I need to know what methods people are using to distribute (internally) demo of ipad application wirelessly without having to manage UDID?

I do not need a solution like testflight or betabuilder, all these requires me to manage UDID in the apple provisioning profile portal.

I am asking this question because I am seeing another studio doing a much smarter way right now and I wish to know how they did it – With a link they gave to us, we can install their demo application from a simple html over the air, and a provisioning profile magically appears in my ipad. All this happened without me telling them the UDID of my ipad, and therefore definitely without them to recompile the project.

How did they do it? Thanks!

Note:- I have individual ($99) and enterprises ($299) account, please provide some tricks as well.

Quote: Changes:
CM = “WCM + RM + DM + some other things”

ECM is the strategy for implementing CM across the Enterprise.

When you think on it, it is more like CM encompasses “WCM, RM, DM, ECM & some other things”.

ECM has become complex because the vendors are trying to sell ECM. Their ECM platforms are complex. However, a good ECM strategy can be implemented without the platform. That was what I was trying to convey in the 2nd half of that post.

Wow, this reminds me of when I was in college. We could always hear all of the students in the tech and systems management class as they walked by our classroom.

We’d be like, “What the hell are those guys talking about?”

Acronyms, acronyms, acronyms.. Do they ever stop?

It’s no wonder people are getting confused these days:-)

There is an argument that “ECM” as a category of software was cooked up by analysts and marketing folks, not as it transpired forged by market wants and needs or the culture of organisations or how they buy software – to somehow create a market of a handful of dominant players (like the ERP business). 10 years on and the predictions that we should jump on the ECM bus or be dead, has not materialised.

For fear of granting Mr Monks more ‘linky love’ – I also agree with the parallel with ERP and some of the other points here, I mention it in my comment on his original post – and I really like your idea:

It’s almost like your “ECM” should take a leaf out of the ERP book should be called “Enterprise Content Management Planning”, or just “Content Management Planning”? – Now that’s worth exploring.

One thought, has anyone defined ECM as content that only has a purpose inside the Enterprise. A lot of the use cases, from @piewords and folks seem to cite highly regulated industries that have a need to keep records – not for broad public consumption. This would make ECM a niche CMS that serves that purpose.

The ‘E’ for everything else is also a good point and ties in with your comments with Adriaan, if you want to put the vendor landscape into boxes – how do you describe a WCM system that could be used across a multi-product, multi-national organisation vs one that’s most adept at single sites? In that context the ‘E’ would be a signpost toward reliability, scalability and maybe the complexity you get with choice – yet of course an ‘ECM’ solution would not necessarily be the best fit.

Anyway, I think I am on the side of ECM as a discipline, a best practice – rather than a single product. I think everyone’s ECM strategy should reflect what they want to do with the content – their ‘content centric business objectives’ to quote my Gilbane colleagues – and then select a tool set that supports that. This then plays greater emphasis on integration, standards etc..

Cheers,

Ian

@iantruscott

I think this interpretation of the ‘E’ is at the heart of this debate. Especially in describing/defining what ECM is to anyone, the last thing I would think about is it must mean it is all behind the firewall. Instead, the ‘Enterprise’ adjective describes the fact that you are talking about something that has the potential to touch each and every aspect of an organization. I often ask my customers to try and think of a single business process in their organization that does not at some point consume or create a piece of content. Most can’t. Whether I’m talking about ECM in the context of ‘defining an ECM Strategy’ or talking about ECM in the context of specific product solution(s) (there’s always going to be more than one) the ‘E’ is about reaching across the entire Enterprise. CM = the practice of managing and organization’s content and may encompass 1 or more tools to do so. E is just an adjective in front of CM to describe CM when touching any and all aspects of an organization.

Enterprise isn’t ideal, but it isn’t counter to what we are trying to achieve here. Bryan raises a good point and that ECM needs a strategy on how all of that content is controlled, governed, and accessed throughout the organization.

-Pie

I wonder if ECM = CM + UAC. A lot of times the only difference I often see between software for the enterprise and software for the masses comes down to user access control and governance. You can throw in all the Web 2.0, Enterprise 2.0, social publishing tools you want…but until an enterprise can control it, they don’t want it.

Many organizations actually understand what you are talking about when you say ECM. It took 10 years to get here with the education. If you make me start over, I’ll have to jump over the nearest cliff.

I need a beer.

-Pie

Your reports (which I love, for the record) use the phrase “ECM vendor” all the time, by the way. Which doesn’t sit nicely with Pie’s definition IMHO. At the risk of being sued, I quote your WCM report:

“It is important to recognise these products for what they are: enterprise-level platforms that need serious integration”. So they are a) things you can buy and b) complex as hell.

And recent history has shown us that simple is killing complex. You’re 100% correct that using these beasts for simple use cases is insane. However, the simpler products are often doing a better job than the beasts at solving “Enterprise Level” problems too …

In a nutshell, the ECM products had better watch their back, cause the kids are coming …

It’s almost like your “ECM” should take a leaf out of the ERP book should be called “Enterprise Content Management Planning”, or just “Content Management Planning”?

I’m not a fan of the “enterprise” label. Unless it’s applied to a starship.

ECM is the strategy for implementing CM across the Enterprise.

When you think on it, it is more like CM encompasses “WCM, RM, DM, ECM & some other things”.

ECM has become complex because the vendors are trying to sell ECM. Their ECM platforms are complex. However, a good ECM strategy can be implemented without the platform. That was what I was trying to convey in the 2nd half of that post.

-Pie