Guy Vs. Guy: Can the iPhone Succeed in Business (Without Really Trying)?

Welcome to Guy Vs. Guy! In this recurring feature, Rick and Dave square off on the business and technology issues of the day. This week's topic: The iPhone. Maybe you've heard of it? A recent flap in the UK raises the question of whether the iPhone can succeed in business (though some say it already has). Why does Apple insist on avoiding the office?

Dave: The iPhone is without question the most hyped mobile device in the history of technology. But deservedly so: I find mine utterly indispensable, from its better-than-Windows Mobile Exchange Server support to killer apps like TripIt. It's the most awesome phone ever made, and essential for anyone who takes his or her business out of the office. Period.

Rick: I hope you're not expecting me to disagree with you. What, you think I'm going to say that, sure, the iPhone is nice and all, but it hardly has a place in business? That it's really intended for consumers, not suits? What kind of moron would say something like that?

Dave: Oh, I don't know. Maybe... Apple. That's right, boys and girls, Apple has decided that the iPhone is inappropriate for business users and has refused to issue receipts for iTunes store purchases in Europe, where buyers need business receipts to reclaim the VAT (Value Added Tax) surcharge for business expenses. Nope, says Apple: "The iTunes Store sells only to customers as end-users for personal, noncommercial use." Huh? What? Are the 85 pages of Business apps some sort of optical illusion caused by the convergence of a multi-touch display and wishful thinking?

Rick: Apple's curious stance on this makes about as much sense as your love of Pauly Shore movies. You're right that the very existence of the App Store's Business category would seem to violate the company's own policy. Isn't "business" by definition a commercial enterprise? I suspect that Apple itself would likely be subject to taxes and/or other obligations if it issued the requested receipts, hence the irksome refusal. Of course, I always receive a receipt via e-mail for every app I purchase. Don't European customers get the same thing?

Dave: The App Store's very appeal might be a reason that the iPhone isn't suited for business, though. It's really easy to install music, video, and games and games and games on the iPhone. Easier, in fact, than on a laptop. Unlike Windows, there's no way for IT to lock down an iPhone. You can't press a standard image of essential apps and data onto 150 iPhones and distribute them to the sales team. And you can't prevent your employees from adding anything they want to the device. Can you imagine The Suits distributing PCs full of music, funny Web sites, and silly games to all their employees? I certainly can't.

Rick: Interesting theory, but it doesn't hold water. BlackBerrys and Windows Mobile phones can do games, music, video, and all that; the iPhone just happens to be better at them. And just because you can't deploy an app/data image to an iPhone doesn't mean it's not suitable for business. If anything, it's the most business-friendly phone on the planet, as it offers a genuinely useful browser, Office document/PDF viewers, and, as you already mentioned, kick-ass Exchange Server support. And don't forget the apps: GPS navigators, travel managers, wireless flash-drive utilities -- the list goes on and on.

Dave: I'd love to agree with you, but that would violate my contract with common sense. Windows Mobile and BlackBerry are both considerably more IT-friendly than the iPhone. They, for example, can be remote wiped if stolen. Apple doesn't offer anything like that. Well, except I see here on page 10 of Apple's Enterprise Deployment Guide for the iPhone that you can do a remote wipe. So, err, there. Clearly the iPhone is not "remotely" ready for prime time in the enterprise. Ha! See what I did there?

Rick: I feel like Babe Ruth on slow-pitch softball day. Let me get this straight: The iPhone has "killer apps," "better-than-Windows Exchange support," and remote-wipe capabilities, but it's not suitable for business? Not as IT-friendly as BlackBerry and WinMo phones? I've heard of playing devil's advocate, but I'd say you're acting more like the devil's cabana boy. The very existence of an Apple-authored Enterprise Deployment Guide contradicts the whole "personal, noncommercial use" stipulation in the company's terms and conditions (for the UK, anyway -- I didn't find anything similar in the iTunes Software License Agreement for the U.S.). Bottom line: Apple's just trying to avoid European tax hassles. I think the original Register story has been blown way out of proportion.

Dave: You feel like a candy bar on something-something-something day? Stop making up bizarre expressions that have no meaning. Unless those words have something to do with sports? I'll just assume it's one of those bowling metaphors you're so fond of. In any event, I do think that this incident is really about Apple being a corporate sleaze and trying to evade taxes. In the process, they're trampling on their users. And really, when you get right down to it, is that any better? At least when Amazon spit on their customers, they finally came through with cash compensation.

Rick: Wow, that's a lot of Apple hatred from a guy who named his iPhone "Cuddles" and tried to legally adopt it. The key issue here, which as usual you've managed to avoid addressing, is whether the iPhone can cut it as a business phone (regardless of how Apple markets it). Obviously the answer is a resounding "Yes!", though I suspect most decision-making CIOs will continue to choose BlackBerry and WinMo models--at least until Apple gets wise and starts promoting the iPhone as the crackerjack business tool it is. My question: Why hasn't the company done that?

Dave: I think that's pretty simple; Apple doesn't genuinely understand -- and doesn't feel comfortable in -- the business sector. The company's core competency is consumer products, and every product they sell, from computers to phones, is designed with a great sense of style but not a huge amount of substance. I think Apple recognizes that appealing to the business world would mean compromising on the consumer experience. So they soft-sell to suits. If you want to know how hard it can be to satisfy both business users and consumers, look no further than Windows, which gets blasted by both sides. It's a rare product that can nimbly serve two very different masters.

Rick: That's the most cogent argument you've made today -- and possibly ever. I can't say I agree with the part about "all style, little substance," as we've already agreed that the iPhone is arguably the most substantive business phone on the market. It will be interesting to see how much market penetration it achieves in the years to come. Unless RIM and Microsoft seriously step up their OS games, my guess is: lots.