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

Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

hosted.ap.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 54 posts

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#11

Post by jusben1369 »

mfoy_ wrote: post #2

I personally hold that RIM failed because it ignored it's winning demographic (government, military, enterprise and business users) and attempted to create a device for the broader consumer market. The Storm was rushed out, as the article says, in part because RIM thought it had to compete where I don't think it had to compete. Now I'm no savvy analyst, but it seems to me like RIM got tricked into picking a fight on…

Yes RIM was right to see that the iPhone was so powerful that it was breaking down all the (up till then) norms around how corporate IT purchased hardware and software vs consumer. But they could have panicked less because they had a big install legacy base to feed off for 2 - 3 years to get a more consumer friendly version right.

It's worth noting that Apple is in the same position today as RIM only 10x or 50x larger but still vulnerable to a brand new device upending their entire company.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#12

Post by karmelapple »

mfoy_ wrote: post #2

I personally hold that RIM failed because it ignored it's winning demographic (government, military, enterprise and business users) and attempted to create a device for the broader consumer market. The Storm was rushed out, as the article says, in part because RIM thought it had to compete where I don't think it had to compete. Now I'm no savvy analyst, but it seems to me like RIM got tricked into picking a fight on…

RIM didn't pick a fight on Apple's terms or turf; instead, Apple (and Android to a lesser degree) made RIM's turf the fighting ground, and trounced it with comparatively stellar UX.

Although I can't talk about enterprise and business users, I was involved in a project targeted for government that, if released, would have made the Storm look elegant in comparison. The expectations of the government around the time of the biggest iPhone growth was that government contractors need to make hardware the same price as the iPhone, but meeting fairly stringent MIL-STD-810 standards.

Not only are devices aimed for government purchase going to be sold in smaller numbers than consumer devices, they have higher environmental standards (drop it in jet fuel and have it survive, let it sit out in a sandstorm, etc.).

Fewer sales and more requirements means higher costs, not lower, and the government was happy to simply buy five iPhones instead of buying one device that would probably cost 5X the cost of a single iPhone, and still get pretty decent lifetimes out of them.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#13

Post by joezydeco »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

That's just blog spam of the AP piece which itself is pretty short. There's really no new insights here, just "the Storm was rushed, it failed, so we gave up." That's the entire content of the original article, a single short quote.

I think this is the first time I've seen it mentioned that the Storm experienced a 100% return rate. That's mind boggling.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#14

Post by raverbashing »

devopsproject wrote: post #8
mfoy_ wrote: post #2

I personally hold that RIM failed because it ignored it's winning demographic (government, military, enterprise and business users) and attempted to create a device for the broader consumer market. The Storm was rushed out, as the article says, in part because RIM thought it had to compete where I don't think it had to compete. Now I'm no savvy analyst, but it seems to me like RIM got tricked into picking a fight on…

No, RIM failed because government, military, enterprise, and business users are also normal consumers when not working. Sure, they had great messaging, but apple and google had decent messaging with web browsers, games, and applications

Exactly this

The reason MS made sure you could Windows at home "for free" is that it would carry to the business world (where the money is).

I find it very hard to remember something that went from business to the home market successfully.

Nobody wants their clunky office app/device to be used at home, what they want is to use their consumer app/device on the office which is usually better and easier to use.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#15

Post by jfb »

RIM was a super-efficient machine for selling a story to CTOs, and that story required a device for people to carry around. That market is insignificantly small in comparison to the larger market of human beings; when Apple started selling to humans, there was one thing RIM could've done: blow their entire company apart and sell the same service without the handsets, by bringing the features that CTOs wanted from the Blackberry ecosystem to the world of BYOD.

But that amount of change would have been suicidal for a lot of management, and would require changing the entire company on a relative dime. It's hardly surprising that they tried to muddle through and got crushed.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#16

Post by hauget »

Here's how I think they failed:

1) They should have embraced a decent appstore and given developers the proper tools to not just build great apps, but also make money (same thing happened to Nokia)

2) Yes, they rushed production of the Storm. They should have NOT tried to make BB OS more iPhone/Android like and focused more on #1

BB hardware, security and power efficiency is where BB is king. I really wish RIM would disappear and merge with Windows Phone. Nokia/BB HW + WinOS/Android would be a killer combination.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#17

Post by xanderstrike »

joezydeco wrote: post #13
Someone1234 wrote: post #3

That's just blog spam of the AP piece which itself is pretty short. There's really no new insights here, just "the Storm was rushed, it failed, so we gave up." That's the entire content of the original article, a single short quote.

I think this is the first time I've seen it mentioned that the Storm experienced a 100% return rate. That's mind boggling.

It's also false. I still have two in a drawer at home. We were getting trade ins on upgrades (after 2+ years of use) of Storms while I worked at Verizon.

I don't know where they came up with that number. I'd believe 100% of users were dissatisfied, but there was obviously not a 100% return rate. That would mean every phone ever sold came back as a return.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#18

Post by [deleted] »

hauget wrote: post #16

Here's how I think they failed: 1) They should have embraced a decent appstore and given developers the proper tools to not just build great apps, but also make money (same thing happened to Nokia) 2) Yes, they rushed production of the Storm. They should have NOT tried to make BB OS more iPhone/Android like and focused more on #1 BB hardware, security and power efficiency is where BB is king. I really wish RIM would…

[deleted]

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#19

Post by shalmanese »

mfoy_ wrote: post #2

I personally hold that RIM failed because it ignored it's winning demographic (government, military, enterprise and business users) and attempted to create a device for the broader consumer market. The Storm was rushed out, as the article says, in part because RIM thought it had to compete where I don't think it had to compete. Now I'm no savvy analyst, but it seems to me like RIM got tricked into picking a fight on…

By the time the iPhone came out, they were already innovator dilemmaed to death. They could either choose to double down on their existing customers and be slowly nibbled to death or leap across the chasm to mainstream customers and fall into the pit.

The only way they could have survived was if they had started 5 years before and came up with the iPhone themselves, which wasn't going to happen. Faced with two bad paths, the path I would have liked to see them take is to accept defeat and organize the slow windup of the company over the next 20 years, returning as much cash back to the shareholders as possible. But good luck convincing a CEO to ever do that to their career.

Re: Ex-BlackBerry Co-CEO Talks Publicly

#20

Post by baldajan »

Someone1234 wrote: post #3

That's just blog spam of the AP piece which itself is pretty short. There's really no new insights here, just "the Storm was rushed, it failed, so we gave up." That's the entire content of the original article, a single short quote.

Articles have been written about short tweets, and this strikes me as incredibly similar.
Post reply on HN