5 ms·

I personally hold that RIM failed because it ignored it's winning demographic (government, military, enterprise and business users) and attempted to create a de

by mfoy_ 11y ago

I personally hold that RIM failed because it ignored it's winning demographic (government, military, enterprise and business users) and attempted to create a device for the broader consumer market. The Storm was rushed out, as the article says, in part because RIM thought it had to compete where I don't think it had to compete. Now I'm no savvy analyst, but it seems to me like RIM got tricked into picking a fight on Apple's terms and lost terribly.

pavlov 11y ago
Would enterprise and business users really be using Blackberries today if only they had stuck with hardware keys forever? I can't imagine it happening. Enterprise IT isn't isolated from the rest of society (although it sometimes feels that way). When the rest of the world moved on to touchscreens, Blackberry would have been left behind anyway.
devopsproject 11y ago
No, RIM failed because government, military, enterprise, and business users are also normal consumers when not working. Sure, they had great messaging, but apple and google had decent messaging with web browsers, games, and applications
- raverbashing 11y ago
  Exactly this The reason MS made sure you could Windows at home "for free" is that it would carry to the business world (where the money is). I find it very hard to remember something that went from business to the home market successfully. Nobody wants their clunky office app/device to be used at home, what they want is to use their consumer app/device on the office which is usually better and easier to use.
  - stephengillie 11y ago
    > I find it very hard to remember something that went from business to the home market successfully. The Personal Computer. Remember that mainframe you have at work that can crunch right thru spreadsheet numbers? Now you can have that same convenience at home. And this one can play Frogger too.
    - raverbashing 11y ago
      A Personal Computer (which started with the Apple I/II and after that to work, with IBM) is different from a Mainframe
      - stephengillie 11y ago
        Yeah, it's a personal mainframe. That's how they were marketed - it does the same things, but it's small enough to have in your home.
- bedhead 11y ago
  Not only this, but people became addicted to their phones. Use of one's phone now comes in first place, right ahead of sex, of things people couldn't live without, according to surveys. So people cared deeply about the phones they were using, unlike say when a company issues you a laptop.
- rhino369 11y ago
  This plus Bring Your Own Device enterprise plans. Nobody wants two different phones to carry around. Enterprise/business is merging with consumer phones. Their mistake was not getting into the enterprise app market for iOS and Android. They still could since the software sort of sucks still (or maybe my firm is cheap).
jusben1369 11y ago
Yes RIM was right to see that the iPhone was so powerful that it was breaking down all the (up till then) norms around how corporate IT purchased hardware and software vs consumer. But they could have panicked less because they had a big install legacy base to feed off for 2 - 3 years to get a more consumer friendly version right. It's worth noting that Apple is in the same position today as RIM only 10x or 50x larger but still vulnerable to a brand new device upending their entire company.
karmelapple 11y ago
RIM didn't pick a fight on Apple's terms or turf; instead, Apple (and Android to a lesser degree) made RIM's turf the fighting ground, and trounced it with comparatively stellar UX. Although I can't talk about enterprise and business users, I was involved in a project targeted for government that, if released, would have made the Storm look elegant in comparison. The expectations of the government around the time of the biggest iPhone growth was that government contractors need to make hardware the same price as the iPhone, but meeting fairly stringent MIL-STD-810 standards. Not only are devices aimed for government purchase going to be sold in smaller numbers than consumer devices, they have higher environmental standards (drop it in jet fuel and have it survive, let it sit out in a sandstorm, etc.). Fewer sales and more requirements means higher costs, not lower, and the government was happy to simply buy five iPhones instead of buying one device that would probably cost 5X the cost of a single iPhone, and still get pretty decent lifetimes out of them.
shalmanese 11y ago
By the time the iPhone came out, they were already innovator dilemmaed to death. They could either choose to double down on their existing customers and be slowly nibbled to death or leap across the chasm to mainstream customers and fall into the pit. The only way they could have survived was if they had started 5 years before and came up with the iPhone themselves, which wasn't going to happen. Faced with two bad paths, the path I would have liked to see them take is to accept defeat and organize the slow windup of the company over the next 20 years, returning as much cash back to the shareholders as possible. But good luck convincing a CEO to ever do that to their career.
- rbanffy 11y ago
  I disagree. RIM never realized they were never selling pagers or phones. They were selling business communications. They should have made their software run on devices built by others. They could keep their high-end devices and market them as status symbols. And, obviously, their phones should run Android.
graeham 11y ago
I'd say RIM was superior in messaging, but lost because they kept the platform closed - and inferior in photos and music, which made them lose as a multi-use device.
- hauget 11y ago
  If only they would have brought BBM to iOS, Android and the rest of the platforms...
  - JTon 11y ago
    Sarcasm tag needed? I think OP makes a good point. If RIM would have cross-platormed BBM sooner, they would of incredibly early to the messaging platform war
    - macspoofing 11y ago
      Which would have added $0 in revenue to the company.
      - bernadus_edwin 11y ago
        Which is not if sell one dollar just like whatsapp
manachar 11y ago
Enterprise and business users were increasingly getting used to and demanding iPhones and iPhone-like devices. Apple and Android phones changed the way people used phones and Blackberries went from being the "how cool is it that my work got me this awesome phone that lets me do so much" device to the "ugh, my workplace still forces me to use this crappy device with a tiny screen and a funky physical keyboard" device. Government/military users of course have long been accustomed to using whatever device wins the RFP, but even there the change in how people use mobile computing devices had to be felt.
protomyth 11y ago
I'm not sure a focus on the broader consumer market was the problem. I believe the problem was they tried to do a Blackberry copy of an iPhone instead of a Blackberry for the consumer market. A low priced Blackberry with a nice keyboard for messaging and a decent camera to go along with the horizontal screen would have staked out an area. Making deals with pay-as-you go groups would have gone into an area Apple didn't go and Blackberry might have dominated. Horizontal screen and camera could be an advantage. They tried to build an iPhone not a Blackberry.

by mfoy_ 11y ago

pavlov 11y ago

Would enterprise and business users really be using Blackberries today if only they had stuck with hardware keys forever? I can't imagine it happening. Enterprise IT isn't isolated from the rest of society (although it sometimes feels that way). When the rest of the world moved on to touchscreens, Blackberry would have been left behind anyway.

devopsproject 11y ago

No, RIM failed because government, military, enterprise, and business users are also normal consumers when not working. Sure, they had great messaging, but apple and google had decent messaging with web browsers, games, and applications

raverbashing 11y ago
Exactly this The reason MS made sure you could Windows at home "for free" is that it would carry to the business world (where the money is). I find it very hard to remember something that went from business to the home market successfully. Nobody wants their clunky office app/device to be used at home, what they want is to use their consumer app/device on the office which is usually better and easier to use.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  > I find it very hard to remember something that went from business to the home market successfully. The Personal Computer. Remember that mainframe you have at work that can crunch right thru spreadsheet numbers? Now you can have that same convenience at home. And this one can play Frogger too.
  - raverbashing 11y ago
    A Personal Computer (which started with the Apple I/II and after that to work, with IBM) is different from a Mainframe
    - stephengillie 11y ago
      Yeah, it's a personal mainframe. That's how they were marketed - it does the same things, but it's small enough to have in your home.
bedhead 11y ago
Not only this, but people became addicted to their phones. Use of one's phone now comes in first place, right ahead of sex, of things people couldn't live without, according to surveys. So people cared deeply about the phones they were using, unlike say when a company issues you a laptop.
rhino369 11y ago
This plus Bring Your Own Device enterprise plans. Nobody wants two different phones to carry around. Enterprise/business is merging with consumer phones. Their mistake was not getting into the enterprise app market for iOS and Android. They still could since the software sort of sucks still (or maybe my firm is cheap).

jusben1369 11y ago

Yes RIM was right to see that the iPhone was so powerful that it was breaking down all the (up till then) norms around how corporate IT purchased hardware and software vs consumer. But they could have panicked less because they had a big install legacy base to feed off for 2 - 3 years to get a more consumer friendly version right. It's worth noting that Apple is in the same position today as RIM only 10x or 50x larger but still vulnerable to a brand new device upending their entire company.

karmelapple 11y ago

RIM didn't pick a fight on Apple's terms or turf; instead, Apple (and Android to a lesser degree) made RIM's turf the fighting ground, and trounced it with comparatively stellar UX. Although I can't talk about enterprise and business users, I was involved in a project targeted for government that, if released, would have made the Storm look elegant in comparison. The expectations of the government around the time of the biggest iPhone growth was that government contractors need to make hardware the same price as the iPhone, but meeting fairly stringent MIL-STD-810 standards. Not only are devices aimed for government purchase going to be sold in smaller numbers than consumer devices, they have higher environmental standards (drop it in jet fuel and have it survive, let it sit out in a sandstorm, etc.). Fewer sales and more requirements means higher costs, not lower, and the government was happy to simply buy five iPhones instead of buying one device that would probably cost 5X the cost of a single iPhone, and still get pretty decent lifetimes out of them.

shalmanese 11y ago

By the time the iPhone came out, they were already innovator dilemmaed to death. They could either choose to double down on their existing customers and be slowly nibbled to death or leap across the chasm to mainstream customers and fall into the pit. The only way they could have survived was if they had started 5 years before and came up with the iPhone themselves, which wasn't going to happen. Faced with two bad paths, the path I would have liked to see them take is to accept defeat and organize the slow windup of the company over the next 20 years, returning as much cash back to the shareholders as possible. But good luck convincing a CEO to ever do that to their career.

rbanffy 11y ago
I disagree. RIM never realized they were never selling pagers or phones. They were selling business communications. They should have made their software run on devices built by others. They could keep their high-end devices and market them as status symbols. And, obviously, their phones should run Android.

graeham 11y ago

I'd say RIM was superior in messaging, but lost because they kept the platform closed - and inferior in photos and music, which made them lose as a multi-use device.

hauget 11y ago
If only they would have brought BBM to iOS, Android and the rest of the platforms...
- JTon 11y ago
  Sarcasm tag needed? I think OP makes a good point. If RIM would have cross-platormed BBM sooner, they would of incredibly early to the messaging platform war
  - macspoofing 11y ago
    Which would have added $0 in revenue to the company.
    - bernadus_edwin 11y ago
      Which is not if sell one dollar just like whatsapp

manachar 11y ago

Enterprise and business users were increasingly getting used to and demanding iPhones and iPhone-like devices. Apple and Android phones changed the way people used phones and Blackberries went from being the "how cool is it that my work got me this awesome phone that lets me do so much" device to the "ugh, my workplace still forces me to use this crappy device with a tiny screen and a funky physical keyboard" device. Government/military users of course have long been accustomed to using whatever device wins the RFP, but even there the change in how people use mobile computing devices had to be felt.

protomyth 11y ago

I'm not sure a focus on the broader consumer market was the problem. I believe the problem was they tried to do a Blackberry copy of an iPhone instead of a Blackberry for the consumer market. A low priced Blackberry with a nice keyboard for messaging and a decent camera to go along with the horizontal screen would have staked out an area. Making deals with pay-as-you go groups would have gone into an area Apple didn't go and Blackberry might have dominated. Horizontal screen and camera could be an advantage. They tried to build an iPhone not a Blackberry.