Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

marco.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 40 posts

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#21

Post by c_c_c »

megablast wrote: post #13
sverige wrote: post #3

The article makes a great point about Apple's susceptibility to being overthrown in the phone market. The watch hasn't really done well and iTunes DRM theft of people's music libraries is becoming a thing. It's ok if Apple dies like Blackberry. They've died before. This time, though, there's no Jobs to resurrect them. They might become the IBM of their generation of companies, still around, still hoarding cash, but n…

> The watch hasn't really done well Can we stop this? 6.5 Billion in it first year?

There is no conceivable metric that shows the Apple watch as a success. Apple, which routinely leaks units sold to business media, has not provided numbers for the watch. According to analysts sales dropped 90% a month after launch and 66% of watches sold were the low end model. Apple is a remarkably successful hardware company but (so far) their watch has fallen flat.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#22

Post by nickpsecurity »

His Apple concerns are merited. His Blackberry story I somewhat disagree with. Relevant quote:

"No new initiative, management change, or acquisition in 2007 could’ve saved the BlackBerry. It was too late, and the gulf was too wide."

He's saying Blackberry couldn't make it vs Apple at what Apple did. That's true. Yet, Apple wasn't doing what Blackberry did: great at battery life, enterprise integration, business-grade apps, and (relative to others) security. Apple might have knocked out half to three quarters of Blackberry's user-base with some that still care about those above features.

I kept saying Blackberry should buy a better microkernel, reinvent their image for reliability/security, catch up where they can, double down on enterprise stuff, and go from there. They started doing some of that with QNX and new Blackberry OS's. The Playbook smoked the iPad in comparisons with incredible responsiveness that's still inconsistent on iOS and Android. It's security potential at OS/component layer is still higher given it's a proper, fast microkernel.

Also, the author noted that the reason Apple was unstoppable was that they built on 10 years of Mac-related research and tooling to produce the phone. The reason that's wrong is that their strategy is exactly the method Google used to fight them: building on Linux, Java, and otherwise over a decade of proven, constantly-improved software. Blackberry could've done something very similar with their own interface and API on top of it. The OS would shift where more of it was free and open but their key benefits would be the differentiator. Their app ecosystem would differentiate similarly by leveraging those benefits.

So, I think there was an exit strategy available for RIM that they just didn't capitalize on properly. I about wish I could've been in there to help them as we really need privacy/security/reliability-focused platforms at mass-market prices. Especially smartphones. Apple is luxury with inconsistent, security results. Android is open enough that many harden it but its owner runs surveillance platforms. Blackberry still had potential to be different there. Still does although I wouldn't place any bets at this point...

Instead, we just get to watch it implode trying to be a better Apple than Apple and now a half-arsed Android. All I hope is that something good happens to QNX's as RIM's acquisition of it is suddenly a bad thing. Lots of tech disappears or withers because it's absorbed by idiotic bureaucracies in downward spirals.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#23

Post by nickpsecurity »

macspoofing wrote: post #11

In BlackBerry's defense, Nokia, Palm and Pocket PC also got sidelined by the iPhone and, to a lesser extent, Android.

A common pattern in new industries is that they have tons of competition when they're immature. Then, one or more players figure out what people really want. The first to release gets most of the market with the First Mover advantage. The rest mostly disappear with final result being maybe 2-6 competitors getting almost whole market to themselves depending on industry.

It was inevitable that most would die off.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#24

Post by IBM »

c_c_c wrote: post #21
megablast wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The watch hasn't really done well Can we stop this? 6.5 Billion in it first year?

There is no conceivable metric that shows the Apple watch as a success. Apple, which routinely leaks units sold to business media, has not provided numbers for the watch. According to analysts sales dropped 90% a month after launch and 66% of watches sold were the low end model. Apple is a remarkably successful hardware company but (so far) their watch has fallen flat.

Analysts estimate that Apple sold 12 million units of the Apple Watch in the first year. http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-watch-with-sizable-sales-c...

>Apple, which routinely leaks units sold to business media

This doesn't happen because for every other major product they disclose their sales every quarter.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#25

Post by unabst »

AI for consumers is not a logic problem, it's a data problem. Whether strong or weak, consumer AI needs to be personal. It needs access to personal data.

Certainly better logic will create the foundations of whatever system is developed, but this only needs to be solved once. Smart people will solve it, and Apple could very well buy this answer in an acquisition if no one beats them to it.

But the main problem is still with feeding the system food for thought, so to speak. Data is the fuel. Apple barely has any data.

So in this sense, Apple could never win because it doesn't have a fuel source. And consumers will have a hard time allowing Facebook or Google to sell their data to Apple. For even now, the whole premise of this data collection is that their privacy is still being protected and is mostly for ad targeting. But this fuel is their bread and butter. It's no coincidence that ads are the main revenue for both companies. And only they are in a position to leverage their data for personal AI.

Ultimately though, neither Google nor Facebook have all the important stuff, and their data is always a product of their other services, which will always make it partial. For example, Amazon may have data on your shopping habits on Amazon, but won't have data for other things.

What is needed is a personal data mining system. This system needs to be owned, and not sponsored. It needs to be open source, so there are no ulterior secrets. And it needs to be able to gather fuel from Google and Facebook and everyone you give data to. The future will be more about us tracking ourselves than corporations tracking us in secret.

Maybe call the system "Introspection". It will happen one way or another, because there is immense value in such a system. And it can happen now, because it's about the data. Logic can be updated when better systems are developed. The data just needs to be collected, and already, there are enough tools to make data about ourselves insightful.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#26

Post by capitalsigma »

ktamura wrote: post #17

>But if Google’s right, there’s no quick fix. It won’t be enough to buy Siri’s creators again or partner with Yelp for another few years. If Apple needs strong AI and big-data services in the next decade to remain competitive, they need to have already been developing that talent and those assets, in-house, extensively, for years. This is so true. It's not easy to out-accrue data over your competitors, especially if…

> What Marco is hinting at is that smartphones will increasingly become a conduit for data-intensive algorithms.

I don't think that will really threaten Apple as a hardware-first business, though. There's no reason they can't hook in to other companies' services.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#27

Post by capitalsigma »

ivansavz wrote: post #7

> these AI services could be a socially awkward fad like Google Glass or a tonedeaf annoyance like Clippy That's my general feeling about most things AI and "chat" these days. I see one or two useful applications, but no paradigm change on the horizon.

Remember what "smartphones" looked like before the iPhone: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/03/14/i-had-a-smartphone-i...

Also, I think you're underestimating how heavily machine learning plays into the services that you use every day (e.g.: spam filters, web search, movie recommendations, autocorrect on your phone,...). The best AI services are the ones that you don't even think about using.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#28

Post by ktamura »

capitalsigma wrote: post #26
ktamura wrote: post #17

>But if Google’s right, there’s no quick fix. It won’t be enough to buy Siri’s creators again or partner with Yelp for another few years. If Apple needs strong AI and big-data services in the next decade to remain competitive, they need to have already been developing that talent and those assets, in-house, extensively, for years. This is so true. It's not easy to out-accrue data over your competitors, especially if…

> What Marco is hinting at is that smartphones will increasingly become a conduit for data-intensive algorithms. I don't think that will really threaten Apple as a hardware-first business, though. There's no reason they can't hook in to other companies' services.

The question Marco was posing is different: What if hardware mattered less to the point that consumers will switch over to different hardware with better/1st class software support. If that happens, the future doesn't look too bright for Apple (or so posits Marco).

Apple might as well continue to be a first-class hardware-first business. However, if their hardware advantage is eclipsed by their data/AI disadvantage, Apple might lose a big chunk of their market share.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#29

Post by ktamura »

jerryhuang100 wrote: post #20

Apple's acquisitions in AI: Emotient (Jan 2016), VocalIQ & Perceptio (Oct 2015); hiring: 86-100+ PhD level positions [1,2]; Apple's jobs board about "machine learning" (keywords): 109 [3]. I'm not sure which part of these spells "Apple’s apparent inaction" in AI field stated in the article? [1] https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-apple-ups-hiring... [2] http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/15/09/07/apple-f…

That's one part of the piece that I disagreed with as well. That said, it's true that Apple is not a AI-first/data-first company. As a result, they have less data and data culture inside the company. While these acquisitions may change their culture incrementally, it's unlikely that their company DNA catches up to Google/Facebook's.

Culture is a powerful force in shaping products. For better and worse, Google/Facebook have the "let's use customer data to build products" DNA ingrained into their company DNA. Of course, this has pros and cons. At times, their thirst for customer data can be creepy/controversial while Apple's steadfast support for customer data privacy is assuring.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: How willing are we to exchange our own behavior and demographic data for convenience? If the answer is yes, then the future is as Marco predicts it.

Re: Avoiding BlackBerry’s fate

#30

Post by vas123 »

c_c_c wrote: post #16
vas123 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats the scary thing about Google. They've become so ubiquitous that you don't need to pay them directly for them to make money off of you. They make money off of the data that they are able to glean from your interactions on the web, your devices etc. Its strength might also be its weakness if the mass of consumers shift towards a more privacy oriented mindset.

Its strength might also be its weakness if the mass of consumers shift towards a more privacy oriented mindset I'm guessing you mean consumers will stop using the internet because otherwise your comment makes no sense. You don't have more privacy on the internet because you don't use Google services.

I believe that where there's a will there will be a way. As it stands most consumers don't care about privacy enough to make changes to their habits.
Post reply on HN