The only downside to the solution is that the dashboard is very confusing. When we are not really working in Workspace ONE control for a long time, we tend to forget where to go because there are a lot of links.

The solution is similar to Intune. Basically, VMware Workspace ONE is still the macOS management, which is still lacking as compared to other MDM solutions. VMware needs to focus more on macOS, and managing macOS.

I'd like to see more integration capabilities in future releases. 

There is room for improvement in support, it could be faster. 

Its performance is quite good on Apple phones or even mid-range phones. If you install an AirWatch on a phone that is not too powerful, you will have performance issues. That's because the phone is not too powerful, and there is not enough memory, etc. They could do a lighter version for a less powerful phone. It would also be useful for very small companies that don't want to spend money on expensive phones. Having said that, I don't think that is their target market. If their target market is enterprise, all enterprises perhaps have an agreement with Google or Apple, and they would get a phone that has already been tested, and they know that AirWatch will work on that phone.

From an improvement perspective, there is a need for discounts to be offered by the solution since it is something that any organization can expect from the product.

Customer support needs improvement. Many times, when we encounter an issue, it takes a lot of time for the support team to connect with us and resolve the issue. Sometimes, it may take more than one week to resolve any issue. 

The solution is an improved version. Pricing is a limitation. I think it's on the higher side, so if it were cheaper, it would benefit more organizations.

The solution is too complicated. A lot of end customers don't know how to start when they go into the console. They request our service to help them implement the MDM policy.

The distributor and VMware's people can't tell me what's the differentiation or the spec, because MDM products are very similar these days. Some of that might be because the vendor thinks it's good but it's not what the customer wants. That's why it's very difficult.

VMware Workspace ONE is like any other product. You need to work with the vendor's software engineers to get the features you need to support your infrastructure. They can provide the technical modifications to the software you need to support your environment. 

For example, the Department of Defense has a peculiar IT infrastructure in terms of how they use SonicWall for mobile devices. If someone's using an Apple iPhone or an Android device, how do you partition it to support the mission? Public sector workers need to use a government cell because of the sensitive business they conduct on those devices. Mobile devices also include laptops and cell phones, creating more complexity. 

The bigger vendors like VMware, Insight, and MobileIron can assign engineers to customers. You can work with them to develop the right competency to use the product. 

They could provide DLP integration for applications and specific user account security. Additionally, they should enable data copy-paste restrictions for professional accounts.

We'd like the customization to be better.

It would be ideal if the interface was better to make it easier to manage all devices. 

We'd always like more features and functionality in the future as the solution continues to progress. 

VMware Workspace ONE for the new users or the new clients that they try to procure and learn it, there can have difficulties. It does not have user-friendly portals. The portal seems to be more user-friendly in Microsoft solutions.

We don't have the availability of sharing with other platforms, such as social platforms, or YouTube. We don't find those learning materials. It is very difficult to learn. 

Compared to Microsoft, VMware Workspace ONE must improve many things. The VMware Workspace ONE portal is too complicated. The portal is not user-friendly. Accessing the web-based application is complicated. Registering devices is very difficult.

VMware Workspace ONE must be improved a lot. Searching the menu is very difficult. Everything is too complicated. People prefer immediate results, but it is not easy to find things on VMware Workspace ONE. Unified Access Gateway and UEM are very difficult. The menu and options are not visible properly.

Sometimes, we have challenges with remote patching and remote version upgrades. We'd like the product to improve these capabilities to make patch management especially a bit more straightforward. 

We do not need any extra features. 

Technical support could be better. 

We have some problems with Workspace ONE. We have used the politic MDM for mobile, and it was probably one month before one account just removed it. It's likely an error from Samsung since this device gets updates from Samsung. Once an update happened, they remove this from the MDM platform from Workspace ONE. However, I could not track down the reason this happened. 

We'd like to see a better connection to Microsoft Azure and a better connection with Check Point. 

It's not completely stable. 

While we have some wrappers in the product, I don't usually find what I want. 

The two-factor identification process needs to be easier. 

VMware is an expensive tool, and we are not using the complete platform. We are paying for a tool that we are not fully using. We need a specific tool that provides us with what we need.

We have decided to switch to another solution that we are currently evaluating and doing PoCs for because we work on iPads only. I prefer to work with Jamf Pro because it is more specific to working with the iPad features.

The technical support could be improved.

VMware Workspace ONE isn't that good with patching and fixing, especially when compared to BigFix. This is an area for improvement. BigFix did a really good job in terms of patching and fixing, but it had a lot to do with IBM's integration to virtually every other platform out there. That integration really helped from just a server patching and endpoint management situation.

They (IBM) are very good at doing discovery, which is basically surveying the endpoint asset and finding out what vulnerability was there. It might be you're running Windows 10.647, and there are known vulnerabilities below that, so the prioritization of that patching became easy to create rules for, and make sure that you patched all devices with that current OS expeditiously.

Training for VMware Workspace ONE could also be improved, especially when compared to HCL who did a good job, either remote or self-paced.

They need a more flexible pricing model.

The management interface needs to be better.

We'd like more useful support.

The scripting language is all very unique to the product as opposed to using any kind of industry-standard methods. That might be frustrating for some teams. 

The initial setup can be complex.

The solution's pre-stage enrollment could be improved. I would like to see more geofencing in the solution so that we can precisely track and keep a record of the devices in case of theft.

The integration on the application side could improve.

The length of time it takes to deploy an application could improve.

From an identity perspective, there is a lot of room for improvement when it comes to integration with other solutions. I would say it needs more capabilities in terms of direct integrations, including cloud identity solution integrations.

Other areas of improvement are the synchronization functionality, as well as group management. I believe these areas could do with some polish. But beyond that, I wouldn't say anything else needs to be revamped.

I tried to use the tool on an encrypted disk, but it was inconvenient. The encryption was difficult. The product must be available for more hardware.

The solution should improve its support. When we had some issues, the support did not respond quickly, and they did not provide a solution.

VMware Workspace ONE platform offers support for Mac Books and we see that there is some room for improvement in that area versus all the products out there.

Our central authentication mechanism is not integrated with this solution, which we deployed three years ago. So far, our goal is to integrate it with our two directory servers, but we've run into a few challenges. We are not able to connect with support to help us resolve this integration issue.

I would like to see improvements made to both the support, and the pricing.

There is no Apple zero-day support for updates.

The Apple developer option is not enabled in OEM, which makes it very difficult to manage the Mac devices proactively. 

They rely on a third-party tool for the packaging, which is why they are lagging.

I would like to see Apple and Mac devices have zero-day support. It needs to be activated.

The Macbook downloadable license needs to be integrated.

I'd like to see expanded device support, particularly for IoT things like SCADA devices. That would be a huge benefit, especially as we automate more in production in the commercial sectors like manufacturing.

One thing VMware needs to improve is compatibility with different operating systems. Sometimes, customers have old operating systems that are outside the compatibility metrics of Workspace ONE UEM. So sometimes it's difficult to request customers to upgrade those old PCs, and that's a problem for me.

VMware Workspace ONE can improve in virtual reality. Customers are now looking toward virtual reality devices. Though it supports virtual reality, it's treated as an Android device. Customers want to deal with VR devices, they want a specific VR tool. Not an Android device VR tool.

VMware Workspace ONE is a bit complicated to configure for our company's customers, especially when compared to the other EMMs in the market.

The usability provided by VMware Workspace ONE is an area of concern where improvements are required.

The application itself individuals are getting annoyed with it. They are looking to integrate with ABB applications regardless of whether it is Android or iOS based. We are wanting to shift from this application because of the integration issues we are facing.

There are other solutions that might be better for certain use cases. This is not an all-purpose solution.

I want to see VMware move the management to the cloud. For now, the management is the premise of our server, but we want to move it to the cloud.

There could be ease of integration within the environment. I didn't have any issues when using it, but the integration part was a bit difficult for the other team. 

I'd like to see a more Microsoft-oriented product with a modern enterprise mobility management platform fully integrated with a Windows ecosystem and the capability to natively integrate with SCCM for a common management for a hybrid workspace. The solution lacks a specific environment such as Windows. I would also like to see a more specific customization for each single platform, such as macOS, Apple devices, and the like. It would make the product more competitive. 

A room for improvement for this product is its integration with Microsoft. It could be better, though most of it is there. There are some dependencies with Microsoft that aren't 100% yet, for example: compliance synchronization. It's something VMware is probably working on, but that's what's missing currently.

Windows 10 management is there, but VMware only recently developed that part, and it's not fully mature. Patch management and other integrations are there as well as the application-pushing part, command line, mandatory commands, etc. Some out-of-the-box solutions should be available to better integrate a broader range of applications and handle application push. That's the roadmap we should look at.

Support is probably the main challenge that we have. Their support was not very good. We had to tell them what we told them four or five times.

This product makes use of SAML across the board, which has seven known security flaws. It would be good if the company created a way to protect against SAML flaws. One way would be to integrate a firewall server or an endpoint out in the cloud with which you could establish trust. If you knew nothing about SAML and you did some Google searches about what SAML is, what are the flaws, and what are the known vulnerabilities, eventually, you'll find that there are seven flaws. There are two methods that you can use to solve those seven problems. They essentially involve putting a firewall or putting rules, such as access controls, so that anybody in the world can't just come in, authenticate, and either be a good guy or be someone trying to knock on my door and get into my house. If I could eliminate that, it would be awesome.

The SaaS environment is not very responsive at times, so the performance can be improved in that regard.

The initial setup could be easier to do.

In terms of Workspace ONE, we are migrating it from on-premises to the cloud.

I would like to see more service notifications.

AirWatch has all the features. One of the things that I want them to improve on, if possible, is the management of Mac devices, MacBook Pro, for example. They do it, but they have scope for improvement, in my opinion. It's not that it's that bad, it's just a small need. They have set the bar very high already so that's the expectation.

Feature-wise, it is fine, but its pricing could be better, given that Microsoft is on a bundling spree. AirWatch would benefit from reducing the license pricing per user per month.

• QA – better code execution
• Apple Mac management is troublesome
• Documentation prerequisites often leave out important information.
• Support in general; We have many issues that have never been fixed.

There should be better compatibility with Linux devices.

No areas for room for improvement come to mind. The VM is pretty good and I can't think of any areas that are lacking. I was just comparing VMware Workspace ONE to other solutions and I can say we are pretty happy with it for the moment. For the time being, I cannot think of any features that should be improved.

The main negative issue is the cost of licensing. In terms of additional features, it's hard to say because I know there are other options out there, add-ons and other things that are within workspace and available,but I haven't had time to investigate. We're not going to be supported after next year.

The accuracy of the management function has room for improvement. It's important to us because sometimes we send a profile to the machine and it's pending but doesn't reach. And we have to go manually and push it. Also, Chromebook management needs a lot to be improved. 

There are some bugs that our team needs to work around. It required some API integration required because visitor integration was not there. For example, we are currently working on a tunnel issue, and VMware doesn't have this solution. I think the R&D team is working on this, and I think this is something they need to look into because from the Android point of view, this is the major security tool, and these features need to work as expected.

I don't see any such areas where we are lacking. I was just doing the evaluation of other products to see if they have something else. However, this isn't missing anything, even when you look at the competition.

The pricing could always be better. It would be nicer if they were cheaper and more competitive.

Although it's supposed to be compatible with Chromebooks and Windows, we find that it's quite limited. I think it doesn't work properly with Chromebooks because you need a Google license to manage them. For this reason, we didn't end up using AirWatch with Chromebooks.

The overall accuracy could also be improved. It's not accurate enough when it comes to sending items to end-users.

The mobile device repository is somewhat difficult to manage with a large user base.

I would like to see support for "remote wipe" in the case device of theft.

There is a lack of a real developer community. AirWatch doesn't seem to empower IT admins to try new things or get creative with implementations. They are more happy to sell you one of their support subscriptions.

1. Better reporting functionality and performance.
2. Improved BYOD solution with true DAR encryption for iOS devices and a better UI for the Airwatch Inbox app.

There could be improvement with processing the environment to be more user friendly for the end user.

VMware should develop an integrated platform for their security products to give a singular integrated and holistic view of the devices covered by different security products whether Workspace One or Carbon Black. Should also look at having a common end point agent to be deployed as an added advantage to customers who own both the products Workspace One as well as the recently acquired EDR - Carbon Black. 

Also, VMware should have a special support package for on premise setups so that the same value is realised by customers similar to cloud based deployment. 

More functionality has been added for Windows desktop devices, and the options for Android and IOS has been fairly extensive already. The only recommendation I could make right now is continuing to add more functionality

I'm so overwhelmed and pleased with the solution that they offer. The solution that I had before was so difficult for me to use that I haven't been able to use it enough to find things that it's lacking. There may be things out there that it's lacking, but I'm not just aware of those at this point.

The location service could improve and more integration with other devices, such as Android enterprise and Apple devices.

We are having some issues with JavaScript or XML, and there is not any information provided for resolving it.

There could be improvements to Workspace ONE in terms of the pricing and some security aspects such as data loss prevention. It could be more competitive relative to other solutions on the market. For example, Microsoft EMS is very tightly integrated with Office 365 and that's a big advantage. 

They do have a good integration, but there is a long way to go as far as integration is concerned. They need to integrate with the cloud solutions a little bit more. We are looking for Azure integration.

The solution needs to offer better training. We need to understand items such as third-party integration capabilities or new features before we start to work on a new implementation. Sometimes, this isn't clear and it can affect our work. The training that is available is quite expensive for us. They need to make it much more reasonable so that we can afford to be properly trained and informed.

Technical support needs to be more responsive to our requests. If something happens on a weekend, we won't get any help until at least the next business day.

Pricing is the only challenge right now. The licensing fee should be simplified a little bit. They have kept too many products as add-ons. These need to be bundled with the low-cost, standard version. This will help customers in adopting this technology at a faster pace.

The solution needs to adapt to the cloud based reality of the current world model. Some customers may have reluctance to this, but it is the next level for all of the big providers. Azure, AWS, and Google are all at the forefront of cloud-based solutions. 

The initial setup should be simplified.

I would like to see further integration suites and user direct using IdPs such as Okta. I would also like proper integration in the field of endpoint security.

The reverse proxy is not intuitive and it takes time to get it right, so this is something that can be improved.

The cost of this product is a little high and should be reduced.

There are a lot of interfaces and components, which makes the setup a little bit complex.

If you have a lot of shared devices and want to have a mass deployment, then it is time-consuming to do. They have a feature where you can send out a code for enrollment under VMware, to obtain a user ID, but even with that, it has to be done one by one. You have to go inside and dig out the code, one at a time, and record it. It would be helpful if it generated a report so that you could use it to talk with the team. As it is now, it is not difficult but it could have been done better.

In terms of the inventory management side, as in the invoice management, the stock management and the entire inventory of an organization is lagging a bit in comparison to Blackberry or other EMM solutions.

Windows 8.1 could have more options to control

• Application-level support
• Per-app VPN coming together

There are currently canned reports that provide a a great deal of device detail. But, there could be room for the solutions to allow for custom reporting for ad-hoc reports

The app installer is something that they should really change. It creates a lot of confusion for the user. The app installer will notify you when an update is available, but it doesn't tell you what's going to be installed. So if you tell the user to update, they won't do it because if they look at the app installer, they're going to see that they have the latest version.

They also need a different UI for the app installer.

We're unhappy with the quality of support we get for it. We're unhappy with how upgrades occur, so we are migrating away from it. We have an on-premise AirWatch solution and for us to do upgrades we have to call AirWatch to be able to perform the upgrades. They're busy, and scheduling it is not timely enough for us.

There are features that we want like the ability to use Derived Credentials and things like that, which we can do with AirWatch, but doing so we move up into a different tier of licensing and the cost increases dramatically. To get the features we want, we can do the same thing with Microsoft Intune and we're going to see a product savings of over $70,000 a year.

The console comes bunched together as a package and inbuilt. Its called Workspace ONE. Whenever we have an issue, we contact the service provider, and instead of a fix, we are just getting the next version of Workspace ONE.

MBM/MCM could be improved. MBM can support specific versions of development tools. If VMware would let the customer know this more clearly, we would not need to waste time explaining this and delaying the project.

Also, the Content Locker cannot inherit permissions for the Windows Public Folder. If they could integrate with Microsoft on this point, it would be the perfect functionality.

I would like to see some integration with native Microsoft products such as anti-value.