OK, so by your figures RIM sold, I mean shipped, about 480,000, but you must have missed this:
The company also announced pre-tax charges of $54 million related to a service interruption the company experienced in the third quarter last fall (which required service credits to affected users), and a $485 million "inventory provision" made for the poor selling PlayBook tablet.
So, shipped 480,000 that required a write off of $485,000,000. Sounds pretty good to me.
Much of that is non-cash charge.
The 2nd best tablet is the Kindle Fire --- which is also sold at a loss. If Amazon loses $10-15 per Kindle Fire, RIM is losing an extra $15. Much better than Motorola --- where they put in a more costlier hidef screen, drop the price by $100, had to ask the customers to send the Xoom back for costly manual task of inserting a costly 4G radio and then send it back to the customers. And then were outsold by the Playbook.
All the 10 inch non-ipad tablets were duds. The top non-ipads were 7 inchers that were sold at a loss.
I believe your firmly in the "damning with fent praise" zone. The fact that Apple is the only tablet maker making a profit is meaningless, eh?
It is EXTREMELY meaningful that Apple is the only one making a profit off tablet sales.
All I did --- was responding to the original comment that it is somehow idiotic for RIM to not discontinue the Playbook --- when everybody else has not discontinued their non-ipad tablet offerings.
RIM was wrong in that --- carriers were stupid and now 5 years later, came to regret their initial decisions.
All it took was one. If Verizon hadn't done the Alltel acquisition, the iPhone would have easily pushed AT&T past them. It still almost did. And Verizon getting the iPhone didn't cause the predicted mass exodus either. I doubt AT&T feels disadvantaged. Those sour grapes are reserved for carriers who want to charge for beining more than a dumb pipe but are too stupid to grok the true meaning of "value". And then they wonder why their customers don't like them
Yeah, but how many of those "shipped" found a permanent home with a customer at normal pricing and thus contributed positively to RIM's bottom line?
Luckily I don't have to speculate - their financials tell us the answer: they sold nowhere near enough!
Unfortunately the other major manufacturers reside in countries where their public companies don't have to provide much details in their quarter filings.
You end up with Lenovo accusing Samsung inflating their tablets numbers --- that Samsung only sold 20,000 galaxy tabs, not 2 million units.
Without Hasbro suing Asus, you would have never known that Asus only ship 80,000 transformer prime.
So the only reason why you haven't known the exact sorry state of the other non-ipad tablet sales figures --- is that these companies are not listed in the US and not subject to quarterly SEC filings.
All it took was one. If Verizon hadn't done the Alltel acquisition, the iPhone would have easily pushed AT&T past them. It still almost did. And Verizon getting the iPhone didn't cause the predicted mass exodus either. I doubt AT&T feels disadvantaged. Those sour grapes are reserved for carriers who want to charge for beining more than a dumb pipe but are too stupid to grok the true meaning of "value". And then they wonder why their customers don't like them
And this is the classic prisoner's dilemma for the carriers. If everybody shut up, nobody goes to jail.
I know several people from RIM who I was in school with. When Apple introduced iPhone the fall of 2007, they totally dismissed it. "Apple doesn't know anything about phones.", "The iPhone is a data hog, AT&T hates it and iPhone users can't get email in New York", "It doesn't have native apps.", "It doesn't have push email.", etc.
Their technical arrogance was incredible. I warned them that current superiority means nothing and Apple would do to RIM what RIM did to Palm if they didn't smarten up. What's more is that everything they were saying I would later hear Lazaritis or other senior RIM people saying, which suggests this was a cultural problem that permeated the entire organization.
Their arguments revolved around technical supreriority; the efficiency with which the Blackberry transmits and receives email, the minimal use of data networks, etc. What they all failed to recognize, or concede when I would point it out, was that none of these things mattered to the user. Furthermore, they are all technical limitations that could be (and were) overcome by Apple as it gained experience.
But therein lay the problem. RIM was successful because their customer wasn't the end user, but rather the carriers. They started with pagers at a time when cellular networks had very little bandwidth. Their email service was hugely successful, not because it was unique, but because their mobile email solution put the least load on the networks. This mattered most to carriers, and carriers sold phones to consumers.
This relationship was ultimately RIM's undoing, and is the bane of most cell phone makers. Users buy phones from carriers, carriers buy phones from the OEMs. Every carrier wants an edge up over their competition, so they demand RIM, and others, to make a unique phone for them. This leads to a large number of phones to develop and support. As a result, RIM has multiple chipsets, multiple cameras, multiple variants of the operating system, etc. And thus the engineering, manufacturing, testing and support costs are enormous. It also makes it difficult to impart change, because the organization you must change is huge and has a lot of momentum.
All of this was fine until Apple came along and changed the game. Technologically, Apple's iPhone was innovative, for sure. However, Apple's truly disruptive innovation was to bypass the carrier and sell the phone directly to consumers. One phone for everyone, in two colors and three sizes. This business model innovation allowed Apple to devote more engineers and developers to a single phone, and pay greater attention to the consumer than the carrier. The popularity of the iPhone had carriers scrambling to get it while Apple resisted making each carrier a separate version. The only exception is where a carriers network requires a different communication chipset.
There's obviously more to the story, such as the use of a more advance operating system, etc. But the moral of the story is not to become arrogant. As Steve said, "Stay hungry, stay foolish".
RIM may do better, if they can learn to be a little hungry and foolish.
What he described sounds like the world left RIM behind.
Would you say IM, be it Twitter or WhatsApp, replace email as the new king of messages and that is where RIM has no answer. With messaging apps that work on any handset, users no longer need email and BBM, took away RIM's real selling points.
All it took was one. If Verizon hadn't done the Alltel acquisition, the iPhone would have easily pushed AT&T past them. It still almost did. And Verizon getting the iPhone didn't cause the predicted mass exodus either. I doubt AT&T feels disadvantaged. Those sour grapes are reserved for carriers who want to charge for beining more than a dumb pipe but are too stupid to grok the true meaning of "value". And then they wonder why their customers don't like them
Agreed. The telcoms are idiots. They were the hangup in the advancement of the smartphone. I still believe that the reason non-Apple tablets failed misserably the first year was because everyone but Apple tried to sell them through the cell phone companies. I think Apple purposely waited a month to release the 3G version of the first iPad because they wanted to release the iPad without ATT. I'm sure Apple sells more 3G and 4G iPad on their own than they do through ATT or Verizon. Why the hell would anyone want to buy something from a cell phone company unless you absolutely had to?
I still believe that the reason non-Apple tablets failed misserably the first year was because everyone but Apple tried to sell them through the cell phone companies.
I don't agree with this assessment. They failed, not just because they were crap,but crap that cost a lot more make than Apple's refined HW, SW and ecosystem. I think that many used the telcos to sell their tablets to hide the true cost of the device behind subsidies.
Quote:
I think Apple purposely waited a month to release the 3G version of the first iPad because they wanted to release the iPad without ATT.
That's an interesting take. There is certainly a psychological element to making sure you're product is seem in the right light. I've always thought it was because something with some cellular component simply wasn't going to be ready in time for the April 2010 launch.
Quote:
I'm sure Apple sells more 3G and 4G iPad on their own than they do through ATT or Verizon. Why the hell would anyone want to buy something from a cell phone company unless you absolutely had to?
Maybe. I would never have thought to buy an iPhone from a mobile vendor but a recent article showed they far outnumber the combined sales of Apple's online and B&M stores. That said a cell phone is different than a tablet.
The only possible chance RIM has of creating a company worth owning would be to tightly integrate with Windows 8 OS. There is no way RIM can create its own platform. If RIM jumped on board with MS, they could use their hardware brand to be a top MS OS seller. This would work out nicely for BB business customers who want compatibility with MS software, especially Word. Blackberry is in as good or better position than any MS hardware manufacturer to attract customers who want a seamless experience from phone to tablet. It is a match made in heaven. BB is a hardware manufacturer with a customer base and MS has the software and platform they need.
Am I missing something?
I think this is the only thing left for RIM to do. Tied tightly into MS's Windows 8 mobile & desktop platforms with an Apple-like curated App Store run by MS would IMO revive RIMs market share of the business industry in time. I believe that the new CEOs at RIM are thinking to the long term with this scenario in mind because it will take some time to do this and they need to placate their shareholders for now. BUT IMHO Microsoft is RIM's only Saviour. And I, like you and probably RIM, believe this too. They'll keep their Playbook out there as mind share for their brand along with those BBs they are selling until they can announce an all Windows experience that can match Apple. I don't know if they'll succeed but it's a reasonable play to make. But then again I predicted that HP was the only iOS killer able to accomplish it. We all know how that worked out.
I think this is incorrect, too. I think RiM's mistake was thinking the carriers were their customers and failing to continue innovating when they were on top. I think it comes down to be lazy in both cases. If you want to stay on top you can never be satisfied with being on top of you get soft.
Apple's move was so profound that in under 2 years they were the most profitable handset maker in the world. As established as the mobile market was that should not be possible unless there is an excessive amount of ineptitude by all involved.
I hope RiM have learned from their mistakes over the past 5 years and that BB10 is great, but I'm betting against it.
I think this is incorrect, too. I think RiM's mistake was thinking the carriers were their customers and failing to continue innovating when they were on top.
I completely disagree with you because the iphone didn't take off until the carriers subsidized the phone. So ultimately, the carriers are the customers that Apple has to work with.
I completely disagree with you because the iphone didn't take off until the carriers subsidized the phone. So ultimately, the carriers are the customers that Apple has to work with.
1) The iPhone was a hit out of the gate due to it's refined OS and HW.
2) Excluding the addition of 3G, the jumps in sales can be seen with a lowering of the entry price... which the customer has to pay.
3) Remember, it was Apple that had to beg AT&T to get rid of profit sharing, not the other way around. In markets where subsidized phones are king there was only one way to go, unfortunately.
4) We know that carriers pay Apple substantially more unit than other phones which is because iPhone CUSTOMERS are more valuable.
5) To say Apple's customer is ultimately the carrier is to suggest that the carrier's customers are buying the service plan with the phone being secondary. That is clearly not the case. The iPhone is sought after even if means a less desirable network.
I think this is the only thing left for RIM to do. Tied tightly into MS's Windows 8 mobile & desktop platforms with an Apple-like curated App Store run by MS would IMO revive RIMs market share of the business industry in time. I believe that the new CEOs at RIM are thinking to the long term with this scenario in mind because it will take some time to do this and they need to placate their shareholders for now. BUT IMHO Microsoft is RIM's only Saviour. And I, like you and probably RIM, believe this too. They'll keep their Playbook out there as mind share for their brand along with those BBs they are selling until they can announce an all Windows experience that can match Apple. I don't know if they'll succeed but it's a reasonable play to make. But then again I predicted that HP was the only iOS killer able to accomplish it. We all know how that worked out.
The main issue has been that (1) their servers can't handle each person having 2 devices (a phone and a tablet) thus the Playbook didn't have native email, (2) they bought QNX and TAT months apart (thus delaying native app development because there is no native c/c++ UI api's), (3) QNX people weren't in charge and existing RIM executives wanted to use java somehow and (4) RIM's co-founders were playing like they are in a long chess game (it may be a correct chess move to make your own video store to compete with itunes in the long run, but in the short run everybody is screaming at you for not having netflix).
RIM just fired their CTO today and put the QNX founder in charge of the whole thing.
1) The iPhone was a hit out of the gate due to it's refined OS and HW.
2) Excluding the addition of 3G, the jumps in sales can be seen with a lowering of the entry price... which the customer has to pay.
3) Remember, it was Apple that had to beg AT&T to get rid of profit sharing, not the other way around. In markets where subsidized phones are king there was only one way to go, unfortunately.
4) We know that carriers pay Apple substantially more unit than other phones which is because iPhone CUSTOMERS are more valuable.
5) To say Apple's customer is ultimately the carrier is to suggest that the carrier's customers are buying the service plan with the phone being secondary. That is clearly not the case. The iPhone is sought after even if means a less desirable network.
It was a sales dud before the subsidy --- just Apple diehard fans.
As I said it before, Steve Jobs read the prisoners dilemma well.
Comments
OK, so by your figures RIM sold, I mean shipped, about 480,000, but you must have missed this:
The company also announced pre-tax charges of $54 million related to a service interruption the company experienced in the third quarter last fall (which required service credits to affected users), and a $485 million "inventory provision" made for the poor selling PlayBook tablet.
So, shipped 480,000 that required a write off of $485,000,000. Sounds pretty good to me.
Much of that is non-cash charge.
The 2nd best tablet is the Kindle Fire --- which is also sold at a loss. If Amazon loses $10-15 per Kindle Fire, RIM is losing an extra $15. Much better than Motorola --- where they put in a more costlier hidef screen, drop the price by $100, had to ask the customers to send the Xoom back for costly manual task of inserting a costly 4G radio and then send it back to the customers. And then were outsold by the Playbook.
All the 10 inch non-ipad tablets were duds. The top non-ipads were 7 inchers that were sold at a loss.
Much of that is non-cash charge.
Meaning what, in this context? Care to elaborate?
The fact that Asus shipped 80,000 Transformer Prime and RIM shipped more than 6x that number --- tells you that RIM isn't doing that bad.
Yeah, but how many of those "shipped" found a permanent home with a customer at normal pricing and thus contributed positively to RIM's bottom line?
Luckily I don't have to speculate - their financials tell us the answer: they sold nowhere near enough!
Poorly or not --- it is basically the 3rd best selling tablets behind the ipad and the kindle fire.
I believe your firmly in the "damning with fent praise" zone. The fact that Apple is the only tablet maker making a profit is meaningless, eh?
I believe your firmly in the "damning with fent praise" zone. The fact that Apple is the only tablet maker making a profit is meaningless, eh?
It is EXTREMELY meaningful that Apple is the only one making a profit off tablet sales.
All I did --- was responding to the original comment that it is somehow idiotic for RIM to not discontinue the Playbook --- when everybody else has not discontinued their non-ipad tablet offerings.
RIM was wrong in that --- carriers were stupid and now 5 years later, came to regret their initial decisions.
All it took was one. If Verizon hadn't done the Alltel acquisition, the iPhone would have easily pushed AT&T past them. It still almost did. And Verizon getting the iPhone didn't cause the predicted mass exodus either. I doubt AT&T feels disadvantaged. Those sour grapes are reserved for carriers who want to charge for beining more than a dumb pipe but are too stupid to grok the true meaning of "value". And then they wonder why their customers don't like them
Yeah, but how many of those "shipped" found a permanent home with a customer at normal pricing and thus contributed positively to RIM's bottom line?
Luckily I don't have to speculate - their financials tell us the answer: they sold nowhere near enough!
Unfortunately the other major manufacturers reside in countries where their public companies don't have to provide much details in their quarter filings.
You end up with Lenovo accusing Samsung inflating their tablets numbers --- that Samsung only sold 20,000 galaxy tabs, not 2 million units.
Without Hasbro suing Asus, you would have never known that Asus only ship 80,000 transformer prime.
So the only reason why you haven't known the exact sorry state of the other non-ipad tablet sales figures --- is that these companies are not listed in the US and not subject to quarterly SEC filings.
All it took was one. If Verizon hadn't done the Alltel acquisition, the iPhone would have easily pushed AT&T past them. It still almost did. And Verizon getting the iPhone didn't cause the predicted mass exodus either. I doubt AT&T feels disadvantaged. Those sour grapes are reserved for carriers who want to charge for beining more than a dumb pipe but are too stupid to grok the true meaning of "value". And then they wonder why their customers don't like them
And this is the classic prisoner's dilemma for the carriers. If everybody shut up, nobody goes to jail.
I know several people from RIM who I was in school with. When Apple introduced iPhone the fall of 2007, they totally dismissed it. "Apple doesn't know anything about phones.", "The iPhone is a data hog, AT&T hates it and iPhone users can't get email in New York", "It doesn't have native apps.", "It doesn't have push email.", etc.
Their technical arrogance was incredible. I warned them that current superiority means nothing and Apple would do to RIM what RIM did to Palm if they didn't smarten up. What's more is that everything they were saying I would later hear Lazaritis or other senior RIM people saying, which suggests this was a cultural problem that permeated the entire organization.
Their arguments revolved around technical supreriority; the efficiency with which the Blackberry transmits and receives email, the minimal use of data networks, etc. What they all failed to recognize, or concede when I would point it out, was that none of these things mattered to the user. Furthermore, they are all technical limitations that could be (and were) overcome by Apple as it gained experience.
But therein lay the problem. RIM was successful because their customer wasn't the end user, but rather the carriers. They started with pagers at a time when cellular networks had very little bandwidth. Their email service was hugely successful, not because it was unique, but because their mobile email solution put the least load on the networks. This mattered most to carriers, and carriers sold phones to consumers.
This relationship was ultimately RIM's undoing, and is the bane of most cell phone makers. Users buy phones from carriers, carriers buy phones from the OEMs. Every carrier wants an edge up over their competition, so they demand RIM, and others, to make a unique phone for them. This leads to a large number of phones to develop and support. As a result, RIM has multiple chipsets, multiple cameras, multiple variants of the operating system, etc. And thus the engineering, manufacturing, testing and support costs are enormous. It also makes it difficult to impart change, because the organization you must change is huge and has a lot of momentum.
All of this was fine until Apple came along and changed the game. Technologically, Apple's iPhone was innovative, for sure. However, Apple's truly disruptive innovation was to bypass the carrier and sell the phone directly to consumers. One phone for everyone, in two colors and three sizes. This business model innovation allowed Apple to devote more engineers and developers to a single phone, and pay greater attention to the consumer than the carrier. The popularity of the iPhone had carriers scrambling to get it while Apple resisted making each carrier a separate version. The only exception is where a carriers network requires a different communication chipset.
There's obviously more to the story, such as the use of a more advance operating system, etc. But the moral of the story is not to become arrogant. As Steve said, "Stay hungry, stay foolish".
RIM may do better, if they can learn to be a little hungry and foolish.
Interesting analysis.
Interesting analysis.
What he described sounds like the world left RIM behind.
Would you say IM, be it Twitter or WhatsApp, replace email as the new king of messages and that is where RIM has no answer. With messaging apps that work on any handset, users no longer need email and BBM, took away RIM's real selling points.
All it took was one. If Verizon hadn't done the Alltel acquisition, the iPhone would have easily pushed AT&T past them. It still almost did. And Verizon getting the iPhone didn't cause the predicted mass exodus either. I doubt AT&T feels disadvantaged. Those sour grapes are reserved for carriers who want to charge for beining more than a dumb pipe but are too stupid to grok the true meaning of "value". And then they wonder why their customers don't like them
Agreed. The telcoms are idiots. They were the hangup in the advancement of the smartphone. I still believe that the reason non-Apple tablets failed misserably the first year was because everyone but Apple tried to sell them through the cell phone companies. I think Apple purposely waited a month to release the 3G version of the first iPad because they wanted to release the iPad without ATT. I'm sure Apple sells more 3G and 4G iPad on their own than they do through ATT or Verizon. Why the hell would anyone want to buy something from a cell phone company unless you absolutely had to?
I still believe that the reason non-Apple tablets failed misserably the first year was because everyone but Apple tried to sell them through the cell phone companies.
I don't agree with this assessment. They failed, not just because they were crap,but crap that cost a lot more make than Apple's refined HW, SW and ecosystem. I think that many used the telcos to sell their tablets to hide the true cost of the device behind subsidies.
I think Apple purposely waited a month to release the 3G version of the first iPad because they wanted to release the iPad without ATT.
That's an interesting take. There is certainly a psychological element to making sure you're product is seem in the right light. I've always thought it was because something with some cellular component simply wasn't going to be ready in time for the April 2010 launch.
I'm sure Apple sells more 3G and 4G iPad on their own than they do through ATT or Verizon. Why the hell would anyone want to buy something from a cell phone company unless you absolutely had to?
Maybe. I would never have thought to buy an iPhone from a mobile vendor but a recent article showed they far outnumber the combined sales of Apple's online and B&M stores. That said a cell phone is different than a tablet.
The telcoms are idiots.
RIM's fatal mistake was misreading the carriers.
I think that Steve Jobs' experience with all the palace intrigue at Apple in the early 80's help him read the situation more accurately.
The only possible chance RIM has of creating a company worth owning would be to tightly integrate with Windows 8 OS. There is no way RIM can create its own platform. If RIM jumped on board with MS, they could use their hardware brand to be a top MS OS seller. This would work out nicely for BB business customers who want compatibility with MS software, especially Word. Blackberry is in as good or better position than any MS hardware manufacturer to attract customers who want a seamless experience from phone to tablet. It is a match made in heaven. BB is a hardware manufacturer with a customer base and MS has the software and platform they need.
Am I missing something?
I think this is the only thing left for RIM to do. Tied tightly into MS's Windows 8 mobile & desktop platforms with an Apple-like curated App Store run by MS would IMO revive RIMs market share of the business industry in time. I believe that the new CEOs at RIM are thinking to the long term with this scenario in mind because it will take some time to do this and they need to placate their shareholders for now. BUT IMHO Microsoft is RIM's only Saviour. And I, like you and probably RIM, believe this too. They'll keep their Playbook out there as mind share for their brand along with those BBs they are selling until they can announce an all Windows experience that can match Apple. I don't know if they'll succeed but it's a reasonable play to make. But then again I predicted that HP was the only iOS killer able to accomplish it. We all know how that worked out.
RIM's fatal mistake was misreading the carriers.
I think this is incorrect, too. I think RiM's mistake was thinking the carriers were their customers and failing to continue innovating when they were on top. I think it comes down to be lazy in both cases. If you want to stay on top you can never be satisfied with being on top of you get soft.
Apple's move was so profound that in under 2 years they were the most profitable handset maker in the world. As established as the mobile market was that should not be possible unless there is an excessive amount of ineptitude by all involved.
I hope RiM have learned from their mistakes over the past 5 years and that BB10 is great, but I'm betting against it.
I think this is incorrect, too. I think RiM's mistake was thinking the carriers were their customers and failing to continue innovating when they were on top.
I completely disagree with you because the iphone didn't take off until the carriers subsidized the phone. So ultimately, the carriers are the customers that Apple has to work with.
I completely disagree with you because the iphone didn't take off until the carriers subsidized the phone. So ultimately, the carriers are the customers that Apple has to work with.
1) The iPhone was a hit out of the gate due to it's refined OS and HW.
2) Excluding the addition of 3G, the jumps in sales can be seen with a lowering of the entry price... which the customer has to pay.
3) Remember, it was Apple that had to beg AT&T to get rid of profit sharing, not the other way around. In markets where subsidized phones are king there was only one way to go, unfortunately.
4) We know that carriers pay Apple substantially more unit than other phones which is because iPhone CUSTOMERS are more valuable.
5) To say Apple's customer is ultimately the carrier is to suggest that the carrier's customers are buying the service plan with the phone being secondary. That is clearly not the case. The iPhone is sought after even if means a less desirable network.
I think this is the only thing left for RIM to do. Tied tightly into MS's Windows 8 mobile & desktop platforms with an Apple-like curated App Store run by MS would IMO revive RIMs market share of the business industry in time. I believe that the new CEOs at RIM are thinking to the long term with this scenario in mind because it will take some time to do this and they need to placate their shareholders for now. BUT IMHO Microsoft is RIM's only Saviour. And I, like you and probably RIM, believe this too. They'll keep their Playbook out there as mind share for their brand along with those BBs they are selling until they can announce an all Windows experience that can match Apple. I don't know if they'll succeed but it's a reasonable play to make. But then again I predicted that HP was the only iOS killer able to accomplish it. We all know how that worked out.
The main issue has been that (1) their servers can't handle each person having 2 devices (a phone and a tablet) thus the Playbook didn't have native email, (2) they bought QNX and TAT months apart (thus delaying native app development because there is no native c/c++ UI api's), (3) QNX people weren't in charge and existing RIM executives wanted to use java somehow and (4) RIM's co-founders were playing like they are in a long chess game (it may be a correct chess move to make your own video store to compete with itunes in the long run, but in the short run everybody is screaming at you for not having netflix).
RIM just fired their CTO today and put the QNX founder in charge of the whole thing.
1) The iPhone was a hit out of the gate due to it's refined OS and HW.
2) Excluding the addition of 3G, the jumps in sales can be seen with a lowering of the entry price... which the customer has to pay.
3) Remember, it was Apple that had to beg AT&T to get rid of profit sharing, not the other way around. In markets where subsidized phones are king there was only one way to go, unfortunately.
4) We know that carriers pay Apple substantially more unit than other phones which is because iPhone CUSTOMERS are more valuable.
5) To say Apple's customer is ultimately the carrier is to suggest that the carrier's customers are buying the service plan with the phone being secondary. That is clearly not the case. The iPhone is sought after even if means a less desirable network.
It was a sales dud before the subsidy --- just Apple diehard fans.
As I said it before, Steve Jobs read the prisoners dilemma well.
Jim Balsillie could be an Italian cruise ship captain the way he's abandoning that sinking ship.
People died on that ship. Your reference is not really funny.