Slashdot Mirror


The (Big) Problem With RIM

An anonymous reader writes "Research in Motion, by all accounts, had a terrible week. But things might get even worse. The Canadian technology company posted dismal quarterly earnings numbers, missing revenue and sales targets, while margins continued to shrink. Co-CEO Mike Lazaridis conceded the PlayBook had been thwarted by a lack of apps and content, not necessarily by a weak platform. Like Apple with its iOS, and Microsoft with Windows, creating a successful platform will be dependent on the eco-system it supports, but RIM hasn't shown ability to foster that." Speculation has begun as to whether or not RIM will wind up having a PlayBook firesale in the same vein as the TouchPad.

52 of 341 comments (clear)

  1. Market fragmentation by ge7 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    RIM's problem is basically same as Nokia's was - their platforms eco-system is practically dead. You cannot find any of the apps or games you want on them. I don't use my phone (old Windows Mobile 6.2) much so I haven't needed that many apps on it, but on those few times that I have had a need for something, it really sucks when the apps are only available for the big three - iOS, Android and Windows Phone 7. This is true for even such known programs as Skype (I actually did find some old WM6.2 Skype version, but the voice quality sucks with that version).

    Where RIM is failing here again is just trying to get their own system out. There's just too many platforms. Hell, even on PC's most companies only make their products available for Windows and maybe OS X. They cannot compete with iOS at this point, and while a little bit better, Android has the same kind of fragmentation problems (though to a lesser degree). In my opinion RIM should go with Windows Phone 7. As RIM is mostly used by business people, they would even get Office and Exchange directly to it. Perfect for businesses.

    1. Re:Market fragmentation by Bert64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If anything, it's the PC market all over again...

      You have Apple, the premium vendor providing a consistent platform...
      You have Android like windows, the cheaper option but runs on vastly more hardware and anyone can put it on their hardware...
      And then you have RIM and HP who represent the likes of Commodore and Atari, they also provide a consistent platform like Apple, but don't have the mindshare to attract third party developers.

      Windows phone 7 would be a very poor choice for RIM at the moment, not only is the current version very much consumer oriented, but they would not really be able to provide much value-add on such a platform... Why buy RIM if you can go to any of the other windows phone 7 vendors? Android might be a better bet for them, as they can customise it heavily and run their own platform on top (or they could offer a pure software stack for use on other vendors phones). They could run their corporate email software in a sandbox isolated from the rest of the phone...

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:Market fragmentation by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      Big three? Window Phone 7?

    3. Re:Market fragmentation by Tapewolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      RIM's real problem - the reason there are no apps for their next-gen platform - is that they still haven't released a proper SDK for it AFAIK. They promised the ability to write native apps, Blackberry apps, and Android apps in such a way that they could be run on the Playbook, and to the best of my knowledge the Blackberry and Android layers still don't work and the Native SDK is still a month away in exactly the same way that fusion is 20 years away.

      Unless things have changed very recently, the only way to make a Playbook application is in Adobe AIR which is really helpful if you're trying to port a C library from Android, Java code from Android, or port your old Blackberry application (if you were masochistic enough to write one).

      Last I saw, a lot of the forum posts seemed to be along the lines of:
      "Where can I get the NDK?"
      "It's in private beta, uh, you can't have it."
      "Oh. [disappears from the forum]"

    4. Re:Market fragmentation by DrgnDancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On the face it your idea has merit, but I don't think RIM will do it, more to the point I'm sure they can do it and remain viable. RIM has always been Blackberry. They made their fortune off of being *the* real smartphone vendor that enterprise took seriously. They designed everything from the ground up and built a system that businesses were willing to pay big bucks for. Then the iPhone came out, and they sat there, sure that nothing could challenge their business dominance (who cares about consumer phones anyway?). Then Android came out and they still did nothing. Then iPhone got enterprise integration and they started to look a little worried and came out with a few new phones... Now two thirds of the people in my office (of a major multinational mind) have turned in their company issued Blackberries and use their personal iPhone or Android device.

      What can they do by switching to Windows 7? Become another player fighting for the tiny little pieces of the pie? That won't support a company like RIM. This isn't HTC, they aren't used to surviving on razor thin hardware margins. They're used to naming their price and having big businesses beg them to sell more. In the unlikely event that they could even make the switch, it would be a much smaller and less important company on the other end. Until something major changes, their are exactly two winner in cell phones right now. Google and Apple. Google's partners are in a race to the bottom, and Microsoft hasn't had any significant success. At best MS will become a third "winner" with their partners fighting the same losing battle as Google's are fighting now.

      Until a serious game changing event rolls along, the only real question in the phone market right now is whether Microsoft can carve out a niche of its own.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    5. Re:Market fragmentation by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I had mod points, you'd get it. Until there was pressure from iOS and Android, both RIM and MS treated their mobile devs like crap. Which I find confusing, 'cos Apple also treats their iOS devs like crap (not much different from the way they treat their users, come to think of it :-)), but it seems that Apple is better at creating Stockholm Syndrome than RIM was.

      If you were to group the most successful companies, you'd find that a healthy percentage of those companies rely on Stockholm Syndrome with both their customers and their partners to stay in business.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    6. Re:Market fragmentation by realityimpaired · · Score: 2

      No, RIM's real problem is that their upper management doesn't understand their market. The reason the Playbook failed wasn't the lack of apps, it was because they insisted on tethering it to a Blackberry for basic functions like e-mail to work. They tried for lock-in, and they failed, because the market doesn't want a device that's basically useless unless you have this other device from the same company, so they ended up buying something like an iPad, which costs the same and doesn't have that limitation. The lack of multitasking on an iPad really isn't as much of a limitation as you'd think, and at the end of the day, the fruity product is a better buy than the Playbook.

      Similarly, the Blackberry is a great business tool, has tons of control when it's hooked up to an Exchange server, and businesses love it. But RIM makes it insanely difficult for people to develop apps for it (not that it's particularly hard, just that it's a lot of hurdles to jump through in order to develop it and then get it accepted into the app market), which means that the app market is quite limited when compared against something like Android or the iPhone. Yet again, RIM doesn't understand what the market wants, and sets artificial limits and restrictions that end up hurting themselves in the end. They're making a product that you can use for business, and only business, and people end up buying something they can use in their off hours as well... since both iOS and Android support Exchange, there really isn't a case to be made for buying Blackberry over those platforms for business any more.

      Finally, their hardware is too expensive for what you're getting. Others have mentioned build quality, and that's part of it... goodness knows my LG Shine Plus (Ally in the US, Aloha in Europe) has survived more falls and abuse than any Blackberry would survive, but it's also that their phones feel cheap, and plasticky. They're supposed to be a high end product for business use, and it feels like you're getting something that was made at a third-rate knockoff factory in China. Why on earth would I spend $600 for a Blackberry when I can get a better Android phone for half that, and pick up a global messaging app from the market? (assuming you don't have global texting on your cell plan already, which I do... let's face it, BBM is really the only avantage BB has over iOS and Android any more, and that's disappearing now that cell carriers are actually offering decent plans)

    7. Re:Market fragmentation by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

      FTFA

      For its part, RIM has recognized this , and it has been in the labs cooking up a new software platform dubbed QNX, a central piece of its efforts to restore the company

      While their secrecy is killing them, their open-ness regarding future products will not doubt contribute an Osbourne-effect-ish ... uh ... effect to their demise. I've no real love for any of the players in this market (see my posting history).

      btw: Note to the mods - it's really funny that I get modded down for a post that criticises iOS, then get modded down for a post that criticises Android, then get modded down for a post that criticises WP7. I expect my posts critical of RIM are going to get the same treatment?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    8. Re:Market fragmentation by nine-times · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it really sucks when the apps are only available for the big three - iOS, Android and Windows Phone 7.

      I don't believe that's really the root problem here. That's a problem, but it's not *the* problem.

      The *big* problem with RIM is that they stink. The hardware on the phones aren't bad, but almost everything else about them is. The interface-- well, can we just admit that Apple came along and ate everyone else's lunch in the cell phone industry? Can we just start by admitting that? The industry was stagnant and producing awful little phones with awful interfaces, and it's not until Apple showed that they were going to take over that everyone else responded by making better platforms. Android and Windows 7 are a response to Apple disrupting the entire industry, and somehow RIM failed to respond-- probably because they thought they were immune.

      But now back to the interface, the blackberry interface is basically lipstick on a pig. On my blackberry, which is less than a year old, it feels like I'm running a 10 year old interface with a new skin. The graphics are smooth and there are kind of some fancy transitions and stuff; I'm not complaining about a lack of eye candy. I'm saying the design of the user interaction is extremely dated and stupid, and that was after they overhauled it.

      The behind-the-scenes stuff stinks too. I support a lot of Blackberries, and they're constantly having random stupid problems where someone stops getting their mail or they get duplicates, and that's while using their touted BES stuff. It's junk. It breaks constantly. ActiveSync provides more stable results.

      I'm not so sure about your suggestion to use Windows 7. It may be their best choice, but it's not a great choice. RIM is essentially headed down the same road as Palm at this point. They were huge, they sat on their hands and watched the world move on, they're probably going to try to become another hardware vendor with a commodity OS, but that makes them just another one of many hardware vendors with the same OS, and it's not clear they'll compete well. On top of that, it's not entirely clear to me that Windows phone 7 itself is doing very well. Sure, Microsoft will keep making it, but can RIM make money selling it?

      The hour is later than you think, and RIM probably doesn't have any winning strategy here. Their best option may be to hope they can sell to someone who wants something about their intellectual property or their supply chain. But who would buy them? HP is out. I doubt Apple cares. I don't think Microsoft would be interested.

    9. Re:Market fragmentation by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I had a mod point, you'd get it for using Stockholm Syndrome in the content of Apple's products.

    10. Re:Market fragmentation by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The same could be said about nokia

      That's 100% true. If we continue the PC market analogy, Windows 7/8 looks exactly like IBM's OS/2 and I don't see how Nokia coming in with new proprietary phones can save Windows any more than IBM's MCA saved OS/2. I'm sure that in 15 years there will be loads of MS fans whining about how much better Windows 8 was than than iOS 5 and Android 4, but it was just discriminated against by Apple / Android / whichever wins in the competitive market. As with Windows Mobile, there will be a bunch of anoraks running around telling us how it's the only system which gives you full flexibility and completely ignoring

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    11. Re:Market fragmentation by sarhjinian · · Score: 2

      If you've used a PlayBook, you'll note that the real problem isnt that you need a BB to do email, its that even if you have a BB phone, the PlayBook (specifically the bridge function to the phone) is slow and glitchy. Its faster to just use the phone because at least then you get autocorrect, the ability view attachments in under half an hour, and decent inteface speed.

      The impression i got with the PlayBook is that, unlike apple, where you can tell that Jobs et al take a serious interest in the development of products and do get their hands dirty, I doubt Messrs Laziridis and Balsillie used the device at all.

      --
      --srj/mmv
    12. Re:Market fragmentation by binarylarry · · Score: 2

      Android is a response to Apple, Windows Phone is an attempt to clone the success Apple had in the past.

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    13. Re:Market fragmentation by nine-times · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying it's the interface that you want, but rather that the iPhone, along with it's interface and it's UI design, destroyed the phone industry as existed before. Apple was so wildly successful that they forced the rest of the industry to reinvent itself. Can we admit to that?

    14. Re:Market fragmentation by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      You have Android like windows,

      It is similar in that respect, but remember how PCs got to that point - a much different road!

      There was no intention to make the PC an "open" platform. The PC was the IBM PC, and they were just as closed as Apple. They had a better name within business, but Atari and Commodore got started when ALL computers were closed. When Compaq created the first PC clone and then won the resulting lawsuit, it opened the floodgates to PC clones and forcibly "opened" the platform.

      Android, on the other hand, started open from the get-go. We are now in the "lawsuit" phase compared to the PC platform, not the Windows vs Mac phase yet. Android is Compaq, not Microsoft (even snatching up a hardware vendor!). If Google is successful in defending Android, then it is going to be hard for anyone to compete with companies who peddle an OS that they don't spend R&D on - at least on the low end. There will always be room at the high-end for a more seamless package, as Apple has shown in the PC market. Then again, with an open system, hardware vendors have nothing to stop them from modifications that make the whole thing hassle free for the customer - unlike the Windows license that restricts hardware manufacturers from doing things that make their customer's lives easier.

      What was my point again? LOL, oh yeah - I don't think the cell phone market is very analagous to the PC market. Concisely: There was no "open" platform in the PC wars. Also, Apple's iOS is the IBM of the PC wars, not - well - Apple. Android is a beast where no analog existed until perhaps Linux, but way too late in the game to make a difference.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Market fragmentation by Toth · · Score: 2

      I applied for their Beta program for the Playbook SDK and received the reply below a couple weeks later;
      Our company uses several custom-developed applications on several hundred blackberries. We have five professional software developers and a couple dozen amateur hacker-geeks. The Playbook's technical capabilities blows away any other tablet but is currently useless as a business tool. A company with a BES server could implement Playbooks tomorrow with very little concern about security IF there were applications.
      The guys are testing Citrix on it now and it appears to be ok but until there are other remote apps (Teamviewer, RDP) None of the techies will use it for anything other than a toy gadget.
      RIM won't allow us to have a native SDK for the Playbook because they want to focus on games??!!
      I used to like Novell too.

      ================
      Thank you for your application to participate in the closed beta for the Native SDK for BlackBerry Tablet OS. We have received a large number of requests to join the beta, including yours, and apologize for the delay in responding
      As we discussed in our blog post (http://devblog.blackberry.com/2011/08/native-sdk-for-blackberry-tablet-os-closed-beta/) the focus for the beta was game developers who would be leveraging OpenGL ES to create or port games to the platform. As your application currently stands, you did not meet the initial beta criteria, and we are unable to provide you with access today. We have added your name to the list for access to the beta when it’s opened up to a broader audience. We appreciate your patience and look forward to seeing your native application running on PlayBook in the near future. Please check the Inside BlackBerry Developer’s Blog for updates or follow us at @BlackBerryDev.
      Thanks,
      BlackBerry Developer Relations Team

    16. Re:Market fragmentation by farrellj · · Score: 2

      Actually, QNX is not a new platform, in fact, it pre-dates *ALL* of the platforms out there, the QNX operating system is 29 years old. It's a very successful niche player, being a real-time microkernel based Unix like operating system. It is used in many embedded applications around the world. I do have a pesonal connection to QNX, I was fortunate to know Dan Hildebrand, who was one of the early leading lights of QNX, as well as a number of past and current employees. I followed the continuing success of QNX over the years. It is a company and an operating system that can stand on it's own, but RIM acquired them from the Harmon Company (aka Harmon/Kardon). If RIM goes done, it won't be because of the quality of QNX...and I hope that they spin off, or sell off QNX if they go down.

      ttyl
                Farrell

      --
      CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
    17. Re:Market fragmentation by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      You're right on the "going out of style" thing, it didn't look right when I wrote it.

      Microsoft has had many successes over the last few years. They finally did beat GEM. They did kill Netscape for all intents and purposes. They haven't taken over the server market, but they do have a seriously large proportion of the market.

      In all of these cases, their dominance was done partially by producing a "good enough" product (although personally I always thought Windows was considerably better than GEM, and many argue that IE4 was better than Netscape), and partially by making use of their existing dominance on the desktop.

      And they really are doing this in spades this time. The next "desktop" operating system is also a tablet operating system. Indeed, the major complaint I have with the system is that it doesn't work that well as a desktop system. Using it with a mouse is fairly horrible, although there's plenty of time for Microsoft to fix that.

      I think MS will dominate the tablet market because:

      1. They're the only company producing a tablet operating system that isn't a "toy". That is, it's not stripped down, it's not locked down, the same applications run on the desktop and the tablet UI, it's realistic to suppose you can by a Windows 8 tablet and make it your only computer
      2. Users of existing Windows operating systems (7, XP, etc) will, ultimately, upgrade to Windows 8 or its successors. Unless Microsoft does something stupid and makes it the next Vista, The platform is going to have overwhelming support. But, you know, even Vista is a poor comparison - most Windows users are using "version 2" of Vista now anyway, and it, Windows 7, is well liked. Even if Windows 8 is a flop, Windows 9 would likely not be.
      3. They're implementing the same new UI across both Windows 8 and their mobile operating systems, and they're ensuring the UI is comfortable in both environments.

      Microsoft will not ultimately be the only company doing this, given Apple has already indicated they intend to move Mac OS X in that direction. But the real concern to me is that the platforms I use and love don't seem to "get it". I'm hoping the Windows 8 preview will be a wake-up call. Perhaps Google and Canonical need to talk.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Market fragmentation by shmlco · · Score: 3

      "They need to get humble and quick then let what they do well (corporate integration, great hardware, etc) shine through."

      RIM has one and only one crown jewel: They've got a great secure messaging platform.

      In my estimation they need to write apps and put that messaging system it on iOS, on Android, and on Windows Phone 7. Charge a fair monthly access fee. Unlike some other "messaging" apps, they've got the name, they've got the business reputation, they've got the security, they can integrate with the existing BB platform, and they can do it cross-platform.

      They've lost the hardware wars. Time to go with their strengths.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    19. Re:Market fragmentation by shmlco · · Score: 2

      "The reason the Playbook failed wasn't the lack of apps, it was because they insisted on tethering it to a Blackberry for basic functions like e-mail to work. They tried for lock-in, and they failed..."

      From what I've heard, the tethering was more do to the fact that their entire system is setup in such a way that one and only one BB cab access a BB account. Allowing multiple devices to access the same account impacts security, not to mention the various synchronization issues involved.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    20. Re:Market fragmentation by shmlco · · Score: 2

      "You give me a phone that has no numeric pad, and you'll see how quickly it ends up in the closest river."

      Ah. Buttons. How quaint...

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    21. Re:Market fragmentation by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

      Microsoft's share of the server market is probably around a third. While that's a big chunk, it's still not even half, and certainly not a majority.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    22. Re:Market fragmentation by shmlco · · Score: 2

      The fact the they could theoretically provide a better user experience is irrelevant if Google won't let them do so. In fact Google's actively pressuring vendors to do otherwise by withholding Marketplace access or by not allowing them to bundle Google apps like Mail and Maps if they don't follow the rules.

      HTC could tell them to stick it and use Android to base their own system, but without the above integration what you end up with isn't really an "Android" phone, now is it? Actually, you sort of end up with the situation we're seeing with Amazon, who appear to have based their new tablet on a older version of Android, and built entirely without the Google couplings.

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    23. Re:Market fragmentation by rtfa-troll · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you are basing your ideas on Microsoft's vapourware. There's just been a new announcement and the Windows tablets will in fact be crippled and unable to run desktop apps. I know Microsoft specifically denied this when Intel stated the same, but that's Microsoft for you. Notice, by the way, the way they continue to trick people; “We’ve been very clear since the very first CES demos and forward that the ARM product won’t run any x86 applications,” they do not say "desktop applications" and the reason is that people were assuming that they would make the desktop applications source code portable. They haven't. I guess there are a number of CEOs that have committed to a Windows tablet future and are now starting to wonder what they hell they have done.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    24. Re:Market fragmentation by wumpus188 · · Score: 2

      The PC was the IBM PC, and they were just as closed as Apple.

      Are you aware that first IBM PCs included commented BIOS assembly source along with their documentation?

    25. Re:Market fragmentation by sjames · · Score: 2

      I was going to name a couple things RIM could do, but then thought for a moment. They couldn't figure out that people might want email on a pad device, so they won't do any of the sensible options. They really have gotten the attitude of "We're Blackberry, of course you'll throw money at us". There can be no recovery from that.

      If they weren't that screwed up, I would say that they might win by adding and Android box that looks like any other android but allow their native secured business friendly apps to overlay the screen. That and make it do business things like email in the native partition.

    26. Re:Market fragmentation by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2

      And most of the hardware schematics were readily available.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  2. predicted this a few years ago by electrosoccertux · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had a curve 8330 and predicted this years ago.
    They had a funny policy of only releasing security fixes for their OS, meanwhile leaving out features that should have been in it from the beginning.
    Simple things like being able to autosplit text messages, it couldn't do, simply capped you at 160 characters.
    Or even being able to adjust the vibrate functionality on a text message notification to buzz once for half a second, had to buy an app for that. Shortest vibrate was 2x 1 second vibrations. Very annoying. Oh, and it couldn't vibrate and ring at the same time for a call. It would start the ringtone and in 5 seconds start the vibrate and kill the ringtone, then just continue vibrating for the duration of the call. Had to buy an app to fix that too.

    I don't recall the rest of what they left out. I remember there were at least like 4 things that the OS desperately needed but that they wouldn't put in.

    I believe their reasoning was "that way they'll buy the next phone hoping it's better with its newer OS", forgetting the part where if your current customer is annoyed with you, the last thing they're going to do is go buy something else from you. So then I got an android...

  3. News at 11? by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Like Palm, these people squandered a multi-year lead. They had a lock on a wonderful customer base and supplied the dominant smartphone-precursor device to the world, and failed to follow up on through an inability to execute. What happened to the original scrappy, farsighted RIM, that created the Blackberry platform to begin with? Gone - eaten up in the ugly process of becoming a large incumbent business. Now they live on inertia, and their management can't execute their way out of a paper bag. An old story, and a common one.

    It has been obvious for many months that RIM was a dead letter - not just behind in the race but lapped many times by multiple competitors. I mean, the Playbook? Really? If you weren't short RIM, sue your broker.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:News at 11? by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only months?

      I would say it was obvious from the moment Exchange 2003 SP2 (which introduced Exchange ActiveSync 2.5) was released that Microsoft were serious in driving out BES. Once companies started to license Exchange ActiveSync, it was only ever going to be a matter of time before the need to go out and buy a separate system to manage smartphones was eliminated.

      The thing is, Exchange 2k3 SP2 was released in 2005. ISTR that few people really took alternative smartphones seriously until the iPhone; a few people bought Windows Mobile devices but by and large these were a fairly dismal failure. The iPhone wasn't released until the middle of 2007, didn't gain ActiveSync support until iOS 2.0 in 2008 and didn't really take off until the 3G model was released, also in 2008.

      Which means that RIM had three whole years to come up with some other idea. They didn't.

  4. What's with the Canadian dollar comparison? by Kagetsuki · · Score: 4, Informative

    From the "Firesale" article: "Keep in mind that these prices are in Canadian dollars" - check the exchange rate, 1USD buys you about 98 cents Canadian. The US dollar is now less valuable than the Canadian dollar. I got the impression the author is still assuming the opposite is true.

  5. Even with a fire-sale by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    I probably won't be buying this anyway.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    1. Re:Even with a fire-sale by dreamt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Right. It made sense to buy the Touchpad at fire-sale prices because it was good hardware, had a good web browser, good email and some decent apps. On the other hand, the Playbook doesn't even have a built-in email application that doesn't require tethering to a Blackberry, meaning its pretty much useless as a couch device, and the apps just plain suck.

  6. Here are the problems with RIM by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) Perception: With RIM failing to release a touch screen device at most a few months after the iPhone, they were perceived as a dinosaur in making, especially by the young folks. Google did it with HTC and nobody can say it's been a liability to them.

    2) Pride: Whenever one would ask them about the looming competition from iOS & Android, they would quickly dismiss those concerns with statements pointing to their 'solid' financial positions at the time. Little did they acknowledge that it would be a matter of time before iOS and Android started to 'eat their lunch', after-all these platforms were not static when it came to development.

    3) Strategic vision, or the lack of it: A competent CEO would have [quietly] used the available Android code at the time to develop a 'mock device' for defensive purposes using internal resources. RIM did not. During times like these, they would simply 'out' a mock Android device and the market would probably play along.

    4) Being Canadian: This characteristic is proving to be disadvantageous. The same thing happened to NORTEL, a once successful company in its field. Ever wondered why Canada is the only industrialized company without a car synonymous with it? Heck, even once communist Russia still has Lada.

    1. Re:Here are the problems with RIM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      4) Being Canadian: This characteristic is proving to be disadvantageous. The same thing happened to NORTEL, a once successful company in its field. Ever wondered why Canada is the only industrialized company without a car synonymous with it? Heck, even once communist Russia still has Lada.

      I agree with your other points, but I think having a automotive industry associated with a country isn't always a good idea. And it is not true that all industrialized countries have a car associated with them. Australia had Holden, but that got gobbled up by GM.

      In Canada's case, there is simply no strategic advantage to having a home-grown car industry. It's right next to the U.S. It doesn't have a large enough domestic market to support a car industry without heavy tariffs on car imports from the U.S. and other market distortions. It doesn't have the economies of scale to compete the U.S. prices. So we've gone with the practical alternative: we make U.S. cars instead. Ontario's auto manufacturing sector is huge. We make many models of GM, Ford, and some Honda and Toyota cars/trucks.

      That said, Canada has one of the largest auto parts manufacturer in the world, Magna. Very few people outside the country have even heard of them, but their parts end up in many cars.

      Canadian companies often have to pick and choose their battlefields -- they have to be careful to strategically move in areas where a U.S. company can't just wipe them out owing to their size advantage. It's happened so many times in the past.

      In RIM's case though, it wasn't a problem with economies of scale. I think RIM really did screw up.

    2. Re:Here are the problems with RIM by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      RIM let users do things that no one else could do. RIM gave corporate the control necessary for due diligence and CYA. There is always money to be made in providing products that no one else really makes.

      When one thinks of RIM on thinks of efficient email and the best keyboard in the industry. This was the strengths. Yet Playbook was released without a direct email client and without a keyboard. In other words RIM left the playing field in which they had and began to compete using other peoples rules.

      I know people who bought RIM phone just to look corporate. This was a good market. RIM could have expanded on this with a phone the was a hybrid consumer/corporate and then a tablet that expanded on this. No one though a phone with a keyboard would compete against apple, yet some Android has models with keyboards.

      RIM had the market, but simply did not innovate, like so many other companies. Claiming that this is some unique problem, or that it is a Candadian thing is like saying Compaq failed becasue it was based in Texas, which also has almost no auto manufacturing.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  7. No apps? RIM's fault. by nloop · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For years RIM charged $200 to register as a developer before you could make any apps. Just a few months ago they announced they are "waiving" the fee.

    You spent years "waiving" potential developers to other platforms. No one wants to spend $200 on a weekend hobby, and that's what most apps are.

  8. The real problem with RIM by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Is management. And their inability to adapt to changing markets.

    Its often a sign you got too large for your britches and/or became complacent, but either way in the IT market you adapt or die out to make room for someone who does.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  9. There are a lot of issues by iONiUM · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I own a PlayBook. The first thing I wanted to do with it was connect to my work computer (Windows) and remote desktop. Well, PB doesn't support PPTP or L2TP/IPSec, so that won't work. Furthermore, it doesn't have a remote desktop app, further making this impossible. I then tried to connect it to a BlackBerry (I don't own one, but a co-workers does), and it failed. The only way to make it work was to re-flash the device with the same ROM (not a new one.. I don't know why). So, then I could read e-mail, right? Yes, but you can't open attachments... wtf?

    I think the above is a good summary of the overall impression people get from BlackBerry. Have you ever tried to use their desktop software for syncing music/etc to their phones? It's ridiculously awful. I actually laughed out loud when I saw it, as it took about 5 minutes just to detect the device and communicate with it. It just leaves a really bad taste in the mouth.

    Which brings me to my last point, which is the development environment. For PB, it's not existent.. it's command line. Sorry, but that's not acceptable. I mean, sure, when you first release the device, but now there's still nothing? At least make an eclipse plug-in. For BlackBerry.. well, I've made a few apps for 4.6.0 and above, and it was tragic at best. There are many simple things that are just not available (some graphical markup language anyone?) - the fact that I have to write my GUI in code just reeks of outdated. And then something like connecting to the internet requires re-implementation of connection detection every time.. there's nothing built into the framework to just abstract dealing with the connection away.

    I've read quite a few BB developer forums, and they are all fairly negative, or very frustrated. How can they expect a great app eco-system, when they obviously have absolutely no care in the world for their developers?

  10. Their real problem? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    The smartphone market was (until Android appeared) one of status - people boasted their BB's 'cos it made them look and feel important. Enter iPhone, which did achieved the same functionality for people, only better. Android entered to clean up the bottom end of the smartphone market (those who want the functionality but can't afford the exclusivity) and even make tiny inroads into the upper end.

    There is no space for RIM in this world, unless they focus on taking on *either* iPhone or Android in their respective markets. WP7 hasn't a chance either, but at least they're focused - they're going after the Android space, not the "status and exclusivity" space. RIM doesn't know what to focus on, and they're (unsurprisingly) doing a bad job of going anywhere.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  11. Problems with RIM and the Playbook from an owner by quetwo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I ended up with a Playbook from winning a contest just about a year ago. I was super excited to get one -- all the specs were great and it seemed like a winning device. The conference I was at had only one, and they kept it behiend a glass case. They wouldn't let any of the devs touch it, but they handed out Playbook Emulators (software) that you could build apps against. Over the course of the next 4 months, the API changed soo many times, and the Emulator was so buggy that it was almost pointless to develop against it.

    From that point, it was 6 months before I got the real device in the mail.

    A lot of promises that made the device a best-seller still haven't materilized.

      - It was said it was going to ship with the ability to run Android and old BBx Apps.
      - It was said that devlopers could develop apps in native QNX. Such an SDK has still not been released, except for a few select partners (I've been a BB developer for YEARS, and thought I could make this list... I guess not).
      - There were BB phones that were supposed to be released immediatly after the Playbook that ran QNX. This would allow devs to target one SDK / App development model for both phones and tablets. We have not seen anything about a new QNX phone yet.
      - It was said that there would be a version that had GSM/CDMA capabilities coming... It's been bumped off their road map. You can either use WiFi, or tether to an existing BB phone.
      - There is no 'smartphone' stuff in there. No Calendar, no Mail, nothing. You can tether to an existing BB phone and emulate some of those things, but if your phone is off, or out of range you loose those apps. Who pays hundreds of dollars and can't check your mail on a device!
      - There has been a real lack of business apps. Still no SSH app, still no RDP app. No email, no word processor, etc. These are the things people will notice when they check out the devices in the store. If the developer eco-system wasn't supporting these types of apps, RIM should have whipped them up to fill in the gaps. They didn't, and they still don't exist.
      - They've scared off most developers because of the way they run their program. You have to register your device with your program and download a developer 'token' that is only good for 30 days. Every 30 days you need to re-register your device to be able to deploy apps to it. Additionally, you have to bake those tokens into your app, which means that your apps can really only be tested for 30 day windows. To get your tokens approved it can take DAYS. Submitting stuff to the App World is a similar process as Apple, except you get more feedback when your apps get rejected.

    Now, all that being said, hardware wise I think the device is REAL nice.. One of the best tablet screens I've ever encountered. I love the gestures (the borders of the device are touch sensitive, and most of the gestures you use with the device orgionate from there). The web browser is really solid, and the multi-tasking works very well. Because of the screen, it's one of the few devices I can read a full newspaper on without having a lot of strain on my eyes. The OS is also beautiful too -- and much better laid out than iOS or Android. The battery lasts about 8 hours of continious use, which is great for a device like that.

    That being said -- I don't use it every day. I don't even use it every week because the lack of apps to do my work. At this point, it is a glorified web browser and that's about it. Give me the ability to do my day-to-day job (like I can on the iPad or Samsung tab), and it would be the device to carry around. But not until then.

  12. Re:i have to admit by jimicus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I didn't understand this myself for ages, it's only in the last couple of years I've figured it out.

    The selling point (not just with RIM but with any smartphone/sync combination) is a lot more than just email. There's a whole lot of little things which on their own sound utterly inconsequential - but in actual fact add up to enough that for many people they represent real value:

    1. Push email. I know about the IMAP IDLE command. Few smartphones implements this; those that implement IMAP in any form frequently do such a ham-fisted job of it you wonder why they bother.
    2. Calendar sync. What exactly do you carry around with you that can vibrate or make noises on schedule to remind you of an appointment and can keep your appointments in sync with a central server so others looking to schedule meetings can ensure they choose a convenient time? You and I have maybe a couple of meetings a week, usually at fixed times and they're often not terribly consequential. Missing one is fairly unlikely (because they're at fixed times) and usually of little consequence. The sales manager (whose job basically consists of "Go to meeting, talk about our product and try to sell it, lather rinse and repeat up to several times a day every day for months on end") doesn't have that luxury.
    3. Contacts sync. You and I lose our contacts list on our phone, it's mildly annoying but we're probably organised enough to remember to sync it with out computer occasionally so we can always reload it. Worst case, we lose a handful of contacts - but we're probably not using the phone enough to care about a handful of ultimately inconsequential numbers. The people who are buying these phones: A. aren't that organised and B. depend so heavily on their contacts list that without it they are in serious trouble. Salesmen are again the most obvious example of this.

    Arguments 2 and 3 also go some way to explaining the continued popularity of Outlook/Exchange. You care to explain to the sales director that as his laptop has been stolen, the information about upcoming meetings and his contact list has gone with it? Bearing in mind that as soon as you've left the room, that sales director is going to have a very difficult meeting with his manager. I guarantee you the second thing out of his mouth (straight after "Oh dear, it looks like the meetings at which I was hoping to secure £several million worth of sales are scuppered, because I can only remember details of one or two of them. We're going to look pretty bad when I don't even show up.") will be "This never happened at my last company where we had Exchange. If I lost a phone or laptop there, it would be replaced and the replacement would get all this information."

  13. Re:Not a standalone device by goose-incarnated · · Score: 4, Informative

    Forcing people to buy two devices instead of one was a very, very stupid approach

    Your understanding is wrong. Playbook works just fine without a BlackBerry over WiFi. It has access to any web-based email system, just no on-device support for Email/Calendar at this point. Currently I believe that currently the PlayBook can use the WiFi hotspot features of an Android phone/iPhone for Internet access while you are away from a WiFi network. During the setup of a playbook, one of the first things you do is set up a WiFi network for it to pull in updates; after that it allows you to set up a bridge to a BlackBerry phone for email/calendar/bbm functionality.

    For what it's worth; I do have a Playbook connected to a BlackBerry, and it does continue to work without the phone in range, I just don't have access to my corporate email/calendar/network resources.

    How exactly is the GP wrong? PB has no way to go online without some other device to piggyback on. You still need to get another device to actually get online!.

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  14. Management by whisper_jeff · · Score: 4, Insightful

    RIM's major problem is their management. Problems like a lack of apps and whatever other reason you want to put forth all come _after_ RIM's management failed the company. Specifically, their management's lack of vision and ego.

    When Apple released the iPhone, the mobile market changed. You may love Apple or you may hate Apple but that doesn't matter - the fact that does matter is that Apple changed everything with the release of the iPhone. Simply look at the vast majority of mobile phones before the iPhone and then look at the vast majority of phones after the iPhone. Everything changed.

    Most companies recognized what the iPhone meant to the mobile market and thus they changed. Whether it was to "be more like Apple" or simply because they recognized that Apple was on to something big, the design of phones radically shifted. Specifically, keyboards largely vanished and touch screens were in. Phone makers changed gears.

    Except the RIM with the Blackberry.

    While everyone else was scrambling to adjust to the new reality in the mobile market, RIM's management steadfastly refused to acknowledge and, more importantly, recognize that things had changed. While even the most casual observer could tell that everything had changed, RIM's management somehow seemed to miss the signs and thus they didn't shift gears. Not until very recently have they begrudgingly released phones that kinda, sorta look and function like a touchscreen phone but, by now, it's too late. Momentum is well and truly swung and, once you get a massive shift in momentum like that, it's virtually impossible to stop it.

    RIM's management utterly failed their company. Their inability to adapt to a changing landscape; their inability to recognize that the landscape had changed or their unwillingness to admit that it had; their arrogance in believing that their established client base made them immune to changes in the market all has lead to this point. Their management is ill-equipped to run a mobile device maker because the market demands leadership that can recognize change when it happens and adapt to that change in a timely manner. And, to be clear, when I say "management" I'm largely look right at the very top.

  15. Re:A bad quarter by DJCouchyCouch · · Score: 2

    When was the last time an abandoned platform suddenly resurged into success through a series of late-arriving updates?

  16. Re:Development Environmemt by jjetson · · Score: 2

    I develop for BB and Android as well and I completely disagree. BB is far easier to develop for if you know what you're doing. BB has excellent APIs that you can do almost anything with. Android still lacks basic stuff like Calender integration. While you can still acheive what you want there's nothing to say it will work in future versions of the OS and directly dealing with the databases is ridiculous. I'd have to say that there's as much complaining in Android related development threads as I've seen in BB ones.

  17. Re:Not a standalone device by goose-incarnated · · Score: 2

    The PlayBook doesn't need another device to get online. It just needs WiFi, you can connect to home WiFi no problem.

    Well, that kind of attitude is why RIM is spiralling the drain. It can't use internet unless you already *have* internet? Your home WiFi is useless to a portable computer that would get used on a train, while travelling, or even at the supermarket. Very Smart Indeed.

    Now if you're talking about it not having a 3G/4G connection I'd argue that no one really cares and the sales figures of iPad and other tablets 3G/4G versions would back up my argument 100%.

    Really? The WiFi-only iPad was available for less than a month before the 3G tablet was released. Have you the sales figures for both versions?

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  18. Re:A bad quarter by jon3k · · Score: 3, Informative

    It may be one bad quarter of financials, but they've been hemorrhaging market share since the introduction of the iPhone. The death of a platform isn't something that happens overnight.

  19. RIM's problem is that its market segment is dying by west · · Score: 2

    The trouble for RIM is that it's really competing in a different market segment - low bandwidth, secure e-mail channel phones, which really *aren't* generalized smart phones. They're designed for that market, they own that market, and, unfortunately for RIM, that market is dying.

    IBM had to completely re-invent itself not because the it ever lost its market (mainframes) - it's market became financially irrelevant. Microsoft is petrified that while it will own the PC forever, the PC itself will become irrelevant.

    As for poor RIM, they are facing a situation of dropping bandwidth costs, better batteries, increasing processor bang per milliWatt, and the fact it looks like consumers will dictate what hardware businesses will use (after all, VPs are consumers too). In other words, their market is getting eaten by a completely different market.

    This is the hardest situation for any company to be in - everything you do well is no longer relevant.

    Most companies don't get one big idea, and RIM got that. Microsoft got two (Windows and Office), maybe three with XBox. Apple? Well, Apple's somehow been blessed with five. (Apple II, Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad).

    Will RIM survive? It has some time, as its third world market will be relevant for quite a while yet. But if it wants to be anything more than a second string Android maker, it will require a second big idea, and not many companies manage that.

  20. It's because of change by jader3rd · · Score: 2

    I think where RIM and Palm missed their oportunities is because leadership thinks that consumers are more averse to change than what they really are. I can see where they get these ideas; any time Microsoft realeases a new interface it's really easy to find comments rated 5 on slashdot with people bragging about how they're not going to use the new interface, set the UI settings back to Win 95 settings and kind of wish they could roll back to Win 3.1. The people who yell and scream "anything but change" can be really loud. So in the design meetings the rules are: make something new, but don't change it too much because it will scare away our customer base. That's where competitors come in. People can accept a paradigm change when buying a new product. The value add must be greater than the "pain" of the change though. Besides, sometimes changes really do drive away customers, so it's safer to not risk a big change for the next version; and promise yourself that make the big bet changes next version.

  21. Re:A bad quarter by grub · · Score: 2


    RIM has had a few bad quarters.

    They still show profit but it's down almost 50% over last year and that's with a 40% increase in subscribers. They're slashing prices on everything to keep relevant, they can't keep cutting prices much more, it's an unsustainable situation they're in.

    Also it's interesting to note that Apple sold almost as many iPads in the quarter as RIM sold actual smartphones. While Jim & Mike tout the "we shipped 200K Playbooks" mantra, they aren't telling how many are actually in the hands of consumers. 200K shipped in a quarter where Apple sold 9.2M iPads: ~102K per day.

    I've never looked at RIM's development system (Xcode user) but from reading comments on people who use both, Xcode is light years ahead.

    Sucks to see RIM dying like this, I like that they are a Canadian outfit. But I'm not going to dump my time and money into a platform on life support just because they're headquartered here.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  22. Re:No apps? RIM's fault. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 2

    Anything more than a Hello World required their ``secure'' API, which required the applet to be signed, which required $100 for 10 signings. And the documentation is total garbage, the SDK is spread out in 100 different places on their shitty AJAX site, and the experience just sucks in general. Want to develop on Linux? NOPE. Want to run those emulators without installing shittonnes of useless shit? NOPE. Also, using the ``secure'' API is also incompatible with other phones, so if you want to do anything serious, it must be BB exclusive. It is a worthless platform to develop for. The only reason I still use them is because they are the only brand of smartphone that I know of that allows me to silently tether with just a few tricks with modem commands, all from the PC side.