storage, that means you can encrypt your miniSD card too.
Hello all
I have several questions that I haven’t been yet able to find answers to yet. I am new to all this and I would really appreciate it if you can help me answer them:
1. If MS Direct Push is free and can even be used on Nokia phones (mail for exchange) and other other platforms. Then why do many companies are still stuck with BlackBerry?
2. What are the advantages that BB has over direct push? And are they enough to convince many corporations to stick with BB
3. Are there any numbers that compares the data (gprs)usage between the two technologies. I read somewhere that the cost to get BB device connected is about %30 less than directpush. If that number is true, why?
4. Would someone refer me to good articles that explains how BB or direct push work.
5. Are there any articles that contain tips and tricks that would help get the data usage direct push to the bare minimum. GPRS here is just way too expensive (around $1.5 per meg)
6. In the interest of saving cost, Is it possible to get the exchange server to only push unread messages or even not push at all if I am connected to the exchange server using outlook from my desktop.
7. I read somewhere that microsoft pushmail is not true push like RIM’s BB, why? And should we care if it isn’t. Is there an advantage of having “real” push solution.
8. Which uses less data and better battery life: enabling push mail or auto-synching every 1 hour. I honesly couln’t care less about push if its going to end up costing much more than normal.
9. My friend (uses BB and direct push) says that BB is a little faster than direct push. Why? My understanding is that BB uses a Blackberry enterprise server BES server (connected to the exchange server) and some kind of e-mail relay server (connected to the BES and the phone) somewhere in the internet. So why is direct push a little slower even though there is no middleman (exchange server talks directly to the phone)
10. My friend also claims that BB proved to be more stable than direct push (many times stops receiving e-mails for no apparent reason) in his company. If that is true everywhere else, why? In principle, shouldn’t direct push be more stable\reliable as its design is simpler => less things are likely to go wrong.
11. can you have more than one account pushing to the same device on wm5(eg 1 corporate account and one gmail account)
12. i used “mail for exchange” on a nokia e61. two things that cought my attantion the first thing is that push mail works just fine on wifi unlike wm9. why doesn’t this work on wm5 devices??? also the mail is much more stable compared to wm5(i tried it on k-jam, jasjar and pda2k). i’m not why is not vey stable on wm5 devices. its funny that the best experiance you can get from MS direct push is through a nokia phone
thanks will post more if i get more questions
[…] those of you who are still clueless, I wrote a piece on How is Microsoft’s Direct Push better than the BlackBerry. Now, it was written quite a while back, when Windows Mobile 5.0 was prevalent. Now that Windows […]
[…] Anyway, it would be interesting if the iPhone with Exchange becomes mainstream. Apple and Microsoft versus RIM anyone? I do have some opinions on this if you’re care to read How is Microsoft’s Direct Push better than the BlackBerry. […]
the BIGGEST problem with BES is that when RIM’s service goes down, EVERY BB IN THE WORLD IS DEAD. This happens way to often. Even once a year is too often. If RIM had sufficient redundancy to eliminate this, then that would be fine, but obviously they do not. With MS there is not a world-wide single point of failure, and you can control your own destiny, so to speak.