3 ms·

OK, nice letter, but. Why would RIM spend a boatload of money investing in QNX going forward? They already wasted enough buying it. Why not bite the bullet a

by wmat 15y ago

OK, nice letter, but. Why would RIM spend a boatload of money investing in QNX going forward? They already wasted enough buying it. Why not bite the bullet and adopt Android across the board? Instant developer network, Google support, huge non-North American user base, etc, etc.? I'd buy a BlackBerry and a Playbook running Android tomorrow if they existed.

hello_moto 15y ago
That's like telling Microsoft to bite the bullet and use Android. These are big companies with tons at stake. They don't want to outsource their core competencies to competing companies. One solution is to create virtualization on top of the current solution: call it Android Player or Flash Player or something. You'll get the developers and the apps for your platform and slowly guide these developers to use your native SDK and eventually kill the portability layers. After all things said and done, there are many ways to go to Rome but one thing for sure: can't sacrifice your core competencies otherwise you'll be like any other mobile manufacturers (Samsung, HTC, etc) and compete on price for hardware because the software makes you irrelevant. And you know US/Canada won't win when it comes to price of hardware. Broadcom is getting a lot of heat from Taiwanese/Chinese manufacturers.
- 127001brewer 15y ago
  What happens when your core competency becomes your "core liability"? And how realistic is virtualization on a mobile device? Seemingly, Apple and Google have created a large barrier to entry by making compelling mobile environments (aside from the nuances of each). If your developing for both of those platforms, then why would you develop for another?
  - wmat 15y ago
    RIM's core competencies are sales and litigation.
- wmat 15y ago
  I'd heard that RIM was in the process of building an Android Player for the Playbook. I highly doubt though that it will result in the guidance of developers toward the native SDK. Those developers are Android developers, NOT Android Player for BB developers, so why would they even look at the native SDK? The only reason I can see is if their App suddenly sky rockets in popularity on the BB. I see that being a rare corner case rather than the norm.
  - edw 15y ago
    Android player…yes, one of the CEOs, during an interview said something like: You want apps? We're making an Android player thing… That'll give the Playbook "app tonnage," if that's your thing. The "app tonnage" comment was the dumbest thing I had heard in a long time — breathtakingly dumb. It betrayed a profound apathy towards apps beyond the most crude quantitative perspective.
    - wmat 15y ago
      Ouch. That is dumb.
jallmann 15y ago
> Why not bite the bullet and adopt Android across the board? s/Android/WebOS. I'd like to see more than two OS players in the market, and at least one with a sane dev model. While others argue that'd work against RIM's core competency, I don't think that is the case, especially in light of point #2. From what I gather, RIM has strengths in their business partnerships, and decent hardware. UX isn't one of them (point #1). So outsource the OS to one of the companies that has bucket loads of cash to spend on UX and developer relations, pair it with RIM's own strengths, and reap the benefits of both. RIM is essentially in the same boat as Nokia, but without a CEO that has the balls to make changes where needed.
- Apocryphon 15y ago
  Wouldn't changing OS be switching horses in midstream? RIM just got QNX less than a year ago. The idea of RIM partnering up with HP is very, very intriguing. It would be basically a Hail Mary strategy for both companies (definitely more for RIM than for HP at this point). Apotheker has said that HP is looking to license webOS with other companies right now. A RIM-HP alliance would be both reinvigorating for both and show that the only way to take on iOS/Android is for former giants to team up together. Or at least make the race against Windows Phone more interesting.

by wmat 15y ago

hello_moto 15y ago

That's like telling Microsoft to bite the bullet and use Android. These are big companies with tons at stake. They don't want to outsource their core competencies to competing companies. One solution is to create virtualization on top of the current solution: call it Android Player or Flash Player or something. You'll get the developers and the apps for your platform and slowly guide these developers to use your native SDK and eventually kill the portability layers. After all things said and done, there are many ways to go to Rome but one thing for sure: can't sacrifice your core competencies otherwise you'll be like any other mobile manufacturers (Samsung, HTC, etc) and compete on price for hardware because the software makes you irrelevant. And you know US/Canada won't win when it comes to price of hardware. Broadcom is getting a lot of heat from Taiwanese/Chinese manufacturers.

127001brewer 15y ago
What happens when your core competency becomes your "core liability"? And how realistic is virtualization on a mobile device? Seemingly, Apple and Google have created a large barrier to entry by making compelling mobile environments (aside from the nuances of each). If your developing for both of those platforms, then why would you develop for another?
- wmat 15y ago
  RIM's core competencies are sales and litigation.
wmat 15y ago
I'd heard that RIM was in the process of building an Android Player for the Playbook. I highly doubt though that it will result in the guidance of developers toward the native SDK. Those developers are Android developers, NOT Android Player for BB developers, so why would they even look at the native SDK? The only reason I can see is if their App suddenly sky rockets in popularity on the BB. I see that being a rare corner case rather than the norm.
- edw 15y ago
  Android player…yes, one of the CEOs, during an interview said something like: You want apps? We're making an Android player thing… That'll give the Playbook "app tonnage," if that's your thing. The "app tonnage" comment was the dumbest thing I had heard in a long time — breathtakingly dumb. It betrayed a profound apathy towards apps beyond the most crude quantitative perspective.
  - wmat 15y ago
    Ouch. That is dumb.

jallmann 15y ago

> Why not bite the bullet and adopt Android across the board? s/Android/WebOS. I'd like to see more than two OS players in the market, and at least one with a sane dev model. While others argue that'd work against RIM's core competency, I don't think that is the case, especially in light of point #2. From what I gather, RIM has strengths in their business partnerships, and decent hardware. UX isn't one of them (point #1). So outsource the OS to one of the companies that has bucket loads of cash to spend on UX and developer relations, pair it with RIM's own strengths, and reap the benefits of both. RIM is essentially in the same boat as Nokia, but without a CEO that has the balls to make changes where needed.

Apocryphon 15y ago
Wouldn't changing OS be switching horses in midstream? RIM just got QNX less than a year ago. The idea of RIM partnering up with HP is very, very intriguing. It would be basically a Hail Mary strategy for both companies (definitely more for RIM than for HP at this point). Apotheker has said that HP is looking to license webOS with other companies right now. A RIM-HP alliance would be both reinvigorating for both and show that the only way to take on iOS/Android is for former giants to team up together. Or at least make the race against Windows Phone more interesting.