Thursday, February 28, 2013

To BYOD or not to BYOD?

That is the question many decision makers and strategy leaders will face in 2013. 

While most mobility groups and gurus tend to speak of BYOD as an emerging unavoidable standard of sorts, I have a slightly different view of the whole BYOD scenario and what 2013 holds for enterprises "going mobile".

This short article is not meant to build a case against BYOD. BYOD indeed has its place while not being the only/preferred mobile device strategy option for companies. 

As enterprises go mobile, network security, content confidentiality and other management concerns might see companies opting to provide devices to their employees instead of creating multiple mobility realms for secure and non-secure apps. 

Different companies might have different use-cases and so some companies might choose the BYOD route because of lesser security and confidentiality concerns, while some opting to provide devices that fit well into their own enterprise security policies.

Lets look at some reasons that might convince decision makers NOT to choosing BYOD:

1 - Information Security

If a company gives access to secure and confidential information to its employees/executives via mobile apps as part of their mobility strategy, the high value of the information itself can be a reason not to allow users to use their personal devices. The users may loose the device or may leave the company and this data may reach an unintended audience (a competitor maybe?). In a non-BYOD scenario these devices would be managed by a Mobile Device Management solution which would remotely wipe the device as soon as the person turns in the device while leaving the company. No one will want their personal devices wiped when they leave a company. 

2 - Device standardization

If the company's mobile apps are going to be available for install and use on a wide variety of Mobile devices out there so that employees can use their own devices of choice this increases work on both app development and support teams. Even on same devices one user might be running an older version of the OS while other might be using a newer version. Again this will mean the apps will have to be designed to support various versions of the device's OS which might be challenging when newer OS releases have features older versions dont have. 

3 - Regulation/Policy

What if an employee using his/her own device does something illegal while using company apps. Is the company liable? What if an employee installs software on the device that they are not allowed to install on any machines used for work. Secure certificates installed on devices might be part of an enterprise mobility strategy and having malicious software on the personal devices can misuse these certificates to transmit or receive information. Other issues like the responsibility of upgrades or repairs needs to be defined clearly. Most companies will not want to own these responsibilities if they dont own the device. 

So thats my list. Again, I would like to remind you that my aim is not to show that BYOD is not for your company, rather I seek to complete the BYOD picture to better enable any related decision-making. You might realize after going through my article that the risks highlighted here do not apply to your company and you will feel more confident going the BYOD route.

Hence, "to BYOD or not to BYOD", does not have a universal answer for now!

Monday, May 31, 2010

FC Barcelona does not need Cesc Fabregas

Barcelona are a great team. They play a brand of football that impresses everyone. Their style of play is very creative and depends a lot on smooth flowing short passes and holding onto the ball. The creative genius of Xavi in particular and the trio of Xavi, Iniesta and Messi is general, more often than not, prove too much to handle for opposition teams. None of these players is leaving anytime soon so why is everyone related to Barcelona talking about signing Fabregas?

Cesc Fabregas is an extremely creative midfielder. The moves he creates and the passes he gives are exceptional and he can score goals too. All that creativity, most people argue, will be good for Barcelona who already have one Xavi who does the same.

My argument is simple. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Too much creativity in the center might be good if you have a lone striker in front but Barcelona almost play with 3 strikers. Yes messi starts behind the strikers but regularly dribbles past defenders and ends up scoring more than the actual strikers (Ibra, Henry, Pedro and Bojan). With so much fire power up front, with one of them (Messi) floating around and another (Iniesta) close by to compound Xavi's creative efforts, where would fabregas fit in?

But what if Xavi is injured? Who can fill his shoes if Cesc is not there? On such a day, Guardiola can switch the team to a 4-4-2 formation with Messi stepping back into central midfield to help Iniesta because with the arrival of David Villa the front line is more potent than ever and one can expect Villa to add the sort of clinical striking to barca which would allow the team to use Messi in a more anchor role, in Xavi's absence,to supply passes and through balls which is actually pretty good at.

In the end, I have to admit I would love to see Fabregas playing with Iniesta and Xavi in place of the overrated Busquets but then I would love to see Rooney and Messi play together too. Barca does not "need" to sign Fabregas right now. Let him play at Arsenal for one more season and focus more on defensive weaknesses.

Monday, March 30, 2009

svchost.exe eating up cpu resources and slowing down PC.... simple solution!

Ok, most people are plagued by this problem more often than they think. Some even run to get their RAM upgraded or getting a better processor.

Well im here to tell you thats all unnecessary. For those of you who know svchost.exe is taking up 99% or 100% cpu respources skip directly to the solution.

If you are still reading, you probably dont know what svchost is and whether it is taking your cpu resources or not. Press ctrl+altr+del and open the task manager. Go to the "Processes" tab and sort by CPU usage by clicking "CPU" in the column head. If you see svchost.exe on top now and it says its using between 90% and 100% resources, welcome to the most frequent Windows bug that bugs people out of sanity. lol And now for the simplest solution possible - 


1 - Open command prompt (Start > Command Prompt)
2 - Type what is written below and hit enter/return. 
        net stop "Automatic Updates"


Now get back to what you were doing!

err ... still here... why?
Oh, you want to know why this worked? 
svchost was running Windows Updates in the background, and we just stopped the updates.

Monday, March 9, 2009


The controlling ethical issue in the anti-privatization perspective is the need for responsible stewardship of social support missions. Market interactions are all guided by self-interest, and successful actors in a healthy market must be committed to charging the maximum price that the market will bear. Privatization opponents believe that this model is not compatible with government missions for social support, whose primary aim is delivering affordability and quality of service to society.

Many privatization opponents also warn against the practice's inherent tendency toward corruption. As many areas which the government could provide are essentially profitless, the only way private companies could, to any degree, operate them would be through contracts or block payments. In these cases, the private firm's performance in a particular project would be removed from their performance, and embezzlement and dangerous cost cutting measures might be taken to maximize profits.

Furthermore, opponents of privatization argue that it is undesirable to transfer state-owned assets into private hands for the following reasons:

  • Performance. A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a legislature, Congress or Parliament, and is motivated to safeguarding the assets of the nation. The profit motive may be subordinated to social objectives.
  • Improvements. the government is motivated to performance improvements as well run businesses contribute to the State's revenues.
  • Corruption. Government ministers and civil servants are bound to uphold the highest ethical standards, and standards of probity are guaranteed through codes of conduct and declarations of interest. However, the selling process could lack transparency, allowing the purchaser and civil servants controlling the sale to gain personally.
  • Accountability. The public does not have any control or oversight of private companies.
  • Civil-liberty concerns. A democratically elected government is accountable to the people through a parliament, and can intervene when civil liberties are threatened.
  • Goals. The government may seek to use state companies as instruments to further social goals for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
  • Capital. Governments can raise money in the financial markets most cheaply to re-lend to state-owned enterprises.
  • Lack of market discipline. Governments have chosen to keep certain companies/industries under public ownership because of their strategic importance or sensitive nature.
  • Cuts in essential services. If a government-owned company providing an essential service (such as the water supply) to all citizens is privatized, its new owner(s) could lead to the abandoning of the social obligation to those who are less able to pay, or to regions where this service is unprofitable.
  • Natural monopolies. Privatization will not result in true competition if a natural monopoly exists.
  • Concentration of wealth. Profits from successful enterprises end up in private, often foreign, hands instead of being available for the common good.
  • Political influence. Governments may more easily exert pressure on state-owned firms to help implementing government policy.
  • Downsizing. Private companies often face a conflict between profitability and service levels, and could over-react to short-term events. A state-owned company might have a longer-term view, and thus be less likely to cut back on maintenance or staff costs, training etc, to stem short term losses. Many private companies have downsized while making record profits.
  • Profit. Private companies do not have any goal other than to maximize profits. A private company will serve the needs of those who are most willing (and able) to pay, as opposed to the needs of the majority, and are thus anti-democratic.
  • Privatisation and Poverty. It is acknowledged by many studies that there are winners and losers with privatization. The number of losers —which may add up to the size and severity of poverty—can be unexpectedly large if the method and process of privatization and how it is implemented are seriously flawed (e.g. lack of transparency leading to state-owned assets being appropriated at minuscule amounts by those with political connections, absence of regulatory institutions leading to transfer of monopoly rents from public to private sector, improper design and inadequate control of the privatization process leading to asset stripping.


Monday, May 19, 2008

Tennis and pakistan

Isnt it strange how everyone started talking about Aisam ul-haq qureshi when he got into the 2nd round of Wimbledon, but since then no one is giving the guy any attention....

The so called free-media which says it projects and supports anything Pakistani hasnt even shown his tennis matches on tv.

Geo super called him in for an interview but still didnt give his matches any airtime.
Is this how we support our athletes?
Geo super can singe handedly sponsor Aisam and other players in international tournaments. But for some reason they behave like "Geo Cricket" and "Geo Racing" since these are the only things they give airtime to.

Pakistani tennis players dont have good standard coaching. They dont get to play with international player either, but still when we see talented people lie Aisam trying so hard to achieve something we as a nation step back and cant even get him sponsorships to go and play tournaments? Why cant puma or nike sponsor him? wouldnt it be great marketing for them?

tsk tsk tsk.... if the guy were born in ANY other country he would have gotten so much support that he would be appearing in many major tournaments and maybe even reaching semi's or finals.

shame on us, for gods sake people, there is more to sports than just cricket. Maybe some pakistanis would also like to see a paki player playing in grand slams or at least tier 1 tennis tournaments.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008


Hey, im blogging... or is it you, the voice inside me, ?
say what?

Anyway, hush for now, I have work to do.

Professional Profile

View Imran Suhail's profile on LinkedIn