11–20 of 76 posts
The argument that Apple has a much rosier future than RIM cannot possibly be distilled to “Apple has better marketing.” They do… but their phone also don’t make you want to tear your eyes out. (I am not under the impression that our author thinks it’s all marketing, but Business Insider sees it more or less that way.)
"Yes, Android is doing well, but neither RIM nor Apple is giving away its operating system, so it was close to inevitable that Android would eventually get the unit lead." If that is true, why doesn't the Linux desktop have the unit lead? I mean its free, installable on everything, and easily obtainable. This kinda of reasoning simply does not hold. There a loads of reasons why Android is doing well, but I don't thin…
Networks and handset manufacturers can use Android as a base and push whatever features they like without having an Apple or RIM complaining.
A major part of making it freely alterable is that the manufacturer/network can make it locked down to the end-user, even if Google doesn't mind people having root on their handset the networks hate it and the networks are the handset manufacturer's customers, not end-users.
I think that's why most comparisons to the desktop PC market break down for me: Dell and Apple's PC/Mac customers are almost always the end-user of their device (corporate sales excepted), so the driving force behind what goes into those products is very different. The network is the one paying the handset manufacturer, so phones are designed to meet the needs of the network.
Apple and RIM have done some good work to try and change this by taking ownership of the relationship with the end-user and reducing the network to a mere carrier of data. Android is pretty much the exact opposite: by being free it becomes 'free to suit the networks' and 'free to make it match network branding'.
That's not to say that Android is bad or otherwise technically lesser than BB or iOS, but I'm pretty certain that it's free availability was a huge factor in the uptake from multiple manufacturers.
"Yes, Android is doing well, but neither RIM nor Apple is giving away its operating system, so it was close to inevitable that Android would eventually get the unit lead." If that is true, why doesn't the Linux desktop have the unit lead? I mean its free, installable on everything, and easily obtainable. This kinda of reasoning simply does not hold. There a loads of reasons why Android is doing well, but I don't thin…
FWIW, when I was looking into mobile support for a start-up I'm involved with, using Blackberries was the obvious choice: business focus, we all prefer keyboards to touch screens, etc. Unfortunately, after much time looking through RIM's web site trying to figure out which of the various centralised IT systems we're setting up could easily be hooked into Blackberries for mobile access, I had gone nowhere. Their web site is full of buzzword bovine excrement, but it told me little or nothing about what sorts of protocols were supported for e-mail, calendaring, etc. They kept mentioning integration with a couple of big name tools like Exchange Server, which might be helpful for larger and more established businesses that use that kind of tool, but the fact is, we're a start-up on a budget and we don't. We're also a start-up with finite time to consider our options for infrastructure stuff like phones that don't actually make a product we can sell, and RIM's time expired before I had even scratched the surface of knowing what I needed to know.
"Yes, Android is doing well, but neither RIM nor Apple is giving away its operating system, so it was close to inevitable that Android would eventually get the unit lead." If that is true, why doesn't the Linux desktop have the unit lead? I mean its free, installable on everything, and easily obtainable. This kinda of reasoning simply does not hold. There a loads of reasons why Android is doing well, but I don't thin…
Windows vs. Mac is now Android vs. iPhone. Microsoft slacked off, and lost its place to the equally-ambitious Google. Desktop Linux never had a Google to push its adoption.
One thing the author doesn't really touch on, though, is the acquisitions that would appear to be directed right at remedying these problems. QNX has already been integrated into the Playbook, and by all appearances it's destined for BlackBerries, where hopefully it will sport things like a non-ludicrous contacts list API. The acquisition earlier this month of Swedish UI design firm TAT shows they understand that need, and could actually be a huge turnaround if TAT is actually given enough latitude within the company.
"Yes, Android is doing well, but neither RIM nor Apple is giving away its operating system, so it was close to inevitable that Android would eventually get the unit lead." If that is true, why doesn't the Linux desktop have the unit lead? I mean its free, installable on everything, and easily obtainable. This kinda of reasoning simply does not hold. There a loads of reasons why Android is doing well, but I don't thin…
I've heard that Microsoft charges somewhere in the range of $10 / unit for Windows Mobile, generally for an image that you quite literally set some flags and you have your gold copy (at least pre Windows Mobile 7, as my experience was with the CE variants). For Android the individual handset makers take on tremendous responsibility, not to mention that they often - for reasons of differentiation - decide to apply a generous layer of spakle on top. That doesn't come for free.
Android isn't and has never been free.
Remember how everyone likes to note that Apple is never afraid to obsolete itself? Killing OS 9 to start completely new in OS X… Aggressively and constantly re-imagining the iPod… Replacing the iPod (effectively) with a completely new touch-based system (iOS)… beginning the revolution from PCs to iPad-style devices (they are selling as many iPads as they are computers, now). When has Blackberry ever really dared to c…
WWDC 2002: Steve Jobs presides over the funeral for 'The Death of Mac OS 9'
The story of the Torch contacts list debacle is just astounding. How on earth could a system ship with redundant, easily-desynchronized versions of the contacts database? To me, that says the architectural problems run deep, and further, that there's no effective user experience apparatus in place to even try to deal with the usability problems that inevitably bubble up from it. One thing the author doesn't really to…
Remember how everyone likes to note that Apple is never afraid to obsolete itself? Killing OS 9 to start completely new in OS X… Aggressively and constantly re-imagining the iPod… Replacing the iPod (effectively) with a completely new touch-based system (iOS)… beginning the revolution from PCs to iPad-style devices (they are selling as many iPads as they are computers, now). When has Blackberry ever really dared to c…
The OS 9 - OS 10 example is more of an exception than the norm. In the case of OS 9 everyone(even Apple people) knew it sucked big time. They tried hard for several years to fix it's problems or try to develop a new one. There was no way for them to continue with OS 9.
RIM isn't exactly is in such a bad situation. Agreed that they need to woo developers much much more to their platform but that doesn't warrant cannibalization. They should continue innovating but should be more evolutionary.
The bad thing is that for a long time RIM sat on it's laurels without much innovation. Good thing is that they still haven't lost the market share. They already moved from their strong place of qwerty keyboards to touch screens. Much more innovation is needed. Not just copying others but having a vision of the future and then aggressively executing on that vision. They did it once before which made Blackberry such a cracking brand. Now they should do it again.