Live data from Hacker News

RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

androidauthority.com

31–40 of 48 posts

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#32
post #6

> Android powered 68% of the phones that shipped that quarter. Apple’s iOS platform ran on 17%. Those two numbers add up to 85%, so setting your goal to become the “number three platform” means you’re targeting 15% of the market. That's... not true. Trying to be #3 doesn't mean you say "OK, we won't get any customers from the first two, so all we have left are that 15%" it just means you don't think you can take enou…

> Very few companies can be #1 or #2 in their industry Most industries aren't in winner-take-all markets with huge network effects.

> winner-take-all markets with huge network effects

I'm not sure what that statement means. It is not winner takes all, with your logic there is only room for 1? Mobile is a growing market, if you think there is no room for competition your betting either Apple or Android will be the only platform.

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#33
post #16

If he had said "we're aiming to be #1 in 2 years", he'd look completely out-of-touch with reality - employees deflate due to a clearly unattainable goal, investors get concerned about an unrealistic strategy, etc etc. Picking an achievable goal vs. promising an unachievable one is better for morale of everyone involved IMO.

He should have worded it better - "aiming to provide the best, trying hard for a comeback, want #1 though in this competitive market may have to settle for #2 or #3 in sales"

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#34
post #3

RIM is spending a lot of time designing an OS that will appeal to everyone. I think they are going to find its going to be used by no one. Even here in Canada they are losing core enterprise customers left and right. Without these core supporters, RIM isn't long for this world. And while I've got the conch, what kind of strategy is "We want to be #3"? I've written about RIM's bad strategy extensively on my blog, and…

"RIM is spending a lot of time designing an OS that will appeal to everyone. I think they are going to find its going to be used by no one."

Absolutely.

They should not be chasing the consumer, iOS-esque market. Some would say they've lost it, but I'd actually challenge that they never had it. Blackberry has always been an enterprise and small business solution. Historically, unless my numbers are way off, most consumers didn't own smartphones in the Blackberry Era. By and large, those who owned Blackberries were either using company-issued Blackberries, or had used company-issued Blackberries and purchased personal ones on the side. Kids and casual consumers had Motorola RAZRs and other non-smart phones.

The critical implication here is that the Blackberry did not open the floodgates of mass, consumer smartphone adoption. The iPhone did (and lately, the iPhone and Android have been).

In the years of Blackberry's dominance over the smartphone market, the smartphone market was comparatively small and concentrated. And, very important, it was use-case-specific (email). This was differentiated from the predominant mass-consumer use case (SMS). So there was a clear and safe divide between the two segments.

RIM was making a fortune in those days, but then it assumed that it needed to follow suit when the iPhone launched. And it's been all downhill from there.

Meanwhile, there are still a fair number of enterprise and small business owners and CTOs who prefer Blackberry to iOS/Android for business, and who buy Blackberry for their businesses. That number is dwindling rapidly, as you point out, the more Blackberries start to resemble half-hearted iPhones. But it's still a very lucrative niche that RIM can purpose-build for. I would bet, however, as you seem to, that RIM fails to capture it.

So what can RIM do to stay relevant in enterprise? For one thing, don't shy away from the keyboard. Embrace it. It's a point of clear differentiation, and though the cool kids will scoff at it, many business executives still prefer it for email. They might always prefer it. Second, develop more robust enterprise software. Blackberry should be able to handle spreadsheets, Powerpoint, word processing, data visualization(!!!), cross-device integration (printers, etc.), and other key enterprise solutions in a way that iPhone and Android don't.

This is not going to be easy. And it'll be especially difficult, in as much as many of the standard enterprise software solutions are offered by Microsoft, a competitor. Nobody's going to use a RIM-only spreadsheet program that doesn't integrate with Excel, for instance.

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#37
post #33
post #16

If he had said "we're aiming to be #1 in 2 years", he'd look completely out-of-touch with reality - employees deflate due to a clearly unattainable goal, investors get concerned about an unrealistic strategy, etc etc. Picking an achievable goal vs. promising an unachievable one is better for morale of everyone involved IMO.

He should have worded it better - "aiming to provide the best, trying hard for a comeback, want #1 though in this competitive market may have to settle for #2 or #3 in sales"

Or phrased it differently to take into account their target market: "We want to be #1 in the business smartphone market and provide the best integrated mobile solution for enterprise customers."

Realistic, ambitious, and entirely positive.

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#38
post #3

RIM is spending a lot of time designing an OS that will appeal to everyone. I think they are going to find its going to be used by no one. Even here in Canada they are losing core enterprise customers left and right. Without these core supporters, RIM isn't long for this world. And while I've got the conch, what kind of strategy is "We want to be #3"? I've written about RIM's bad strategy extensively on my blog, and…

what kind of strategy is "We want to be #3"?

It is not a strategy. It is a futile attempt to make it sound like they have a strategy. In most businesses, there is a natural market for #2. Somebody, somewhere, wants to be different. Somebody, somewhere, is offended by #1's size. Somebody, somewhere, finds #1's product too bland and watered-down for the masses. There will always be a Pepsi for every Coke.

The trouble with trying to be #3 is that even in saying it, you're talking about going after #1's market. And you will lose to #1 and #2 so huge that you'll be bankrupt.

The right way to be #3 in smartphones is to be #1 in education, or #1 in the 10-12 adolescent market, or #1 in the handheld gaming market, or #1 in the dweebs-who-use-Linux-on-their-phones market, or what-have-you.

This was detailed decades ago in Reis & Trout's "Marketing Warfare" book. There are four strategies:

- Defence (#1 in the market)

- Offence (#2 in the market)

- Flanking (Disrupt the market through an indirect approach)

- Guerilla (Dominate a niche market)

Nowhere in this list do you find "Lose the major market to the Offence and Defensive players."

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#39

The difference between the Blackberry my work gives me and my personal iPod touch is staggering. * Web browser is pathetic. * Pandora and Tunein apps are wonky. They stall for no reason, and turn on after you pause them. * Kindle app is a pale imitation. * Facebook app is so bad, you're better off using the mobile facebook on the web browser. The only thing I _like_ about my Blackberry is the physical keyboard and th…

Which Blackberry did your company give you? Starting with BB6 the in house browser was replaced with one based upon WebKit. If you have an earlier device you got the one made in Java that was made in house that wasn't as good.

Re: RIM CEO: We want to be the number three platform on the market

#40
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Very few companies can be #1 or #2 in their industry Most industries aren't in winner-take-all markets with huge network effects.

> winner-take-all markets with huge network effects I'm not sure what that statement means. It is not winner takes all, with your logic there is only room for 1? Mobile is a growing market, if you think there is no room for competition your betting either Apple or Android will be the only platform.

He means the network effects (in this case, the App stores) create a situation of huge dominance of one player over the others. Apple was headed to that position, but what happened was a whole new market of low-end smartphones opened up, witch Android ate up. So you can think of it as a winner-takes-all in the high end and another in the low. Of course competition should and will happen (I have hopes on FirefoxOS), but in these markets the new player usually storms in with domino network effects and pulls dominance to his side. Technology is either you're rocketing up or dying a painful death, it's rarely a healthy sustained competition.
Post reply on HN