6 ms·

RIM: The inmates have taken over the asylum

59 points by pathik 16y ago

quanticle 16y ago
The bad news start with unit growth, it is out of sync with the rest of the industry where percentages are more in the 50% to 100% range. For reference, Apple’s iPhone unit sales grew by 93% from 2009 to 2010. More recent Android devices grew even faster. I wonder if that's really a valid metric to be using. iOS and Android devices have much less market penetration than RIM, so, of course their growth rate will be higher.
- SwellJoe 16y ago
  "iOS and Android devices have much less market penetration than RIM, so, of course their growth rate will be higher." I'm pretty sure that should read "had much less market penetration", because Android and iOS both currently have larger market share than RIM (according to Nielsen: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nielsen-smartphone-manufacturer-os-jan-11-mar-2011.JPG http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03...). I'm honestly surprised RIM had any sales growth, at all. I simply don't know anyone still using a Blackberry, even among people who were formerly absolute fanatics. I guess the enterprise market moves slowly enough to keep them afloat for another couple quarters, but it certainly doesn't look good.
  - younata 16y ago
    I have a floormate who uses a blackberry. He absolutely hates Apple, and I guess he doesn't have the money for an android. Edit: forgot to mention that his blackberry is at least a few years old.
    - jonah 16y ago
      Most of the blackberry users I know are teen and twenty-something young women. I may not hang out with very many big corp. folks I suppose, but in my professional sphere it's largely iPhone with a smattering of Android.
  - ErnestoF 16y ago
    Not the case on LATAM and emerging economies where BB devices are the preference phone for a lot of young people. BBs just works fine for simple tasks, with low technical knowledge requirements for users, even old ladies can chat with their relatives and friends really easy, email? yes, and of course make calls. Plus in many countries is a sign of distinction and social status. So, sales growth? yes.
  - dezwald 16y ago
    I think there are 2 markets here that need to be separated when comparing RIM with Apple and Android. Corporate and Consumer. RIM dominates the enterprise/corporate market and as of recent has been trying to break into the consumer market. Black berries where made for the corporate/work industry. Apple always has made consumer based products. So we are comparing apple to oranges. It's like taking a car company that's focuses on building trucks and then comparing it to a car company that builds luxury cars. They are completely different. That being said, when entering into a new market, for instance with RIM entering into the consumer market, it's going to take some time for RIM to gain market share. Now, has RIM made some bad development platform decisions in their process? yes they have. But if you're going to compare RIM to consumer based companies, I think it's a little premature - give them another year or two.
    - SwellJoe 16y ago
      "give them another year or two" It's not up to me. The market will decide how much longer RIM has. I suspect you're overly optimistic about their hold on the enterprise market, as well. While the smart phone market has grown dramatically, and thus RIM can continue to grow sales while losing market share at a tremendous clip, the fact is that if they're making phones no one wants, even enterprises will change eventually. CEOs and CTOs want nice phones, too, and they'll make the necessarily decisions to switch infrastructure to nice phones. This has already happened at every major company I know of that used to be Blackberry-only. They're now offering iPhone and Android to their people, alongside Blackberry, and everyone is obviously (and sensibly) choosing iPhone or Android.
unexpected 16y ago
Does anyone think RIM would be a prime acquisition candidate? I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out - what if Microsoft bought RIM? WP7 hasn't gained any traction, RIM seems lost in the weeds - the could merge the two entities and ring-fence the entire enterprise market. MS could convince enterprises to buy their phones/tablets/etc and achieve "full synergies" with their other enterprise applications.
- quanticle 16y ago
  Isn't that what Microsoft is trying to do with its Nokia partnership?
  - protomyth 16y ago
    Up until the Nokia partnership, I though RIM would be a good pickup for Microsoft. Both are strong in the enterprise and could do a lot of common sales. Integrating Blackberry's message services with Exchange would provide a pretty good solution for enterprise.
- jerf 16y ago
  I believe the response I had to Microsoft and Nokia getting together was something to the effect of "merging two entities that don't Get It together does not generally produce one that Gets It." I'd say the same thing here. If someone is going to buy RIM and actually make something of it, it would have to be a company than Gets It. All the companies that Get It already seem to be facing the problem of having more success than they know what to do with. I don't see how acquiring RIM would solve any of their problems. But I'd love to hear about those problems if you can explain them.
  - Stormbringer 16y ago
    Both RIM and Microsoft "get" the Enterprise. This matchup makes sense for both of them. I didn't feel that it made sense when RIM was committed to a Java-only vision, but now that they're whoring themselves out to anybody with an app platform and they hung their existing base of Java devs out to dry, it makes a lot more sense for them to jump in bed with Microsoft.
zmmmmm 16y ago
I'm quite surprised that RIM is making Android apps that run inside the "player" have to be manually ported and then submitted to their own store and signed. I know that personally the chance of me investing the time and effort to do that is pretty small, especially from what I've heard about their signup process. To me the entire point of having an Android player is to ensure there is a large pool of apps on day one. It seems like they've done all the technical work to achieve this and then killed it stone dead with dumb bureaucratic hurdles.
- gonzo 16y ago
  Why are you surprised? RIM wants to retain control of their platform, and having the developer re-sign the app enables that. This way RIM can decide what does, and does not run on it's phones.
  - cabalamat 16y ago
    In which case, fuck 'em. They're not the only game in town any more. Maybe they need a few quarters of losses to get off their high horse.
    - ianhawes 16y ago
      Couldn't agree more. I've developed for the Blackberry platform for several years now, and they've gotten slightly better the past few months but compared to Android or iOS, we're treated like dogshit.
  - sambeau 16y ago
    If they want complete control of their apps they shouldn't be making virtual machines to run other people's apps. As stated above - the vm route only makes sense if it immediately taps into the large pool of apps existing for other devices. It's a compromise to provide convenience to users. As soon as developers have to expend effort to get a worse version of their app running on these devices the plan falls apart. Good developers will shun the device until they can be sure than they can create a great user experience and that the effort of doing so will be worth the effort.
6ren 16y ago
Customers don't buy technology, they buy ways to meet their needs. What need was the Blackberry meeting? What need is the iPad meeting? From the article, it sounds like the Blackberry is being disrupted by the iPad - but I'm not sure it fits. A disruption is where the disruptive product is initially not good enough for the incumbents' customers' needs, and it has to go elsewhere and get started with other, less demanding customers, who value it for being cheaper, more convenient or simpler. Then, the disruption gradually improves til it is good enough for the incumbents' customers. At which point, it's game over for the incumbent. I'm not sure that the iPad fits this bill. It depends on the needs of the Blackberry's customers, and what they were trying to get done with it. It's also probably important to see the iPad not as standalone, but as "iPad+AppStore"; and as an extension of the iPhone, since it can run iPhone apps. EDIT now I'm thinking that the Blackberry was a special-purpose solution (for the enterprise), and the iPad is a general-purpose solution. As soon as the iPad can also do what the Blackberry does, customers will switch. The odd thing is that the iPad/iPhone wasn't cheaper, more convenient or simpler - it was mainly just more general. Maybe more convenient, in being more usable. EDIT2 The crucial innovation of the iPhone was adding a pointing device (multi-touch - the fact that it's multi is a nice extra) and a large screen. Before then, there was no mouse-like input device. Adding it was comparable to going from the Apple IIe to the Macintosh; or DOS to windows. It made the device easier to use - the crucial about this is not that it was less tedious, but that it became accessible to a new group of users, who previously could not use it. For smartphones, these people simply weren't customers before. They wouldn't have bought a Blackberry. In other words, the iPhone was actually more convenient than the Blackberry - convenience that enabled it to target non-consumption. At this point, the iPhone still wasn't good enough for Blackberry users, because it didn't have exchange integration, so RIM wasn't threatened. But when integration was added, it was good enough, and game over for RIM.

59 points by pathik 16y ago

The bad news start with unit growth, it is out of sync with the rest of the industry where percentages are more in the 50% to 100% range. For reference, Apple’s iPhone unit sales grew by 93% from 2009 to 2010. More recent Android devices grew even faster. I wonder if that's really a valid metric to be using. iOS and Android devices have much less market penetration than RIM, so, of course their growth rate will be higher.

SwellJoe 16y ago
"iOS and Android devices have much less market penetration than RIM, so, of course their growth rate will be higher." I'm pretty sure that should read "had much less market penetration", because Android and iOS both currently have larger market share than RIM (according to Nielsen: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/nielsen-smartphone-manufacturer-os-jan-11-mar-2011.JPG http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03...). I'm honestly surprised RIM had any sales growth, at all. I simply don't know anyone still using a Blackberry, even among people who were formerly absolute fanatics. I guess the enterprise market moves slowly enough to keep them afloat for another couple quarters, but it certainly doesn't look good.
- younata 16y ago
  I have a floormate who uses a blackberry. He absolutely hates Apple, and I guess he doesn't have the money for an android. Edit: forgot to mention that his blackberry is at least a few years old.
  - jonah 16y ago
    Most of the blackberry users I know are teen and twenty-something young women. I may not hang out with very many big corp. folks I suppose, but in my professional sphere it's largely iPhone with a smattering of Android.
- ErnestoF 16y ago
  Not the case on LATAM and emerging economies where BB devices are the preference phone for a lot of young people. BBs just works fine for simple tasks, with low technical knowledge requirements for users, even old ladies can chat with their relatives and friends really easy, email? yes, and of course make calls. Plus in many countries is a sign of distinction and social status. So, sales growth? yes.
- dezwald 16y ago
  I think there are 2 markets here that need to be separated when comparing RIM with Apple and Android. Corporate and Consumer. RIM dominates the enterprise/corporate market and as of recent has been trying to break into the consumer market. Black berries where made for the corporate/work industry. Apple always has made consumer based products. So we are comparing apple to oranges. It's like taking a car company that's focuses on building trucks and then comparing it to a car company that builds luxury cars. They are completely different. That being said, when entering into a new market, for instance with RIM entering into the consumer market, it's going to take some time for RIM to gain market share. Now, has RIM made some bad development platform decisions in their process? yes they have. But if you're going to compare RIM to consumer based companies, I think it's a little premature - give them another year or two.
  - SwellJoe 16y ago
    "give them another year or two" It's not up to me. The market will decide how much longer RIM has. I suspect you're overly optimistic about their hold on the enterprise market, as well. While the smart phone market has grown dramatically, and thus RIM can continue to grow sales while losing market share at a tremendous clip, the fact is that if they're making phones no one wants, even enterprises will change eventually. CEOs and CTOs want nice phones, too, and they'll make the necessarily decisions to switch infrastructure to nice phones. This has already happened at every major company I know of that used to be Blackberry-only. They're now offering iPhone and Android to their people, alongside Blackberry, and everyone is obviously (and sensibly) choosing iPhone or Android.

unexpected 16y ago

Does anyone think RIM would be a prime acquisition candidate? I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out - what if Microsoft bought RIM? WP7 hasn't gained any traction, RIM seems lost in the weeds - the could merge the two entities and ring-fence the entire enterprise market. MS could convince enterprises to buy their phones/tablets/etc and achieve "full synergies" with their other enterprise applications.

quanticle 16y ago
Isn't that what Microsoft is trying to do with its Nokia partnership?
- protomyth 16y ago
  Up until the Nokia partnership, I though RIM would be a good pickup for Microsoft. Both are strong in the enterprise and could do a lot of common sales. Integrating Blackberry's message services with Exchange would provide a pretty good solution for enterprise.
jerf 16y ago
I believe the response I had to Microsoft and Nokia getting together was something to the effect of "merging two entities that don't Get It together does not generally produce one that Gets It." I'd say the same thing here. If someone is going to buy RIM and actually make something of it, it would have to be a company than Gets It. All the companies that Get It already seem to be facing the problem of having more success than they know what to do with. I don't see how acquiring RIM would solve any of their problems. But I'd love to hear about those problems if you can explain them.
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  Both RIM and Microsoft "get" the Enterprise. This matchup makes sense for both of them. I didn't feel that it made sense when RIM was committed to a Java-only vision, but now that they're whoring themselves out to anybody with an app platform and they hung their existing base of Java devs out to dry, it makes a lot more sense for them to jump in bed with Microsoft.

zmmmmm 16y ago

I'm quite surprised that RIM is making Android apps that run inside the "player" have to be manually ported and then submitted to their own store and signed. I know that personally the chance of me investing the time and effort to do that is pretty small, especially from what I've heard about their signup process. To me the entire point of having an Android player is to ensure there is a large pool of apps on day one. It seems like they've done all the technical work to achieve this and then killed it stone dead with dumb bureaucratic hurdles.

gonzo 16y ago
Why are you surprised? RIM wants to retain control of their platform, and having the developer re-sign the app enables that. This way RIM can decide what does, and does not run on it's phones.
- cabalamat 16y ago
  In which case, fuck 'em. They're not the only game in town any more. Maybe they need a few quarters of losses to get off their high horse.
  - ianhawes 16y ago
    Couldn't agree more. I've developed for the Blackberry platform for several years now, and they've gotten slightly better the past few months but compared to Android or iOS, we're treated like dogshit.
- sambeau 16y ago
  If they want complete control of their apps they shouldn't be making virtual machines to run other people's apps. As stated above - the vm route only makes sense if it immediately taps into the large pool of apps existing for other devices. It's a compromise to provide convenience to users. As soon as developers have to expend effort to get a worse version of their app running on these devices the plan falls apart. Good developers will shun the device until they can be sure than they can create a great user experience and that the effort of doing so will be worth the effort.

6ren 16y ago

Customers don't buy technology, they buy ways to meet their needs. What need was the Blackberry meeting? What need is the iPad meeting? From the article, it sounds like the Blackberry is being disrupted by the iPad - but I'm not sure it fits. A disruption is where the disruptive product is initially not good enough for the incumbents' customers' needs, and it has to go elsewhere and get started with other, less demanding customers, who value it for being cheaper, more convenient or simpler. Then, the disruption gradually improves til it is good enough for the incumbents' customers. At which point, it's game over for the incumbent. I'm not sure that the iPad fits this bill. It depends on the needs of the Blackberry's customers, and what they were trying to get done with it. It's also probably important to see the iPad not as standalone, but as "iPad+AppStore"; and as an extension of the iPhone, since it can run iPhone apps. EDIT now I'm thinking that the Blackberry was a special-purpose solution (for the enterprise), and the iPad is a general-purpose solution. As soon as the iPad can also do what the Blackberry does, customers will switch. The odd thing is that the iPad/iPhone wasn't cheaper, more convenient or simpler - it was mainly just more general. Maybe more convenient, in being more usable. EDIT2 The crucial innovation of the iPhone was adding a pointing device (multi-touch - the fact that it's multi is a nice extra) and a large screen. Before then, there was no mouse-like input device. Adding it was comparable to going from the Apple IIe to the Macintosh; or DOS to windows. It made the device easier to use - the crucial about this is not that it was less tedious, but that it became accessible to a new group of users, who previously could not use it. For smartphones, these people simply weren't customers before. They wouldn't have bought a Blackberry. In other words, the iPhone was actually more convenient than the Blackberry - convenience that enabled it to target non-consumption. At this point, the iPhone still wasn't good enough for Blackberry users, because it didn't have exchange integration, so RIM wasn't threatened. But when integration was added, it was good enough, and game over for RIM.