Computing option with "no funds"
-
@coliver said:
This was a hypothetical. If you were deploying BYOD then it would be useful to have this type of thing spelled out. This is where our support begins and ends for BYOD anything beyond that is the employee's concern.
Exactly. And nearly every company I have ever seen provides a list of things that are known to work "Windows XP and 7 have been tested. Mac OSX 10.9." And beyond providing a basic list, all support is up to the end user.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
@scottalanmiller said:
It's not like they don't still have devices in the office.
Do they?
Of course. BYOD is an allowance, not a mandate. There is no association between being allowed to use some of your own gear inside the office and not providing a basic, functioning work environment. The iPad is just for checking email during a meeting, for example, not to replace my desktop.
The OP said staff were required to buy their own computers. That sounds like a mandate. People can check their e-mail on their own devices at our place, no problem.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
People can check their e-mail on their own devices at our place, no problem.
That's a BYOD policy, then
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
The OP said staff were required to buy their own computers. That sounds like a mandate.
Yes, and if you follow my responses you'll see that I said that I didn't believe that that was even legal and if it was that using AD was definitely not legal (you can't take over someone's personal property if you don't pay for it.) I stated that BYOD as it was understood in the industry was "Optional BYOD" never forced or you stepped over a line and nothing discussed here applies when BYOD is mandated.
-
The discussion of BYOD grew out of people talking about ways to deal with an infrastructure that can't afford the basics, like computers.
-
Maybe. But one of the main benefits I see people give for BYOD is cost savings. In your case, there is no cost savings, because the company still provides the same level of hardware and BYOD devices are just additional devices above and beyond what is already provided by the firm.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Maybe. But one of the main benefits I see people give for BYOD is cost savings.
That's the problem, businesses considering it "never" (I assume here) do it for cost savings. If you remove that preconception, then it makes absolute sense. I've never heard of someone doing it to save costs, it's to make people happier and more efficient.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
In your case, there is no cost savings, because the company still provides the same level of hardware and BYOD devices are just additional devices above and beyond what is already provided by the firm.
Exactly. No cost to the company, it's just free improvements in technology. You normally need a BYOD strategy no matter what for remote access, so why not leverage the benefits of BYOD since it is effectively free and purely to the benefit of the company. It doesn't save money, it just helps to make money.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
Maybe. But one of the main benefits I see people give for BYOD is cost savings. In your case, there is no cost savings, because the company still provides the same level of hardware and BYOD devices are just additional devices above and beyond what is already provided by the firm.
Actually in this case the costs would go up, because you would need to support an onsite guest network for those devices.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Carnival-Boy said:
Maybe. But one of the main benefits I see people give for BYOD is cost savings. In your case, there is no cost savings, because the company still provides the same level of hardware and BYOD devices are just additional devices above and beyond what is already provided by the firm.
Actually in this case the costs would go up, because you would need to support an onsite guest network for those devices.
True, although most companies have that already. And technically that isn't needed, you can let people access via LTE or whatever. But that becomes pretty silly.
