31–40 of 53 posts
Their problem is they make phones and no one wants phones, they want computers.
Their problem is they make phones and no one wants phones, they want computers.
That was exactly Nokia's problem, they tried to cram whole computer in a phone. They even called their smartphones 'multimedia computers' and primarily targeted them for geeks. They never had a real idea why smartphones are useful. That strategy led them to huge amounts of code bloat and features without usability and made the development of updates horribly slow.
I am not fully versed in the notion of innovative disruption, but it seems pretty obvious that a Clay Christensen-esque Innovator's Dilemma disruption is what's going on here: somebody had a decent product, is first to market, but doesn't have a clear enough vision to see how to stay on top and stay innovative and gets blindsided by unexpected (read Apple + Android) competitors. I wonder how closely the non-cliff not…
I'm a little sad for RIM and would like to support a Canadian company but in the end they just aren't able to adapt. I don't think they ever will unless there is a management change. Seriously a tablet that can't receive email Nativity? That's what they were know for yet they can't use there strength right. QNX is a decent system, open it up, let others use it, in the end they won't be able to stop the tsunami of app…
I don't think I've ever seen a company cut employees en masse like this truly help a company come from behind to regain their former status. It sends so many wrong messages. If those 10% of your company aren't worthwhile, why were they hired and employed in the first place? If management can afford to cut staff by 10%, the C and VP level management should be fired. Start by cutting at the top, not at the bottom. Cutt…
They were hiring anyone and everyone they could for a while there, so I think this is a good move. Keep the best employees are double down on them.
I am not fully versed in the notion of innovative disruption, but it seems pretty obvious that a Clay Christensen-esque Innovator's Dilemma disruption is what's going on here: somebody had a decent product, is first to market, but doesn't have a clear enough vision to see how to stay on top and stay innovative and gets blindsided by unexpected (read Apple + Android) competitors. I wonder how closely the non-cliff not…
The term is 'disruptive innovation'. It's an often misunderstood concept - the key point is that not all innovation is disruptive. The defining feature of disruptive innovations is that they are initially worse than the technology they displace, but as they are significantly cheaper they allow the tech to reach new markets. Since the iPhone was a high-end product, it can't be called disruptive.
Do you have a suggestion of what it should be called, then? Sounds disruptive to me.
I'm not sure if it's related to their troubles, but their corporate structure has always seemed odd to me. Starting with the whole "co-CEO" role, which seems like an experiment that hasn't quite panned out.
To me, they are both victims of a paradigm shift. The only thing that saddens me is that their employees will pay the price for their lack of vision.
as a former multi-year employee of a formerly glorious company that fell victim of its self-denial to recognize a paradigm shift i can say that employees can blame only themselves.
QNX ? What for ? I think RIM should learn from Nokia's mistake and switch to Android soon as possible. This is the only way to survive for them.
Wow, CEO of the year for you sir. If things would be as easy as that, flip to Android and compete with the rest... to the bottom. How would you differentiate yourself vs HTC, Motorola, etc? What if the Chinese android handsets comes up with cheap mobile phones similar to BB hardware interface (the golden keyboard, you know that BB users love BB because of the keyboard). Switching to Android makes RIM an average compa…