4 ms·

Why would you want to limit their market? Because right now, trying to be everything to everyone is proving to be a losing strategy. This whole "nobody's goin

Why would you want to limit their market? Because right now, trying to be everything to everyone is proving to be a losing strategy. This whole "nobody's going to carry two phones" argument is clearly being made by people that haven't worked with larger corporations, or the people in them. You're perfectly right that they won't carry two phones... they'll just carry their free, company supplied blackberries.

gnaffle 15y ago
I've worked with one large corporation (30K employees). This corporation went from HTC WM6 to HTC Android phones, with an option that employees could buy their own iPhone / iPad and use it on the condition that it is set up by the IT staff with proper security settings. From what I can see they have a lot of iPhones and iPads there. People considering an iPod Touch might think twice if the company allows an iPhone. I agree that they need to narrow their focus, but I don't see how they can differentiate in the enterprise market in a way that will make them own that market.
redthrowaway 15y ago
RIM losing the smartphone market is not an argument for producing an enterprise-only psuedophone. You need to provide an argument as to why your suggestion is the best course of action, rather than simply saying "it's the most different from what they're doing right now." Making footballs would also be different, but not in a good way. I think your proposal would be disastrous, for the reasons I specified. That doesn't mean I think their current strategy will work.
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  It's the best course of action because they are clear leaders in the enterprise sector. Fortune 500 companies love blackberries and the BES server. They love the control, they love the security. They do not want their employees going out to buy their own devices and then conducting business on them. Governments are even more concerned about this. They will willingly pay to offer their employees phones that allow their employees to communicate yet ensure they remain in overall control. In this situation, Blackberry doesn't need an app world. They don't need touch screens. They don't need safari web browsers.

gnaffle 15y ago

I've worked with one large corporation (30K employees). This corporation went from HTC WM6 to HTC Android phones, with an option that employees could buy their own iPhone / iPad and use it on the condition that it is set up by the IT staff with proper security settings. From what I can see they have a lot of iPhones and iPads there. People considering an iPod Touch might think twice if the company allows an iPhone. I agree that they need to narrow their focus, but I don't see how they can differentiate in the enterprise market in a way that will make them own that market.

redthrowaway 15y ago

RIM losing the smartphone market is not an argument for producing an enterprise-only psuedophone. You need to provide an argument as to why your suggestion is the best course of action, rather than simply saying "it's the most different from what they're doing right now." Making footballs would also be different, but not in a good way. I think your proposal would be disastrous, for the reasons I specified. That doesn't mean I think their current strategy will work.

run4yourlives 15y ago
It's the best course of action because they are clear leaders in the enterprise sector. Fortune 500 companies love blackberries and the BES server. They love the control, they love the security. They do not want their employees going out to buy their own devices and then conducting business on them. Governments are even more concerned about this. They will willingly pay to offer their employees phones that allow their employees to communicate yet ensure they remain in overall control. In this situation, Blackberry doesn't need an app world. They don't need touch screens. They don't need safari web browsers.