4 ms·

Yes but this may have nothing to do with the failure. He may not have nearly been as disruptive as was articulated. Maybe he talked about a few ideas, and the

Yes but this may have nothing to do with the failure. He may not have nearly been as disruptive as was articulated. Maybe he talked about a few ideas, and there were some distractions ... ... or maybe the company was never very good in the first place. Maybe they didn't have insightful devs, designers and staff who could move at a quick enough pace, identify the best trends. Even in full hindsight, these things are really hard. I worked for BlackBerry, and I have many concerns about culture and leadership that led to their demise. At the same time - you're up against two of the most formidable companies in the world, one (Apple) with the best product of the new era, and the other (Google) giving it away for free. And BB didn't have vast surpluses and an arsenal of competitive advantage to lean on. In hindsight, it's possible there was nothing at all BB could have really done, it was going to get beat. Also, sometimes the operational reality of a company trumps all narratives. What everyone does on a daily basis, grinding, is the 'real reality' of a place, and the rest is just talk.

pm90 8y ago
Your experience at BlackBerry sounds like a fascinating one to experience. Care to share more details? Was there just a few things/initiatives that the company tried to execute on and just failed repeatedly? When did people at large realize that there was just no way they would beat out competition? I guess even to casual observers it was pretty clear at a certain point that Apple and Google had already won the smartphone market (BB, Nokia, Microsoft all tried hard but they have always been the niche), but BB hung around for quite a bit and now I had to look it up to figure out what they're currently doing. Sounds pretty fascinating that a company that looked absolutely dominating in the smartphone segment was totally decimated so quickly.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  I was on the inside and wanted to write a book about it, because it was bizarre. + BB culture was full of smart people, but we were not hugely innovative. It's like we were the 'greatest toaster maker' in the world. In any other business, we would have dominated. + BB was not a 'smartphone' - it really was just 'great email and long battery life'. The underrying OS, features etc. could not enable it to compete with iPhone. BB bought an OS later, but it was too late. + BB was way smaller and did not have vast talent pools. Google had a few hundred people in mapping. We had 2. Consider a similar story across other cross-cutting verticals. iOS is basically MacOS-light. That's a massive advantage. + When apps came along, Apple just dropped them into iTunes as a new category. BB had to come up with things from scratch. + BB was a hugely utilitarian in focus. The 'Tech' CEO did not speak the language of design. He basically had no clue, no understanding of the language. Talking design to him would be like talking about his daughter's shoe colours. + BB sold to carriers, and did whatever they asked. That's what made them huge. So we made a new device for each carrier. Apple, because they had power, made '1 device' and told carriers to shove it. But it was hot so carriers did as they were told. BB was 'told' to make an iPhone killer by Verizon (AT&T got the original iPhone deal) and it turned into the BB Storm, which was crap by any measure. + BB was sold as a 'solution' not a 'platform' - meaning all of the 3rd party stuff was an afterthought. We never cared about apps. I know, because it was my job to care about apps :). + The two CEO's hated each other and never got along. I'm ashamed to say this but they were both narrow, arrogant people. The opposite of thoughtful. One was a NYC style hardened sales guy with quirks, the other a techie from the 1980's. They did not come up with the BB. The BB was originated by a PM called 'Dave Castell' (great man) as almost a 'last resort' 20 years into the startup. It was a pager with email on it. It sold extremely well to execs. Everything was just a scramble from then on. Indeed it's a fascinating story. Despite our failings, I don't think we could have beat Apple + Android.
  - pm90 8y ago
    Sounds like BB didn't stand a chance. > iOS is basically MacOS-light Yeah, I often forget that Apple had years and years of building engineering expertise around Operating Systems (MacOS) and Embedded Hardware (iPod) which they smartly leveraged into iOS. Google had something similar, but for different reasons (Google Research, ChromeOS etc.). I wonder what the best course of action would have been. If the CEO's had recognized the futility of a fight, and had pivoted the company into an App company (BB messenger was extremely popular) or had adopted Android earlier ...

pm90 8y ago

Your experience at BlackBerry sounds like a fascinating one to experience. Care to share more details? Was there just a few things/initiatives that the company tried to execute on and just failed repeatedly? When did people at large realize that there was just no way they would beat out competition? I guess even to casual observers it was pretty clear at a certain point that Apple and Google had already won the smartphone market (BB, Nokia, Microsoft all tried hard but they have always been the niche), but BB hung around for quite a bit and now I had to look it up to figure out what they're currently doing. Sounds pretty fascinating that a company that looked absolutely dominating in the smartphone segment was totally decimated so quickly.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
I was on the inside and wanted to write a book about it, because it was bizarre. + BB culture was full of smart people, but we were not hugely innovative. It's like we were the 'greatest toaster maker' in the world. In any other business, we would have dominated. + BB was not a 'smartphone' - it really was just 'great email and long battery life'. The underrying OS, features etc. could not enable it to compete with iPhone. BB bought an OS later, but it was too late. + BB was way smaller and did not have vast talent pools. Google had a few hundred people in mapping. We had 2. Consider a similar story across other cross-cutting verticals. iOS is basically MacOS-light. That's a massive advantage. + When apps came along, Apple just dropped them into iTunes as a new category. BB had to come up with things from scratch. + BB was a hugely utilitarian in focus. The 'Tech' CEO did not speak the language of design. He basically had no clue, no understanding of the language. Talking design to him would be like talking about his daughter's shoe colours. + BB sold to carriers, and did whatever they asked. That's what made them huge. So we made a new device for each carrier. Apple, because they had power, made '1 device' and told carriers to shove it. But it was hot so carriers did as they were told. BB was 'told' to make an iPhone killer by Verizon (AT&T got the original iPhone deal) and it turned into the BB Storm, which was crap by any measure. + BB was sold as a 'solution' not a 'platform' - meaning all of the 3rd party stuff was an afterthought. We never cared about apps. I know, because it was my job to care about apps :). + The two CEO's hated each other and never got along. I'm ashamed to say this but they were both narrow, arrogant people. The opposite of thoughtful. One was a NYC style hardened sales guy with quirks, the other a techie from the 1980's. They did not come up with the BB. The BB was originated by a PM called 'Dave Castell' (great man) as almost a 'last resort' 20 years into the startup. It was a pager with email on it. It sold extremely well to execs. Everything was just a scramble from then on. Indeed it's a fascinating story. Despite our failings, I don't think we could have beat Apple + Android.
- pm90 8y ago
  Sounds like BB didn't stand a chance. > iOS is basically MacOS-light Yeah, I often forget that Apple had years and years of building engineering expertise around Operating Systems (MacOS) and Embedded Hardware (iPod) which they smartly leveraged into iOS. Google had something similar, but for different reasons (Google Research, ChromeOS etc.). I wonder what the best course of action would have been. If the CEO's had recognized the futility of a fight, and had pivoted the company into an App company (BB messenger was extremely popular) or had adopted Android earlier ...