21–30 of 54 posts
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 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…
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.
There's a far, far better account at the Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/excerpt-ho... (it's an excerpt from a book)
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 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…
I'd say RIM was superior in messaging, but lost because they kept the platform closed - and inferior in photos and music, which made them lose as a multi-use device.
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…
Government/military users of course have long been accustomed to using whatever device wins the RFP, but even there the change in how people use mobile computing devices had to be felt.
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.
Ok, we changed the URL to that from http://time.com/3916434/blackberry-storm/ .
The current URL makes you pick your city, etc, first.
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.
Ok, we changed the URL to that from http://time.com/3916434/blackberry-storm/ .
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 pa…
And, obviously, their phones should run Android.