I Told You RIM Was in Trouble • Hacker News Board

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#31

Post by VB6_Foreverr » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:23 PM UTC

lazyant wrote: post #30

lazyant wrote: post #21

What a trollish piece of BS, having two CEOs is not because RIM cannot decide who's in charge; this person obviously doesn't now shit about RIM.

Fine, I'm done with HN, Bye.

More downvoted than upvoted that's all, i voted you up. It is oppressive that if enough people don't like what you have to say they can remove your ability to post. Post mainly stuff that people like and you'll be able to weather some unpopularity without risking being shut up.

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#32

Post by mpg33 » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:34 PM UTC

The reality is that RIM is behind in product development by about 1-2 years arguably...They have yet to release a phone that could even be compared to the first iPhone...

I'm sure Apple has stuff in the pipeline that is much more advanced that is currently on the market.

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#33

Post by kjhgfghjm » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

VB6_Foreverr wrote: post #25

wtracy wrote: post #6

If I were at Palm now or before their acquisition by HP, I would be pushing to ease up on the consumer focus and make an all-out attack on Blackberry's home turf. RIM has completely lost focus. It has taken its eyes off of its own flagship product, and is busy trying to copy whatever anyone else is doing--but it can't really make up its mind who it wants to copy. I think WebOS could have been a tremendous hit in ente…

"ease up on the consumer focus" sounds like a recipe for failure to me.

It was for IBM, by abandoning trying to compete with DELL selling zero margin laptops to home users and sticking to selling $Bn systems to $Bn clients for $Bn they have a recipe for making $Bn

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#34

Post by ceejayoz » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 5:32 PM UTC

lazyant wrote: post #21

What a trollish piece of BS, having two CEOs is not because RIM cannot decide who's in charge; this person obviously doesn't now shit about RIM.

Care to fill us in on why multiple CEOs is a good thing for RIM?

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#35

Post by VB6_Foreverr » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 6:31 PM UTC

kjhgfghjm wrote: post #33

VB6_Foreverr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ease up on the consumer focus" sounds like a recipe for failure to me.

It was for IBM, by abandoning trying to compete with DELL selling zero margin laptops to home users and sticking to selling $Bn systems to $Bn clients for $Bn they have a recipe for making $Bn

IBM? Isn't that the company who gifted the entire 'Personal' computer market to Microsoft and Intel?

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#36

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 6:58 PM UTC

raganwald wrote: post #24

I think it's very important to understand that this idea of "no compromise" matters. And this idea that you can pick whichever one you want. Jim, you can't have it both ways. "No compromise" means that there is only one way to do it, the best way. "You can pick whichever one you want" means that there's more than one way to do it and various compromises must be made to support them all. No matter, although it's oxymo…

[deleted]

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#37

Post by lazyant » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 8:02 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #34

lazyant wrote: post #21

What a trollish piece of BS, having two CEOs is not because RIM cannot decide who's in charge; this person obviously doesn't now shit about RIM.

Care to fill us in on why multiple CEOs is a good thing for RIM?

Thanks for asking. I'm not saying having oen or two CEOs for a company is good or bad, I'm saying the post is trollish and doesn't deserve to be in HN. Let's see: it has no content, only an opinion that a company is going to do badly because something the co-CEO said and because their new product is going to have a feature (android) that gosh, is not the latest version. Also the original author mentions having two CEOs as a big deal but there's no indication of this being a problem in the past, it's like a tabloid article.

The problem is that any post talking about android, mobile, RIM, Apple, tablet is "hot" and likely to get upvoted even if it's crappy.

Since people seem to think that I am in the wrong so fine, I've been in HN since the beginning, tried to do by humble contributions but there's a lot of aggression and the quality of posts has nosedived. I guess I don't belong, so I'll exit quietly.

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#38

Post by wtracy » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 8:05 PM UTC

VB6_Foreverr wrote: post #25

wtracy wrote: post #6

If I were at Palm now or before their acquisition by HP, I would be pushing to ease up on the consumer focus and make an all-out attack on Blackberry's home turf. RIM has completely lost focus. It has taken its eyes off of its own flagship product, and is busy trying to copy whatever anyone else is doing--but it can't really make up its mind who it wants to copy. I think WebOS could have been a tremendous hit in ente…

"ease up on the consumer focus" sounds like a recipe for failure to me.

This is Palm we're talking about. I don't know about you, but when I hear "Palm", I immediately think of people in suits and ties squinting at little screens to see where their next meetings are. Palm traditionally sold products to business people.

If memory serves, before RIM moved in, Palm owned the enterprise handheld market. They could do it again if they tried.

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#39

Post by wtracy » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 8:11 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #28

If there is any reason to assume RIM not to be doomed is this. If they manage to leech off a competing ecosystem, they inherit its advantages immediately. Assuming Google won't go Microsoft on them (as in Microsoft sabotaging Digital Research), I see nothing bad coming. The Android stack, kernel excepted, is Apache-licensed (thanks, davidw). To graft Bionic (or any glibc workalike) on top of QNX should be a walk in t…

So, they have the cost of integrating their platform with Android, and ... what benefit, exactly, over just using Android?

Obviously, if you can avoid being commoditized by maintaining your own software platform, that's great. I just don't see that RIM is bringing anything to the table with their OS: http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=2263882

Re: I Told You RIM Was in Trouble

#40

Post by wtracy » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 8:16 PM UTC

sandGorgon wrote: post #22

wtracy wrote: post #6

If I were at Palm now or before their acquisition by HP, I would be pushing to ease up on the consumer focus and make an all-out attack on Blackberry's home turf. RIM has completely lost focus. It has taken its eyes off of its own flagship product, and is busy trying to copy whatever anyone else is doing--but it can't really make up its mind who it wants to copy. I think WebOS could have been a tremendous hit in ente…

I'm not sure if that will do any good - you see Blackberrys are killer on messaging not apps . The answer to the Blackberry question is more server-side than client-side. I know your point was enterprise IT, but allow me to illustrate with a consumer example. The same reasoning applies. Here in India, I see most of the hip young crowd carrying Blackberrys. Note that unlocked, grey-market iPhones are available in Indi…

I'd say you've hit on the one reason that RIM hasn't actually died yet. :-) They really seem to be coasting along on that single advantage, which does not look good for the company's long-term outlook.