RIM came from the pager market. And all their phones keep that idea of being interactive pagers, which the company built. End of story.
As many companies RIM became blind. Innovation was not taking place. Innovation means trying out new ideas and see where they lead to. That was a no go at the company. Instead enhance or broaden the market what they always have produced was the companies goal: Interactive Pagers.
Blackberries always have been glorified interactive pagers. Not more, not less.
Similar in the banking industry that used a ton of Sun's Sparc machines. If you were talking roughly a decade ago to IT decision makers about alternatives or enhancements/cost reduction and the potential future of Sun the usual reply was: "All of wall street is buying Sun!". At the time my answer was "Well, all of wall street is broke." Well, Sun is history...
There will always be successful companies that go blind and don't see the big picture anymore beside their own small realm.
Regardless how successful your company is, the party will be over if you go blind. Same fate that once will happen to Apple, if they lose their way and becoming like old business not driven by innovation that might make their own top-sellers redundant.
The theory is they were trying to create what they have now. A bunch of cheap phones that generate revenue by selling user data.
'The theory', or 'your theory'? What would the mobile landscape look like right now if Android didn't exist? What guarantees are there that Google would've been a major player in that landscape?
'The theory', or 'your theory'? What would the mobile landscape look like right now if Android didn't exist? What guarantees are there that Google would've been a major player in that landscape?
That's their business model, charge next to nothing, sell user data and ads. They're an ad company. As far as what the landscape would look like? They'd be trying to make apps or do better mobile search or something. Would they be successful? I'm not sure. I think what the tech world will learn from this is, do exactly what Apple is doing. And the faster you copy them the more success you will have.
'The theory', or 'your theory'? What would the mobile landscape look like right now if Android didn't exist? What guarantees are there that Google would've been a major player in that landscape?
That's their business model, charge next to nothing, sell user data and ads. They're an ad company. As far as what the landscape would look like? They'd be trying to make apps or do better mobile search or something. Would they be successful? I'm not sure. I think what the tech world will learn from this is, do exactly what Apple is doing. And the faster you copy them the more success you will have.
Again, what guarantee is there that those apps would be allowed onto the app store? Google could have very easily found itself shut out from the mobile world, and took steps to ensure that didn't happen.
Unfortunately I took the bait and read your articles… They don't make the point you were trying to make. Shame on me. You're getting a little delusional gator guy.
Then you didn't read them very carefully if you did at all.
The DED takeaway from the first link: ...the only remaining competitor who could be thrown at Apple’s iPhone would have to be larger than life and come riding in from the heavens on a mysterious dark horse.
That leaves the fantastically valued Google as the only candidate for taking on the iPhone... The main problem facing pundits chanting their hope that the GPhone will attack Apple’s position is that Google has no interest in taking Apple’s iPhone down. Google is working to broaden its search services into mobiles, but the iPhone is already a Google ally, prominently featuring Google Maps integration and Google search integration in its browser as the default search option."
From the second DED blog article link: "In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who’s who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger... The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel...
In October 2007, I (DED) printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google’s services were already on the iPhone."
"Google wasn’t getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop..."
And from the third DED article. By now the third version of the iPhone (3GS) was already being sold.: "I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers."
Delusional my butt. DED supported the points I made just as I said he did.
Once iPhone sales started to heat up, Blackberry users quickly shifted from business professionals to teenagers because of BBM and cheap phone plans. RIM failed to see this as another nail in the coffin even though anyone with even a limited outside view could see it.
Apple had no foothold in the luxury jewellery/accessory market either, and yet…there they are.
Driverless cars are not an "if", but a "when", at this point. My gut says they'll be commonplace by 2040…but I'm not an industry observer.
I would be VERY surprised if Apple weren't actively researching this technology and figuring out how to make it work.
Drone mail delivery, I don't think will pan out. Drones being gun targets isn't really a problem in technologically advanced societies outside of the US, as guns are regulated, but I don't think it can be as efficient as it needs to be.
There are driverless bigrigs ready to be deployed on the nations highways now. It's such an immediate threat that the Teamsters are already battling it.
Driverless cars will happen in the not so distant future.
Driverless cars are here now. They just don't call themselves that. Lots of high end brands have technology that lets you follow the car in front at a distance you set. The car also stays between the lines on the road. A friend of mine has a Lexus Suv and it does this. He says he could read a book if he wanted. It's designed for driving on a freeway rather than in the city.
Lets be realistic, there was nothing Blackberry or any other company could have done about combatting Apple.
Well they can copy and copy shamelessly. Don't worry if normal people (juries, for example) realize it's a copy. The anti-Apple trolls will defend them on the Internet using rhetoric and flawgic. The trolls have their anti-Apple worldview to defend.
Again, what guarantee is there that those apps would be allowed onto the app store? Google could have very easily found itself shut out from the mobile world, and took steps to ensure that didn't happen.
There's no guarantees in life, and I'm sure Google thought they were doing themselves a favor with Android. The reality is that Android has cost them tens of billions for only a trickle of revenue while damaging their relationship with Apple, a major partner who controls access to hundreds of millions of the most valuable customers. It also lost them a huge chunk of the mobile maps market which they otherwise would have had nearly 100% market share in. From the point of view of a Google shareholder, Android's about as screwed up as a strategy can be, unless of course you're the kind of shareholder who hates money and just wants to own some market share.
@radarthekat. That is the most on point comment I've read in the 5 years browsing this blog. So much so that I signed up just to say that. Brilliant observation.
There's a lot wrong with this post, lets dissect it shall we?
I think you mean ‘There are three points I disagree with in this post’, don’t you ?
I won’t ‘dissect' your post. If it’s OK with you I’ll just reply to it.
Quote:
Obviously driverless cars limited to 45mph won't sell, but where do you get the notion that they will be slow?
You’re probably writing from the US. In Europe there is zero chance that any driverless vehicle will be allowed over 30mph without a change in the law. Not in the next 20 years. It will require a major change in most country’s legislation even to allow these cars on roads, and neither public nor safety groups nor politicians want driverless vehicles until all the legal and technological problem have been sorted out – which I think you have to agree is many years away. The compromise, maybe for the first five years or so, will be on speed.
Quote:
As for your taxi nonsense, you realize taxis would be cheaper, roomier, and safer without the driver, right?
This point wasn’t made too seriously, but anyone who thinks a vehicle is safer without a qualified driver is obviously a blazing champion for driverless vehicles and has made his mind up already.
Quote:
This nonsense appears far too often.
Yes, possibly because this ’nonsense’ is the single largest concern of driverless vehicles. Please stop and think about this. Who is responsible for the vehicle when it is involved in an accident, even if the owner believed s/he was not at fault ? The owner driver will always blame the manufacturer (once you get into the vehicle you surrender your safety to the hardware of the manufacturer - it’s doing the driving) who in turn will blame the software. It’s an insurance nightmare that no company would touch, unless some form of agreement like the Warsaw/Montreal convention for airlines is created.
I’m not saying driverless cars will never happen. My point is that people with fixed opinions seem blind to the legal and practical problems that such vehicles pose.
That's their business model, charge next to nothing, sell user data and ads. They're an ad company. As far as what the landscape would look like? They'd be trying to make apps or do better mobile search or something. Would they be successful? I'm not sure.
They are doing exactly that, and they are more successful at it than with Android, last I heard.
Google make more money off iOS than off their entire Android platform.
Thanks for the link! As I read it, the article says that fully autonomous vehicles will hit the mainstream (from the high end, obviously) between 2025 and 2030. Fits in perfectly with my assertion that they will be *commonplace* by 2040.
You’re probably writing from the US. In Europe there is zero chance that any driverless vehicle will be allowed over 30mph without a change in the law. Not in the next 20 years. It will require a major change in most country’s legislation even to allow these cars on roads, and neither public nor safety groups nor politicians want driverless vehicles until all the legal and technological problem have been sorted out – which I think you have to agree is many years away. The compromise, maybe for the first five years or so, will be on speed.
There are plenty of test projects in Europe, and the interest in autonomous vehicles here is high. Most EU states have no legislature regarding autonomous vehicles, at all — their legal framework is the Vienna Convention, which at the moment states that a driver must be in control of the vehicle at all times.
This, however, is not as insurmountable as you make it sound.
Twenty years sounds just about right for such a fundamental societal change. They tend to take about twenty years to go from conception and lobbying to legislature and mainstream.
They are doing exactly that, and they are more successful at it than with Android, last I heard.
Google make more money off iOS than off their entire Android platform.
Tell that to dasanman, he was trying to make a point that Google needed an OS in case Apple/Microsoft locked them out. And they'd be in danger of being unsuccessful. I said there's no way of knowing what would have happened in that alternate universe. You think they would have been, maybe that interests him somehow?
Comments
RIM came from the pager market. And all their phones keep that idea of being interactive pagers, which the company built. End of story.
As many companies RIM became blind. Innovation was not taking place. Innovation means trying out new ideas and see where they lead to. That was a no go at the company. Instead enhance or broaden the market what they always have produced was the companies goal: Interactive Pagers.
Blackberries always have been glorified interactive pagers. Not more, not less.
Similar in the banking industry that used a ton of Sun's Sparc machines. If you were talking roughly a decade ago to IT decision makers about alternatives or enhancements/cost reduction and the potential future of Sun the usual reply was: "All of wall street is buying Sun!". At the time my answer was "Well, all of wall street is broke." Well, Sun is history...
There will always be successful companies that go blind and don't see the big picture anymore beside their own small realm.
Regardless how successful your company is, the party will be over if you go blind. Same fate that once will happen to Apple, if they lose their way and becoming like old business not driven by innovation that might make their own top-sellers redundant.
'The theory', or 'your theory'? What would the mobile landscape look like right now if Android didn't exist? What guarantees are there that Google would've been a major player in that landscape?
That's their business model, charge next to nothing, sell user data and ads. They're an ad company. As far as what the landscape would look like? They'd be trying to make apps or do better mobile search or something. Would they be successful? I'm not sure. I think what the tech world will learn from this is, do exactly what Apple is doing. And the faster you copy them the more success you will have.
Again, what guarantee is there that those apps would be allowed onto the app store? Google could have very easily found itself shut out from the mobile world, and took steps to ensure that didn't happen.
The DED takeaway from the first link:
...the only remaining competitor who could be thrown at Apple’s iPhone would have to be larger than life and come riding in from the heavens on a mysterious dark horse.
That leaves the fantastically valued Google as the only candidate for taking on the iPhone... The main problem facing pundits chanting their hope that the GPhone will attack Apple’s position is that Google has no interest in taking Apple’s iPhone down. Google is working to broaden its search services into mobiles, but the iPhone is already a Google ally, prominently featuring Google Maps integration and Google search integration in its browser as the default search option."
From the second DED blog article link:
"In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who’s who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger... The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel...
In October 2007, I (DED) printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google’s services were already on the iPhone."
"Google wasn’t getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop..."
And from the third DED article. By now the third version of the iPhone (3GS) was already being sold.:
"I think Google is a fantastic company on many levels, ranging from its commitment to supporting open, interoperable software development to its core business model that effectively churns out free (well, ad-supported) services that almost always work well and are quite reliable. I use Google’s services every day. I earn some money from Google AdSense from the properties that publish my articles. While I think the tech media sometimes gives Google a free pass in some areas where it deserves scrutiny, Google’s track record in playing fair, in supporting the environment, in treating its employees well, in not immediately selling out in human rights issues to gain access to China, and many other areas is much better than most of its peers."
Delusional my butt. DED supported the points I made just as I said he did.
http://m.crackberry.com/blackberry-will-make-money-phones-again-one-day
All this talk about Googs on a RIM story makes Blackberry sad.
Because, for a brief moment, Blackberry thought they mattered.
Completely autonomous vehicles will happen much sooner than 2040. Expect partially autonomous over the next 5-10 years and no driver needed by 2030: http://www.kurzweilai.net/fully-self-driving-cars-expected-by-2030-says-forecast
This amused me to no end:
http://m.crackberry.com/blackberry-will-make-money-phones-again-one-day
The "editor in chief" (his quotes around the title, not mine) is named Bla1ze.
Right, a g4m3r tag.
Driverless cars are here now. They just don't call themselves that. Lots of high end brands have technology that lets you follow the car in front at a distance you set. The car also stays between the lines on the road. A friend of mine has a Lexus Suv and it does this. He says he could read a book if he wanted. It's designed for driving on a freeway rather than in the city.
Lets be realistic, there was nothing Blackberry or any other company could have done about combatting Apple.
Well they can copy and copy shamelessly. Don't worry if normal people (juries, for example) realize it's a copy. The anti-Apple trolls will defend them on the Internet using rhetoric and flawgic. The trolls have their anti-Apple worldview to defend.
Seriously, what else is he supposed to say?
Again, what guarantee is there that those apps would be allowed onto the app store? Google could have very easily found itself shut out from the mobile world, and took steps to ensure that didn't happen.
There's no guarantees in life, and I'm sure Google thought they were doing themselves a favor with Android. The reality is that Android has cost them tens of billions for only a trickle of revenue while damaging their relationship with Apple, a major partner who controls access to hundreds of millions of the most valuable customers. It also lost them a huge chunk of the mobile maps market which they otherwise would have had nearly 100% market share in. From the point of view of a Google shareholder, Android's about as screwed up as a strategy can be, unless of course you're the kind of shareholder who hates money and just wants to own some market share.
There's a lot wrong with this post, lets dissect it shall we?
I think you mean ‘There are three points I disagree with in this post’, don’t you ?
I won’t ‘dissect' your post. If it’s OK with you I’ll just reply to it.
You’re probably writing from the US. In Europe there is zero chance that any driverless vehicle will be allowed over 30mph without a change in the law. Not in the next 20 years. It will require a major change in most country’s legislation even to allow these cars on roads, and neither public nor safety groups nor politicians want driverless vehicles until all the legal and technological problem have been sorted out – which I think you have to agree is many years away. The compromise, maybe for the first five years or so, will be on speed.
That's their business model, charge next to nothing, sell user data and ads. They're an ad company. As far as what the landscape would look like? They'd be trying to make apps or do better mobile search or something. Would they be successful? I'm not sure.
They are doing exactly that, and they are more successful at it than with Android, last I heard.
Google make more money off iOS than off their entire Android platform.
Completely autonomous vehicles will happen much sooner than 2040. Expect partially autonomous over the next 5-10 years and no driver needed by 2030: http://www.kurzweilai.net/fully-self-driving-cars-expected-by-2030-says-forecast
Thanks for the link! As I read it, the article says that fully autonomous vehicles will hit the mainstream (from the high end, obviously) between 2025 and 2030. Fits in perfectly with my assertion that they will be *commonplace* by 2040.
You’re probably writing from the US. In Europe there is zero chance that any driverless vehicle will be allowed over 30mph without a change in the law. Not in the next 20 years. It will require a major change in most country’s legislation even to allow these cars on roads, and neither public nor safety groups nor politicians want driverless vehicles until all the legal and technological problem have been sorted out – which I think you have to agree is many years away. The compromise, maybe for the first five years or so, will be on speed.
There are plenty of test projects in Europe, and the interest in autonomous vehicles here is high. Most EU states have no legislature regarding autonomous vehicles, at all — their legal framework is the Vienna Convention, which at the moment states that a driver must be in control of the vehicle at all times.
This, however, is not as insurmountable as you make it sound.
Twenty years sounds just about right for such a fundamental societal change. They tend to take about twenty years to go from conception and lobbying to legislature and mainstream.
Tell that to dasanman, he was trying to make a point that Google needed an OS in case Apple/Microsoft locked them out. And they'd be in danger of being unsuccessful. I said there's no way of knowing what would have happened in that alternate universe. You think they would have been, maybe that interests him somehow?