or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM announces Q4 revenues miss, top executives leaving company
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM announces Q4 revenues miss, top executives leaving company - Page 2

post #41 of 95
I find a little sad. RIM was a good company with a good product for many years. They just didn't see the train and didn't get of the tract they were on.
post #42 of 95
Based on what's out there right now (RIM, HP, Acer, Asus, etc.) even sadder RIM is the norm rather than the exception. Executives without a clue, copy someone else, punch clock, fire lower level employees and coast towards retirement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fast Fred 1 View Post

I find a little sad. RIM was a good company with a good product for many years. They just didn't see the train and didn't get of the tract they were on.
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
Originally Posted by Granmastak: Labor unions managed to kill manufacturing a long time ago with their unreasonable demands. Now the people they were trying to protect, are out of a job.
Reply
post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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.

I don't understand your conclusion. "Could be a lot worse" does not equate to "We're not doing poorly."

PS: I wonder if there is a term for when someone compares two things in an unsound way in order to make one thing look better in comparison. This is certainly common with children who are very quick to rat each other out it means they will get in less trouble.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #44 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't understand your conclusion. "Could be a lot worse" does not equate to "We're not doing poorly."

PS: I wonder if there is a term for when someone compares two things in an unsound way in order to make one thing look better in comparison. This is certainly common with children who are very quick to rat each other out it means they will get in less trouble.

Poorly or not --- it is basically the 3rd best selling tablets behind the ipad and the kindle fire.
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Poorly or not --- it is basically the 3rd best selling tablets behind the ipad and the kindle fire.

Isn't BB the 3rd most popular smartphone platform after iOS and Android? Does that make it a success when they have a negative profit for the quarter, have a severely lowered ARP, that didn't help them to sell as many unit YoY in a rapidly growing smartphone market? I certainly don't think so.

And what's the 2nd best selling PMP? The Zune? Apple has tied up the PMP and tablet market so well that people colloquially refer to them as iPod and iPad markets.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

RIM is the sinking of the Lusitania and Titanic combined. I feel very bad for the employees who are definitely going to suffer the most due to company mismanagement and unclear vision of the future. \

If it weren't for Android, RIM would never have fallen so far and fast as it did. I don't think Apple is to blame for this debacle. It's those dirt cheap Android smartphones that did RIM in.

I agree that it was primary Android that was gunning for RIM. Before iPhone was demonstrated, Android prototypes all looked like Blackberries, so RIM's days were numbered as a sole-source supplier of overpriced e-mail readers. That being said, large entities will continue to buy them in quantity, but their value per unit is dramatically lower than it used to be.
post #47 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Isn't BB the 3rd most popular smartphone platform after iOS and Android? Does that make it a success when they have a negative profit for the quarter, have a severely lowered ARP, that didn't help them to sell as many unit YoY in a rapidly growing smartphone market? I certainly don't think so.

And what's the 2nd best selling PMP? The Zune? Apple has tied up the PMP and tablet market so well that people colloquially refer to them as iPod and iPad markets.

Success is relative. They have an operating profit before special charges relating to layoffs.

And I was only responding to the original comment that RIM not killing the Playbook is a sign of anything --- when everybody else is not killing their tablet business as well (and RIM outsells these companies on tablet sales).
post #48 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Now that slogan is gonna leave a bad taste in RIM's employees mouths!
/
/
/

Too Funny!!!!!
post #49 of 95
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.
post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgfsteed View Post

However, Apple's truly disruptive innovation was to bypass the carrier and sell the phone directly to consumers.

Then carriers came to regret it.

The whole issue came down to RIM thought the carriers were logical and not stupid --- they thought that carriers would react like Verizon initially. RIM was wrong in that --- carriers were stupid and now 5 years later, came to regret their initial decisions.
post #51 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

RIM is the sinking of the Lusitania and Titanic combined. I feel very bad for the employees who are definitely going to suffer the most due to company mismanagement and unclear vision of the future. \

If it weren't for Android, RIM would never have fallen so far and fast as it did. I don't think Apple is to blame for this debacle. It's those dirt cheap Android smartphones that did RIM in.

Is Apple the iceberg, the torpedo or both?

Android has hurt them in the low-end for sure but in all the big companies I work in (consulting) it is iPhones everywhere that are displacing high-end BBs.
post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Booga View Post

I agree that it was primary Android that was gunning for RIM. Before iPhone was demonstrated, Android prototypes all looked like Blackberries, so RIM's days were numbered as a sole-source supplier of overpriced e-mail readers. That being said, large entities will continue to buy them in quantity, but their value per unit is dramatically lower than it used to be.

I can't swear to it but I believe Android's origin was as a response to WinCE/WinMob which threatened to lock Google out of an MS dominated world. It had some passing similarities to Palm and RIM but MS was the target of fear for Google.

Funny how it all turned out, eh?
post #53 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Poorly or not --- it is basically the 3rd best selling tablets behind the ipad and the kindle fire.

AT A LOSS!!

Can't make that up in volume...
post #54 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Then carriers came to regret it.

The whole issue came down to RIM thought the carriers were logical and not stupid --- they thought that carriers would react like Verizon initially. RIM was wrong in that --- carriers were stupid and now 5 years later, came to regret their initial decisions.

Will it come to the same place in my country, where electronics chains and cash-and-carry phone hawkers rule the market? And carriers are left to sale contracts and packages, their phone shops play only bit parts?
post #55 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Their new slogan is...
RiM: We're circling it!

In the Southern Hemisphere, will they circle it in the oppose direction?

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Reply
post #56 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvh007 View Post

Its interesting how RIM dominated then fell off. This gets repeated so often...The Sony Walkman etc. I hope the same thing does not happen to Apple, one bad sign is that they waited to long to get into the TV market.

Maybe Apple has changed its mind about entering TV market, seeing Philips and Sharp just drop dead, Sony Bravia coughing up blood and there is no gold at the end of HD rainbow. We know now the TV land is not the Promised Land like PC and smartphone were.

The reason Tim paid out iDividens is probably Apple TV is going to be cactus if it comes out now, way too late to make any money. So the dividends is to buy Apple some breathing room while they are looking for the new market that TV is no longer it.
post #57 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post

AT A LOSS!!

Can't make that up in volume...

So was the number 2 tablet, the Kindle Fire.
post #58 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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.

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.
post #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

In the Southern Hemisphere, will they circle it in the oppose direction?

I know you're making a joke, but I think MythBusters busted that common belief.

edit:
Quote:
Okay. The first thing you should know is that the Coriolis Effect (the phenomenon that makes storms spin in opposite directions in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres) is NOT strong enough to have an effect in hand basins and bath tubs. The direction water spins in hand basins, bathtubs and sinks is determined by how big the plug hole is, and the shape and depth of the basin/tub/sink. Mythbusters proves this in one episode where they show footage of water draining in different parts all over the world and the water can spin anti-clockwise AND clock-wise in the Northern Hemisphere and anti-clockwise and clock-wise in the Southern Hemisphere.

SECONDLY (and this is the part where I actually answer your question) I've noticed that Australian toilets are designed differently to American toilets. When I went to America I noticed that American toilets have a very small outlet and are much shallower than Australian toilets, with water filling up about half the depth of the toilet bowl. So, because of this, water DOES spiral when you flush. It also seems to take a lot longer to fully flush. I had NEVER seen this design before, and finally knew why Americans always ask the question you have just asked.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #60 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach View Post

And each of the execs will get a PlayBook as farewell gift.

A sculpture of pair of thumbs is the obvious farewell gift I'd have thought.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I know you're making a joke, but I think MythBusters busted that common belief.

edit:

Of course it is true for air mass rotations, which is where I suspect the water story came from originally.
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JVP View Post

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.
post #63 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Much of that is non-cash charge.

Meaning what, in this context? Care to elaborate?
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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!
post #65 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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?
post #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

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.
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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
post #68 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

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.
post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

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.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgfsteed View Post

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.
post #71 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

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.
post #72 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post

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?
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

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 real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #74 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

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.
post #75 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ash471 View Post

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.
post #76 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.
post #78 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

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.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #79 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ljocampo View Post

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.
post #80 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM announces Q4 revenues miss, top executives leaving company