I did a little digging internally and heard that Bill doesn't use a mobile phone much, and when he does it is not identifiable for security reasons. He plays with a lot of different phones (yes, including the iPhone) but doesn't use a particular one on a day to day basis out of IT concerns about what would happen if his device was lost.
A lot of our other VPs use Moto Qs since they got those for testing WM6 during its development. Steve Balmer uses a Q at the moment and Ray Ozzie is an avid user of the HTC Advantage.
Keep in mind that these guys can change phones like we change clothes. Just because a particular MS exec uses a device doesn't mean any bias, preferance or endorsement. They use whatever they fancy or want to compare with Windows Mobile.
-Mel
__________________
--Mel SampatProgram*Manager*- Microsoft
Sounds like Bill has the luxury most Executives have had to give up, namely that he's important enough to NOT have to be responsible for his own communication channels! In the past it would have been inconceivable to tell a high powered exec that they had to carry their own telephone and answer it whenever it rang - that's the secretary's job!
I guess that sort of power does have it's downsides: It's too much of a security risk for him to play with his own devices for actual work!
__________________ Jon Westfall
Contributing Editor, MS MVP, MCSE, Ph.D., and More.
Of course, a man with billions in his pocket can afford to get any phone he damn well pleases-- he earns the amount it takes to get a new phone in less time than it takes to change the SIM card.
Spot on He could have a phone for every hour of the day.
I think he might be using a prototype HTC device, or maybe the Kaiser.
__________________ Mitchell Oke - Gear Diary Editor MacBook Pro, Self-Built Media Center PC on 22" LCD
Samsung i600 "BlackJack", HTC Universal, Microsoft Zune
My immediate response when I saw this thread was "to heck with King Bill's phone, I want a carrier free Google" Just think what a Skype-like device, independent of carrier baggage, would be. I get so tired of carrier anal retentive control, I'd sell out to Google for that. In fact, I secretly (well, not so secretly, pretty vocally a year ago) Posted on every site I could that Apple should "go it alone" and just make a world phone that you could connect to whatever carrier you wanted (like HTC devices) and break the back of carrier control. Unfortunately, their concept of visual voice mail and Safari site rendering depends a lot upon backoffice hardware so they are stuck with AT&T - and then end up with 2.5G no less.
Of course he could remotely wipe the device. But that's not the point. How much time would elapse between the time the device was stolen and when he relizes it and sends the wipe command?
If it is true that he does not use the phone that often, it is very possible that an hour or more could go by before he realized it was gone. In that amount of time, a hacker could easily get valuable information out of the phone.
It's just not worth the risk.
I work for a software company, and our CEO has said that he and all the officers use Qs, but do not carry any company information on their phones other than phone numbers.
They do not load any company documents on the phones at all, and for email they do not synchronize with our server. They have a special mobile website they built where they have to log in via a VPN each time to be able to access their emails from their phones. But the emails are not actually saved on the phone itself. The emails stay on the server and the phone just works as a viewer. That way if the phone is ever lost, the only info the thief could get is the phone numbers in it, which can easily be changed.
So remote wipe is nice, but if not caught in time would not prevent data from being stolen off the device. So most executives will not rely on this. It's just not worth the risk.
remote wipe
Linear Mode
