I'd hardly say Apple puts out anything innovative. They do integrate and expand existing concepts well. But they don't do anything that one could really call innovative. The Mac? A user friendly version of existing GUI concepts. The various Mac laptops? Late to the portable computer game but executed reasonably well. The iPod? A user friendly "MP3" player released into an established market. The iPhone? A consumer oriented smart phone released into a more-or-less established market. Have they influenced the direction markets have gone? Sure. But only by rethinking existing concepts. I wouldn't call that innovative. They do have a solid business model and they are generally "above average" in how well their products work. Solid products? Sure. Innovative, not so much.
I can't believe all of this talk of false religions. Everyone KNOWS the universe was sneezed out of the nose of The Great Green Arkleseizure. Ye shall all fear The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief!
That's all well and good but what do you do to get rid of the heat in the fluid besides run it through a radiator with a fan on it? But wait! If we use one of these spinning heat sinks on the other end of the liquid cooling system, it will be more efficient. But then it's still more efficient to use liquid so let's immerse that one. Crap. We need another radiator. Hey! Let's use one of those spinning heat sinks...
The cooler consists of a static metal baseplate, which is connected to the CPU, GPU, or other hot object, and a finned, rotating heat exchanger that are cushioned by a thin (0.001-inch) layer of air. As the metal blades spin, centrifugal force kicks up the air and throws it up and outwards, much like an impeller, creating a cooling effect.
You had BASIC and integrated circuits? Hell, when we were doing it first we had to do it all in machine code on tubes wired together and we LIKED it! All we had were ones and zeros. One project I worked on we had to use the letters l and o because they wouldn't even give us numbers! You and your fancy programming languages. Gah, I bet you even had a console to see your pretty text. Phooey!
BTW, tell that attendant to hurry up, I need my meds too!
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to write an operating system in Java or Javascript. I'm pretty sure that writing an operating system that wouldn't run unless it had an underlying operating system wouldn't work so well. But I can't disagree that for application level programming, safe* languages are a better choice.
* safe meaning only that it's more difficult for bad programmers to break things. Of course, there's no such thing as a language that prevents bad programmers from writing bad code.
I did as you suggested and googled that event. Everything I read about the investigation into that accident pointed to a lack of maintenance of older equipment. So the fault was not with the train control system. Faulty equipment will eventually lead to an accident whether or not there's any kind of train control systems on board.
However, the system used in the Redline is not the same as the PTC system I mentioned above. The PTC system that was mandated in 2008 uses more than just the track circuits that failed on the Redline. It uses wireless transponders and network communication along with GPS technology to better coordinate information between the central office and each locomotive. With those newer systems, the train gives a lot more information about where it is and how fast its going than the older track circuits can. Along with added central office software, each train has a better idea of what's in front of it and when it needs to stop. The newer PTC systems would have had a much better chance of stopping that Redline train in time.
Nevertheless, you are right. Train travel is still far safer than with the automobile. The frequency of accidents is much, much lower. But, like airlines, the consequences of a single accident is usually much more significant. When the accidents do happen, many more people are hurt and killed than in the average automobile accident.
Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean a train can't be derailed easily. There's a lot of work that goes into maintaining the track. There's all of the equipment at grade crossings to keep the idiots from stopping on the track. The railroads are good at being proactive in avoiding accidents. As a result, you don't see them often. But the frequency of accidents doesn't have anything to do with how difficult it is to get a train to derail.
That distracted driver is going to have to be going pretty fast to do any damage to a train.
That said, distracted train operators and bus drivers is also a real problem. About a year ago, the DC area had a spate of videos showing up on YouTube giving proof positive that bus drivers send texts, talk, and even read newspapers while driving.
Almost forgot. To deal with inattentive train operators, the government mandated Positive Train Control a few years back. The practical upshot of it is that there is coordination between the central office and all locomotives on a track. If it looks like they're going too fast or going to hit, the system sends a warning to the engineer. If there's no response, the system kicks in and stops the train automatically. It won't help with idiots who park their cars on the track or other problems like that but it will help prevent most, if not all train/train collisions.
Drivers were getting into accidents long before there were any gadgets in the cars, even radios. Drivers let themselves get distracted by a lot of different things. They can even get distracted by nothing at all. Driving along in your mundane commute, it's easy to start daydreaming and not pay attention to what goes on around you.
But it's not just distracted driving that causes accidents. Overconfidence and impatience are both big factors. People who think they can drive so much faster with a cell phone in one hand and a latte in the other, just because they haven't crashed lately, cause a lot of accidents. People in too much of a hurry to drive safely cause a number of accidents as well. Let's not forget intoxication though. That too contributes significantly.
The thing is, though, that none of this is really new. These problems have existed since the invention of automobiles. And they all have a common source. The driver. Drivers cause accidents. Aside from the occasional mechanical failure allowing a car to roll down a hill on its own, cars don't get in accidents by themselves. There's (almost) always a driver behind the wheel when the car is in an accident.
I don't think it makes sense to blame the gadget for the accident. The idiot using the gadget would be distracted for some other reason if they weren't using the gadget.
At a meeting at work last week I noticed I was the ONLY one wearing a watch at all (digital or otherwise). Everyone had a smart phone, though, so I guess there's always "an app for that." While I have one, though, I'm not big on smart phones, either.
Having recently changed jobs, going from a secure facility where cell phones are not allowed to one where they are, I have noticed only a slight reduction in the number of wristwatches worn by the average employee. It went from very few people to almost no one. The more noticeable change was the number of wall clocks around the office. Most people didn't wear watches even when they didn't have a phone with them most of the time.
There just isn't really much of a need to wear a watch these days. As I sit at my desk, I have 3 clocks within my peripheral vision. I'm running two operating systems and each has a clock on the task bar that I haven't bothered to disable. The other is my phone, which doubles as my MP3 player. There are a few clocks on the walls around the office. In each of my vehicles there is a clock on the dash. In my house I have a few clocks in various rooms. Two of the appliances in my kitchen have clocks on them. I have no shortage of devices telling me what time it is. I suspect that a majority of people in developed countries could tell a very similar story. We just have no need for a dedicated portable time piece. I own two watches and never wear either one. One of them I bought to take to work where I didn't have a cell phone with me and ended up not needing it so I never wore it.
I doubt we'll see watches go away. Even though so many people no longer use them, they will never disappear. There are always a few people who actually need them. There are some who will always want to wear one just because they want to. There are many who wear them as a fashion accessory. There are some, as the article suggests, who wear them as a novelty from a bygone era. They will become a niche object. But they will always be around.
Government funded/government operated entities are not free from trouble. Sure, you eliminate a lot of one kind of trouble by eliminating the profit motive. Trouble is, there is no small amount of graft and corruption in government operations. Bureaucrats are always finding ways to bilk the system and skim off the top, diverting money away from necessary operations. And there's plenty of temptation to cut corners in order to redirect the budget to other avenues inside operations. Lavish offices for the executives anyone? You also have to deal with lawmakers always fighting to cut budgets of any project that doesn't operate in their voting district (so they can fund things in their district in order to buy votes).
Sadly, there's no perfect way to run these plants. There's going to be problems. There's going to be failures. Once in a while, those failures are going to be catastrophic. Nevertheless, we shouldn't use that as an excuse NOT to do it. We should use it as an opportunity to figure out how to do it better next time.
I certainly can't disagree with you on this main point. Even just a couple of years ago, wireless networks were akin to rocket surgery. They were simply out of the reach of mere mortals. Now they are just a couple buttons away. There are some who are talented across multiple disciplines. But everyone has limitations. Even me.;)
or know how to convert a Ford 420 engine into a 460 (I'll save you the time: it's the timing chain).
Hmmm.. All you need to convert a skip loader (a Ford 420) to an engine (Ford 460) is a timing chain? Really?
I'm guessing you meant to type 429 rather than 420. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. After all, the 0 and 9 keys are close to each other. In that case the difference between the two engines is not, as you say, the timing chain but the crankshaft that is different. The 429 uses a 3.59" stroke crankshaft while the 460 uses a 3.85" stroke, giving the engine series the "Ford 385" name. If you do just a little research you'll find that the timing chain is the same between the 429 and 460 engines. For example, the Edelbrock 7848 timing chain is designed to run on both engines (not to mention several others from Chrysler).
I might suggest that before you start correcting others you'd want to get your own facts straight. It's something to think about for next time...
You're just being a trouble maker. They know what's best for us and our climate AND weather. Just do what they say without questioning it and everything will be fine. Here, have some Kool-Aid
One last response before I leave for the holiday weekend.
Sure. They're way ahead in PBX integration. No question about that. But PBX systems are evolving as well. With the big push towards VoIP, the need to integrate with complex PBX systems is going to vanish. Within the next couple of years, any 3/4G phone will be able to integrate to the company PBX with a software update. That will still take a while but you can bet several phone manufacturers are already working on it.
So fine, RIM has a few fingers still hanging on to that rock but their grip is slipping as the rock shifts and other people start putting their hands on that rock. They'll probably hang on for a while but RIM is, for all practical purposes, already most of the way out of the game. They have what they built over the last several years but it's already starting to slip away. Some companies will hang on and force their employees to use BBs, probably for years to come rather than paying to switch over their phones to a more modern system. But as the costs of maintenance for older systems keep going up and VoIP systems get cheaper, that business case will start to fall apart. The key to sustainability in that niche is whether you are gaining enough new customers to offset the ones you are losing. Given how many companies are dropping their BBs en masse, I can't see a good future for RIM. I just don't see RIM lasting too much longer.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see that they're innovating anything and haven't for years. They may be the leader in a few select markets today but their niche is quickly being filled by other vendors. The fact that they're losing market share in a growing market is very telling. Large companies are dropping their BBs in favor of Android. These thing do not bode well for RIM. I just don't see this as a path to a large, profitable niche.
Apple survived by getting out of their niche. What's was Apple's niche 10 years ago? Good graphics on desktop machines. What was happening at that time? The PC crowd was rapidly catching up. Where's that niche now? It's a low margin commodity. Where was the iPod 10 years ago? It was just coming into existence. Apple survived by breaking out of their niche and looking at the future. What has Apple been doing in the mean time? Innovating. They built the ultralight Macbook, the iPhone, the iTouch, the iPad. That's not sitting around in a niche making huge profits on high margins. That's breaking into new markets and pushing the advancement of technology.
Why did DEC, formerly one of the largest computer companies out there with a hugely successful product line get bought out by a PC manufacturer and then completely run into the ground? Stagnation in their niche. No new products. No looking to the future. DEC had a pretty good thing going with the Alpha but company management sat on it. Compaq killed off the dying brand.
For years Sun was the go-to for *nix boxen. Again, that's great until someone else comes in and eats your lunch while you sit around and do nothing. Hell, they let Wintel boxes outrun them.
What's the common theme here? Innovation leads to growth, or at least survivability. Sitting in your niche and ignoring the world moving past you is a sure recipe for failure. Which path is RIM on?
Not so fast. I've worked at companies where the engineers were in charge. They blew through huge money doing research projects that never got more than a small fraction of a return on that investment. Spending tens of millions in R&D to generate hundreds of thousands in sales is no way to run a business. Sure, it was fun to work there. I got to play with all sorts of cool toys and try anything I wanted. It was fantastic right up until the day the company went under.
What a truly successful company does is have a balance between engineers and business people. The engineers need to be able to leverage open the funding streams by putting together a good case for a project. And the business people need to be there to make sure the company still makes money selling the things that are built.
In this case, I will agree with you. Management has already passed the point of no return. For RIM it's too late.
So why pay for a phone with very high margins when you can get a competing Android or iPhone with the same basic functionality at a fraction of the cost?
Being in a niche is great. When you're all by yourself. But RIM no longer has that niche to itself and won't be able to justify high margins on their second rate equipment. Very few people want to develop for the BB now and according to everything we can see coming from management, it's not going to get any better.
Why don't you ask Sun or DEC about how great it is to be in a niche where you have very high margins? Oh... Wait...
On the contrary, it's VITAL they compete with Android and Apple. Why? Because Android, and to a lesser extent Apple are eating into the niche that the BB currently has. Inside of a year you'll start seeing businesses abandoning RIM en masse. As Android gets better at doing what businesses want out of them there will be less and less reason to stick with a dying platform.
When your competitor moves into your niche and has other killer apps that you don't have, you're not going to last long. RIM needs to aggressively pursue new and expanding markets or they are going to whither on the vine. Not competing with Android and Apple is what's killing them.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd hardly say Apple puts out anything innovative. They do integrate and expand existing concepts well. But they don't do anything that one could really call innovative. The Mac? A user friendly version of existing GUI concepts. The various Mac laptops? Late to the portable computer game but executed reasonably well. The iPod? A user friendly "MP3" player released into an established market. The iPhone? A consumer oriented smart phone released into a more-or-less established market. Have they influenced the direction markets have gone? Sure. But only by rethinking existing concepts. I wouldn't call that innovative. They do have a solid business model and they are generally "above average" in how well their products work. Solid products? Sure. Innovative, not so much.
I can't believe all of this talk of false religions. Everyone KNOWS the universe was sneezed out of the nose of The Great Green Arkleseizure. Ye shall all fear The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief!
Yes. You realize the post I responded to specifically called out water or oil to improve efficiency, right?
Rather than spell out "oil or water" each time, I saved a few keystrokes by just typing "fluid". It's called context. Learn it. Love it. Live it.
That's all well and good but what do you do to get rid of the heat in the fluid besides run it through a radiator with a fan on it? But wait! If we use one of these spinning heat sinks on the other end of the liquid cooling system, it will be more efficient. But then it's still more efficient to use liquid so let's immerse that one. Crap. We need another radiator. Hey! Let's use one of those spinning heat sinks...
I wonder how TFA might have covered this subject...
From TFA, highlighted for your convenience...
The cooler consists of a static metal baseplate, which is connected to the CPU, GPU, or other hot object , and a finned, rotating heat exchanger that are cushioned by a thin (0.001-inch) layer of air. As the metal blades spin, centrifugal force kicks up the air and throws it up and outwards, much like an impeller, creating a cooling effect.
You had BASIC and integrated circuits? Hell, when we were doing it first we had to do it all in machine code on tubes wired together and we LIKED it! All we had were ones and zeros. One project I worked on we had to use the letters l and o because they wouldn't even give us numbers! You and your fancy programming languages. Gah, I bet you even had a console to see your pretty text. Phooey!
BTW, tell that attendant to hurry up, I need my meds too!
I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to write an operating system in Java or Javascript. I'm pretty sure that writing an operating system that wouldn't run unless it had an underlying operating system wouldn't work so well. But I can't disagree that for application level programming, safe* languages are a better choice.
* safe meaning only that it's more difficult for bad programmers to break things. Of course, there's no such thing as a language that prevents bad programmers from writing bad code.
I did as you suggested and googled that event. Everything I read about the investigation into that accident pointed to a lack of maintenance of older equipment. So the fault was not with the train control system. Faulty equipment will eventually lead to an accident whether or not there's any kind of train control systems on board.
However, the system used in the Redline is not the same as the PTC system I mentioned above. The PTC system that was mandated in 2008 uses more than just the track circuits that failed on the Redline. It uses wireless transponders and network communication along with GPS technology to better coordinate information between the central office and each locomotive. With those newer systems, the train gives a lot more information about where it is and how fast its going than the older track circuits can. Along with added central office software, each train has a better idea of what's in front of it and when it needs to stop. The newer PTC systems would have had a much better chance of stopping that Redline train in time.
Nevertheless, you are right. Train travel is still far safer than with the automobile. The frequency of accidents is much, much lower. But, like airlines, the consequences of a single accident is usually much more significant. When the accidents do happen, many more people are hurt and killed than in the average automobile accident.
Just because it doesn't happen often doesn't mean a train can't be derailed easily. There's a lot of work that goes into maintaining the track. There's all of the equipment at grade crossings to keep the idiots from stopping on the track. The railroads are good at being proactive in avoiding accidents. As a result, you don't see them often. But the frequency of accidents doesn't have anything to do with how difficult it is to get a train to derail.
That distracted driver is going to have to be going pretty fast to do any damage to a train.
That said, distracted train operators and bus drivers is also a real problem. About a year ago, the DC area had a spate of videos showing up on YouTube giving proof positive that bus drivers send texts, talk, and even read newspapers while driving.
Almost forgot. To deal with inattentive train operators, the government mandated Positive Train Control a few years back. The practical upshot of it is that there is coordination between the central office and all locomotives on a track. If it looks like they're going too fast or going to hit, the system sends a warning to the engineer. If there's no response, the system kicks in and stops the train automatically. It won't help with idiots who park their cars on the track or other problems like that but it will help prevent most, if not all train/train collisions.
It doesn't take as much as you might think to derail a train. Especially a commuter train that's going at a pretty good clip.
That's great. Until the texting idiot in his car hits your bus or train...
Drivers are the cause of the accidents.
Drivers were getting into accidents long before there were any gadgets in the cars, even radios. Drivers let themselves get distracted by a lot of different things. They can even get distracted by nothing at all. Driving along in your mundane commute, it's easy to start daydreaming and not pay attention to what goes on around you.
But it's not just distracted driving that causes accidents. Overconfidence and impatience are both big factors. People who think they can drive so much faster with a cell phone in one hand and a latte in the other, just because they haven't crashed lately, cause a lot of accidents. People in too much of a hurry to drive safely cause a number of accidents as well. Let's not forget intoxication though. That too contributes significantly.
The thing is, though, that none of this is really new. These problems have existed since the invention of automobiles. And they all have a common source. The driver. Drivers cause accidents. Aside from the occasional mechanical failure allowing a car to roll down a hill on its own, cars don't get in accidents by themselves. There's (almost) always a driver behind the wheel when the car is in an accident.
I don't think it makes sense to blame the gadget for the accident. The idiot using the gadget would be distracted for some other reason if they weren't using the gadget.
At a meeting at work last week I noticed I was the ONLY one wearing a watch at all (digital or otherwise). Everyone had a smart phone, though, so I guess there's always "an app for that." While I have one, though, I'm not big on smart phones, either.
Having recently changed jobs, going from a secure facility where cell phones are not allowed to one where they are, I have noticed only a slight reduction in the number of wristwatches worn by the average employee. It went from very few people to almost no one. The more noticeable change was the number of wall clocks around the office. Most people didn't wear watches even when they didn't have a phone with them most of the time.
There just isn't really much of a need to wear a watch these days. As I sit at my desk, I have 3 clocks within my peripheral vision. I'm running two operating systems and each has a clock on the task bar that I haven't bothered to disable. The other is my phone, which doubles as my MP3 player. There are a few clocks on the walls around the office. In each of my vehicles there is a clock on the dash. In my house I have a few clocks in various rooms. Two of the appliances in my kitchen have clocks on them. I have no shortage of devices telling me what time it is. I suspect that a majority of people in developed countries could tell a very similar story. We just have no need for a dedicated portable time piece. I own two watches and never wear either one. One of them I bought to take to work where I didn't have a cell phone with me and ended up not needing it so I never wore it.
I doubt we'll see watches go away. Even though so many people no longer use them, they will never disappear. There are always a few people who actually need them. There are some who will always want to wear one just because they want to. There are many who wear them as a fashion accessory. There are some, as the article suggests, who wear them as a novelty from a bygone era. They will become a niche object. But they will always be around.
Government funded/government operated entities are not free from trouble. Sure, you eliminate a lot of one kind of trouble by eliminating the profit motive. Trouble is, there is no small amount of graft and corruption in government operations. Bureaucrats are always finding ways to bilk the system and skim off the top, diverting money away from necessary operations. And there's plenty of temptation to cut corners in order to redirect the budget to other avenues inside operations. Lavish offices for the executives anyone? You also have to deal with lawmakers always fighting to cut budgets of any project that doesn't operate in their voting district (so they can fund things in their district in order to buy votes).
Sadly, there's no perfect way to run these plants. There's going to be problems. There's going to be failures. Once in a while, those failures are going to be catastrophic. Nevertheless, we shouldn't use that as an excuse NOT to do it. We should use it as an opportunity to figure out how to do it better next time.
I certainly can't disagree with you on this main point. Even just a couple of years ago, wireless networks were akin to rocket surgery. They were simply out of the reach of mere mortals. Now they are just a couple buttons away. There are some who are talented across multiple disciplines. But everyone has limitations. Even me. ;)
or know how to convert a Ford 420 engine into a 460 (I'll save you the time: it's the timing chain).
Hmmm.. All you need to convert a skip loader (a Ford 420) to an engine (Ford 460) is a timing chain? Really?
I'm guessing you meant to type 429 rather than 420. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here. After all, the 0 and 9 keys are close to each other. In that case the difference between the two engines is not, as you say, the timing chain but the crankshaft that is different. The 429 uses a 3.59" stroke crankshaft while the 460 uses a 3.85" stroke, giving the engine series the "Ford 385" name. If you do just a little research you'll find that the timing chain is the same between the 429 and 460 engines. For example, the Edelbrock 7848 timing chain is designed to run on both engines (not to mention several others from Chrysler).
I might suggest that before you start correcting others you'd want to get your own facts straight. It's something to think about for next time...
You're just being a trouble maker. They know what's best for us and our climate AND weather. Just do what they say without questioning it and everything will be fine. Here, have some Kool-Aid
One last response before I leave for the holiday weekend.
Sure. They're way ahead in PBX integration. No question about that. But PBX systems are evolving as well. With the big push towards VoIP, the need to integrate with complex PBX systems is going to vanish. Within the next couple of years, any 3/4G phone will be able to integrate to the company PBX with a software update. That will still take a while but you can bet several phone manufacturers are already working on it.
So fine, RIM has a few fingers still hanging on to that rock but their grip is slipping as the rock shifts and other people start putting their hands on that rock. They'll probably hang on for a while but RIM is, for all practical purposes, already most of the way out of the game. They have what they built over the last several years but it's already starting to slip away. Some companies will hang on and force their employees to use BBs, probably for years to come rather than paying to switch over their phones to a more modern system. But as the costs of maintenance for older systems keep going up and VoIP systems get cheaper, that business case will start to fall apart. The key to sustainability in that niche is whether you are gaining enough new customers to offset the ones you are losing. Given how many companies are dropping their BBs en masse, I can't see a good future for RIM. I just don't see RIM lasting too much longer.
Have a great holiday weekend.
We'll have to agree to disagree then. I don't see that they're innovating anything and haven't for years. They may be the leader in a few select markets today but their niche is quickly being filled by other vendors. The fact that they're losing market share in a growing market is very telling. Large companies are dropping their BBs in favor of Android. These thing do not bode well for RIM. I just don't see this as a path to a large, profitable niche.
Apple survived by getting out of their niche. What's was Apple's niche 10 years ago? Good graphics on desktop machines. What was happening at that time? The PC crowd was rapidly catching up. Where's that niche now? It's a low margin commodity. Where was the iPod 10 years ago? It was just coming into existence. Apple survived by breaking out of their niche and looking at the future. What has Apple been doing in the mean time? Innovating. They built the ultralight Macbook, the iPhone, the iTouch, the iPad. That's not sitting around in a niche making huge profits on high margins. That's breaking into new markets and pushing the advancement of technology.
Why did DEC, formerly one of the largest computer companies out there with a hugely successful product line get bought out by a PC manufacturer and then completely run into the ground? Stagnation in their niche. No new products. No looking to the future. DEC had a pretty good thing going with the Alpha but company management sat on it. Compaq killed off the dying brand.
For years Sun was the go-to for *nix boxen. Again, that's great until someone else comes in and eats your lunch while you sit around and do nothing. Hell, they let Wintel boxes outrun them.
What's the common theme here? Innovation leads to growth, or at least survivability. Sitting in your niche and ignoring the world moving past you is a sure recipe for failure. Which path is RIM on?
Not so fast. I've worked at companies where the engineers were in charge. They blew through huge money doing research projects that never got more than a small fraction of a return on that investment. Spending tens of millions in R&D to generate hundreds of thousands in sales is no way to run a business. Sure, it was fun to work there. I got to play with all sorts of cool toys and try anything I wanted. It was fantastic right up until the day the company went under.
What a truly successful company does is have a balance between engineers and business people. The engineers need to be able to leverage open the funding streams by putting together a good case for a project. And the business people need to be there to make sure the company still makes money selling the things that are built.
In this case, I will agree with you. Management has already passed the point of no return. For RIM it's too late.
So why pay for a phone with very high margins when you can get a competing Android or iPhone with the same basic functionality at a fraction of the cost?
Being in a niche is great. When you're all by yourself. But RIM no longer has that niche to itself and won't be able to justify high margins on their second rate equipment. Very few people want to develop for the BB now and according to everything we can see coming from management, it's not going to get any better.
Why don't you ask Sun or DEC about how great it is to be in a niche where you have very high margins? Oh... Wait...
On the contrary, it's VITAL they compete with Android and Apple. Why? Because Android, and to a lesser extent Apple are eating into the niche that the BB currently has. Inside of a year you'll start seeing businesses abandoning RIM en masse. As Android gets better at doing what businesses want out of them there will be less and less reason to stick with a dying platform.
When your competitor moves into your niche and has other killer apps that you don't have, you're not going to last long. RIM needs to aggressively pursue new and expanding markets or they are going to whither on the vine. Not competing with Android and Apple is what's killing them.