Why would people go to such lengths to support a device which, as of Friday, had exactly zero market share? Especially since this device isn't actually a full-fledged computer and that its makers seem hellbent on not supporting commonly used Internet technologies and processes -- first Flash and now this?

@Stevefoerster

Perhaps the reason is the world did not end on Friday and some folk are more foresighted then you are.

Well maybe because they are on track to sell
over 20 million of them over the next 24 months?

Probably one of the greatest advances in technology in our lifetime?

I found the basic role of IT at my university was to kep their
jobs, the students came in second.

The approach of this university is just plain stupid. FIX IT, now. Or let my
students fix it for you, they could do it in hours.
fo They are years ahead in understanding technology then management for sure.

Do you think in a million years a student at Shanghai University would put up with this? NEVER.

It's disappointing to see the Mac-or-nothing fanaticism whenever someone suggests anything critical about Apple/Mac. (I am an iMac user by the way.) Both PCs and Macs are good platforms, each with strengths and weaknesses. But like it or not, 3rd party companies are market driven and as such, I more often than I like, find Mac support lagging behind PC support, particularly when interaction with enterprise level security systems is involved.

Sometimes it may take longer for the service or support I need to appear, but I live with it to have some of the preferences the Mac brings for me. Citing the apocalypse bashing people or IT organizations for not being "foresighted" really isn't productive of helpful.

Its very easy to make accusations that trivialize computer management when one only see's what it takes to operate a home network. Computer networks are very complex operations that allow learning to occur and higher education to function. The issue of letting a student resolve something because they can do it at home is a somewhat naive and insulting comment.

When a network goes down or operations are not at full function, thank you network people for the 24/7 dedication they give but are never adequately paid for.

This story is only news because the iPad is new news. It states that GW doesn't support iPods either - that's old news. This is a security architecture decision made at one institution, and doesn't mean that most others won't support it. Seems that if an institution supports iPods, it will support iPads. Really, it is a policy decision. The only unfortunate thing is that there are institutions that lag in supporting new technologies. (Full disclosure: I am a Mac user, but also have an Android-based phone. I haven't seen a lot of articles about that....I am quite fortunate that my institution's security policy asupports all those devices.)

I saw my 1st IPAD today on campus and worked with a client to troubleshoot the issue, no luck.(Before we were aware there were reported dual band issues with the IPAD.) As the client is a guest on our campus we have a SSID that requires the client to open a web browser and click accept of our AUP. (His iphone and my own worked without issue.)

Why on earth you'd role out a product without testing thouroughly the WIFI interoperability is beyond me. There is no shortage of vendors in the WIFI space to work with. Dual band wireless networks are SOP, the fix's Apple suggested that SSID's by band be created is silly. Essentially they are suggesting we modify the network design to support this specific product; seems odd as their PC's,notebooks, iphones, and itouches work on our network no problem.

Apple fix the product.

I guess I don't understand the problem. My university requires a login to use the WiFi. When I use my iTouch and try to go to the Internet, the web browser comes up, I login and am able do anything I want. Now, if I don't login, there is a problem.

like deen2486, I have the same experience with my iPhone and my campus browser-based login (why must we enter the WHOLE email address, guys, and not just our login ID?) I did hear a student complaining that his iPad can't get on the network.

But I don't see why a student would prefer an iPad over a netbook. If I want to play games or look something up, my iPhone is perfect, and when I don't want it I can put it in a pocket. The iPad is expensive, big, and doesn't come with a keyboard. The only thing going for it is that it is new and shiny.

I'm with dwallac3. This is something Apple needs to take care of (and soon), not GWU and others like them. I mean even my ancient Palm TX (which has a touch screen, no keyboard, and a very primitive web browser) has no issue with security system requirements, whatever they might be. Evidently the folks at Apple, in their rush to get the iPad to market, failed to adequately test their stuff with real user environments. On the one hand we hear Flash is not supported because of security issues, and now apparently we are hearing access to someone's system won't work because it is too secure? I can understand the Flash issue (which Adobe needs to work on), but I don't understand this one at all.

Like mheyer & deen2486, I've had no problems getting my iPod (and, for that matter an OLPC) onto a campus wifi that re-directs to a login page) - the iPod also worked fine with our more secure network that requires a certificate etc. (much easier to set up with iPod than it was with XP or Windows 7).
I've not yet had the chance to play with an iPad (I'm in the UK, so have to wait a while yet)

I'm not sure that I agree with mheyer in his/her comment "I don't see why a student would prefer an iPad over a netbook" - you're always going to get a number who like the "new and shiny" she mentions, as well as those who are Apple afficianados. I've read that you can get a bluetooth keyboard anyway, so note taking could be in some ways easier than a netbook, as you could get one that has decent sized keys. I have to say that the lack of a stylus would be difficult - I've got a tablet PC as well as the iPod & for drawing I much prefer stylus to finger; and sometimes notes just need a diagram much more than a bit of text.

I work at a University and recently purchased an Ipad, only to find that it was "Unable to Join" our Meru Wireless Network. After speaking with our tech guy and determining that it was not specifically blocked (by administrators atleast) from accessing the internet, we both sat stumped as to why I cannot access the internet.

I've got to say that I'm a bit disappointed.. I spend majority of my day as both an employee and student here, and have no clue what could be so different about this Ipad (from the ipod touch and iphone, both of which work on this network btw) that it is inadvertantly seen as a thread by this network. Though my issue has been escalated there is no telling when it will be able to access the internet

So either I return this (for a $45 fee) and wait for the Ipad3G (No set release date) which is 130 dollars more, PLUS the 14.99-29.99 for the data plan (this being on top of the 30 dollars I pay for my Iphone data plan already)..

This is a headache to say the least..

Sorry.. My other option would be to just deal with it.. Something I don't forsee happening. I'm on a limited budget so purchasing a MiFi from Verizon is just not feasible. Obviously internet tethering is not an option either... ugh..

These incompatibility problems are an unfortunate -- and essentially inevitable -- byproducts of Apple's astonishingly-successful marketing of *consumer* products. That is, the products are developed in secrecy, resulting in months of increasingly-frenzied speculation followed by worldwide, free, publicity as soon as Steve Jobs gets on stage to roll out the Next Big Thing (NBT)

Then, literally days after the product is purchased -- by student, faculty, and staff *consumers* -- there is an expectation that the NBT will work seamlessly in a complex enterprise network architecture. Because of the secrecy, universities and other enterprises have no opportunity to pilot test the NBT to ready their networks and help desks for support of the product, or feedback to Apple requests for modifications that could mitigate the incompatibilities.

This is not a criticism of Apple, per se. They are brilliant at capturing worldwide mindshare, and in many cases, market share. But they are fundamentally a consumer-oriented company, and enterprise IT organizations can respond, "No NBTs here," or "No NBTs on the network until we can test and certify them and train the help desk," or "We'll do our best to help you with something we saw for the first time yesterday!"

Please do your homework before laying blame. There's nothing involved here that is Apple's failing or due to Apple's secrecy, or out of line user expectations.

Some organizations adopted a two-part security standard that was state of the art 10 years ago, but fails miserably in the mobile era. These systems require you to run something on the client machine (think Cisco VPN client, e.g.) which is usually activated either as an extra standalone application the user must download and launch, prior to getting Internet access, or which launches from a web browser session (users typically see a "don't close this window" message in these cases). See, e.g., http://www.gwu.edu/~virtual/faqs/gwireless.html which states, in part, "GWireless uses a SPECIAL CLIENT, i.e. GWireless and network technology, to provide secure and stable wireless network access for the GW community" (emphasis added).

That was always a bad design, and tech folks from the network device providers (Cisco, e.g.) have said as much. It's a solution that created more problems than it solved. How do you distribute the software to wireless users, if you're not letting them get online until they have the software, e.g.? How do you allow guests onto your network for conferences/meetings? Consider the case of state officials or the school's board members visiting the campus for a meeting -- how do they get online wirelessly? You have to poke a hole in the system to allow access in these cases, requiring special attention from IT every time.

These solutions have always been Windows-centric and desktop-centric; Linux and Mac users were locked out for years, and most IT departments I've worked with felt that was just a fine state of affairs, since they only supported Windows officially, anyway.

But the 'Net has always been about heterogeneity-- of OSes and of devices-- and any OS-centric solution or solution that relies on specific behaviors of desktop computers was doomed to fail.

It's a shame that more campuses and organizations haven't kept pace with the improved and working methods of securing their networks. Note even in this article that the school has known for YEARS "that iPhones and [the] iPod Touch" don't work on their network. That's not Apple's fault or problem; it's the result of bad IT planning and a glacial change process at many organizations. If they WANTED to support these devices, they would adopt a 'Net-standards compliant solution, rather than a vendor-specific solution (which was always the better, less coupled way to go), but GW hasn't done that yet.

That can only be on their heads.