Yea, it would take a drastic change to Apple itself and the look and feel of the iPhone and it's supporting software to even make a dent in RIMs corporate market share.
Apple is a consumer products company, period.
I changed my post to reflect that...
I disagree! If Apple is serious about entering the enterprise, they can buy (hire) that talent/capability.
It's like saying "Apple will never succeed in the retail market", just because they weren't already in the market... or: the music player market; the cell phone market; the smart phone market, the online music/video/application distribution market... ad nauseam.
in each of the above, Apple was not first-- rather, they looked at what existed and then did it the "Apple Way", often buying or hiring needed capability.
If and when Apple perceives "entering the enterprise" to be in its best interest (with an acceptable ROI), they will do it!
Some IT guys were mentioning that the iPhone was no good for the enterprise because it doesn't do full background processing which causes some problems with software that needs full notification or something. Plus it doesn't run Javascript properly. Anyway, it's always something that the iPhone is short of that the BlackBerry can handle without a hitch. The iPhone is not going to be let in the enterprise just yet. 95% functionality doesn't cut it with IT. It's either 100% or stay the hell away.
The iPhone runs Javascript perfectly fine.
I think you mean Java and J2ME, and it could indeed be the case that this is an issue if a company has in-house mobile applications written for these devices. J9 provides a full Java VM on PocketPC devices for example (and it's pretty nifty). The Palm Pre also includes a Java VM, so surely soon it too will be supporting these applications.
Other companies will simply have web based applications where suitable, and this won't be a big hurdle.
Some IT guys were mentioning that the iPhone was no good for the enterprise because it doesn't do full background processing which causes some problems with software that needs full notification or something. Plus it doesn't run Javascript properly. Anyway, it's always something that the iPhone is short of that the BlackBerry can handle without a hitch. The iPhone is not going to be let in the enterprise just yet. 95% functionality doesn't cut it with IT. It's either 100% or stay the hell away.
And we all know, if corporate IT says no, then it's no.
Thems the geeks in charge. Make them happy or as happy as possible with no other viable alternative and your set.
Roll in corporate and then push down into consumer,
You can always scare the consumers too "your kids won't be able to get a job unless they know the Blackberry"
Worked for Microsoft. And why Apple's approach from the consumer end doesn't work. Except for the rich niche.
Yes, Apple changing it's DNA into becoming more appealing to corporate customers and introducing a iPhone version that appeals to this market is entirely too late to do any damage to RIM.
Apple will always be at least second best.
Second is good of course.
The Windows v. [Mac] example is not valid in this case. Most people generally bring their work phones home with them and many use as personal phones. They don’t do this with their work PCs, except for some notebooks users, but I think you’ll find that there are a higher percentage of Mac notebooks than Mac desktops because people who get to work away from home are more likely to get to make some choices in the machine type, at least experience.
You think that it’s too late for Apple (or anyone?) to damage RiM then you have no idea what a beating RiM will be facing and how technology moves. Even if RiM —on every carrier and with many different phone models with varying prices— beats iPhone unit sales each quarter, RiM will be losing out as they have historically made the vast majority of their money from the BES side. RiM’s advantage there is dwindling. What was a novel solution that has been highly profitable for RiM simply isn’t needed like it was in years past. They will lose customers because of the cost and will eventually have to cut back prices.
Why this is not widely understood, I’ll never know, but Apple doesn’t put marketshare above profits. Having RiM beat them in unit sales means nothing when Apple is beating them in net profit of sales. Also, using a quarter well after the iPhone was introduced with many knowing another on the way, while RiM is offering BOGO through carriers isn’t exactly game/set/match for the company. At best it’s minor, short term victory for the Curve and at worst it’s Pyrrhic.
That is not to say that RiM will fall. These all or nothing stances posters here take is always unnerving. RiM has a lot of money and lot talent. While their business model will change they will surely live on for the foreseeable future as the de facto business phone. The keyboard is simply too important for many users.
The historical track of PCs vs. Mac is a useless model for judging the progression of the smartphone market. For all we know, it's completely unique and the product of irreproducible circumstances, because we don't have any other examples of "the advent of personal computing."
But consider what that history might have looked like if Apple in 1984 had had upwards of 25% market share, against multiple competitors, with products that were as cheap if not cheaper than the competition, in a market with no de facto hardware standard and very little software lock-in?
And if they actually had a massive advantage in the amount of software available for the Mac, not to mention what was generally acknowledged as hands down the best distribution system for that software? And far and away the most developer enthusiasm?
And, as Solopism mentions, they had done all that with devices that you kept on your person, completely blurring the distinction "business" and "home" use?
The Windows v. [Mac] example is not valid in this case. Most people generally bring their work phones home with them and many use as personal phones. They don?t do this with their work PCs, except for some notebooks users, but I think you?ll find that there are a higher percentage of Mac notebooks than Mac desktops because people who get to work away from home are more likely to get to make some choices in the machine type, at least experience.
You think that it?s too late for Apple (or anyone?) to damage RiM then you have no idea what a beating RiM will be facing and how technology moves. Even if RiM ?on every carrier and with many different phone models with varying prices? beats iPhone unit sales each quarter, RiM will be losing out as they have historically made the vast majority of their money from the BES side. RiM?s advantage there is dwindling. What was a novel solution that has been highly profitable for RiM simply isn?t needed like it was in years past. They will lose customers because of the cost and will eventually have to cut back prices.
Why this is widely understood, I?ll never know, but Apple doesn?t put marketshare above profits. Having RiM beat them in unit sales means nothing when Apple is beating them in net profit of sales. Also, using a quarter well after the iPhone was introduced with many knowing another on the way, while RiM is offering BOGO through carriers isn?t exactly game/set/match for the company. At best it?s minor, short term victory for the Curve and at worst it?s Pyrrhic.
That is not to say that RiM will fall. These all or nothing stances posters here take is always unnerving. RiM has a lot of money and lot talent. While their business model will change they will surely live on for the foreseeable future as the de facto business phone. The keyboard is simply too important for many users.
RIM has 55% of the market; iPhone 20%. You do the math- ain't gonna happen.
Apple has the challenge of simultaneously learning what enterprise needs while rejecting the bad technology that pervades business IT.
Sometimes I think it might be better to start with small companies and define an Apple Business way, then work their way up with a superior offering.
They could start with small companies they are already familiar with - say media companies - not only providing tech infrastructure, but a whole-business process. Isn't someone from Quicken/Intuit/? on the board already?
Another point: There's a big difference between companies for whom IT is part of their competitive advantage and those that want IT to get all the 'other stuff' out of the way so they can concentrate on what they do best. This latter category could really use some Apple goodness.
Not the mexicans themselves, the garden and people working in a high end residential neighborhood like it's a farm.
If you point was that having people work in the garden was unattractive, then why mention their nationality. If it was not important to your point (Mexicans working in plain view in a nice neighborhood, as I read it) then you would not have mentioned it.
Furthermore, how do you even know they were from Mexico? I have had meny people toss out Mexican as an "acceptable slur" towards people of (apparent) Latino origin.
Quote:
Shows where your mind is at.
Maybe. I suppose I am very sensitive to racisim towards my family members, though I would like to think that I am sensitive to all types of insensitivity...
No it's not - Apple used a closed system for both and the results will wind up the same.
In what sense is the iPhone a "closed system"? Compared to what?
Also, my point about the history of the PC market is that it is a single data point. You simply can't make broad predictions about tech trends based on a single data point, no matter how much post hoc rationalization one might make about what that history "proves."
In what sense is the iPhone a "closed system"? Compared to what?
Also, my point about the history of the PC market is that it is a single data point. You simply can't make broad predictions about tech trends based on a single data point, no matter how much post hoc rationalization one might make about what that history "proves."
1) It?s funny how he says it will fail because of the closed system, without once considering the closed BB HW and OS system.
2) It?s doubly funny how he thinks that closed systems will fail when smartphones and PMPs have done quite well on that front. He can?t remember what he wrote a single post back in the same thread so I guess we can?t expect him to remember the iPod model.
3) You have asked him a rational question, do you really expect a rational answer?
It’s funny how he says it will fail because of the closed system, without once considering the closed BB HW and OS system.
Never said it will fail- STOP LYING. I said it will remain in second place. IF THAT'S FAILING THEN BY YOUR REASONING aPPLE HAS ALREADY FAILED 10 TIMES OVER.
Quote:
2) It’s doubly funny how he thinks that closed systems will fail when smartphones and PMPs have done quite well on that front. He can’t remember what he wrote a single post back in the same thread so I guess we can’t expect him to remember the iPod model.
Right and that's why at this stage in the game RIM has 55% and Apple a mere 20%. iPod model?
Quote:
3) You have asked him a rational question, do you really expect a rational answer?
Yes and not a emotional defensive name-calling response like you give.
1) It?s funny how he says it will fail because of the closed system, without once considering the closed BB HW and OS system.
2) It?s doubly funny how he thinks that closed systems will fail when smartphones and PMPs have done quite well on that front. He can?t remember what he wrote a single post back in the same thread so I guess we can?t expect him to remember the iPod model.
3) You have asked him a rational question, do you really expect a rational answer?
I guess the idea is that Apple should be licensing the iPhone OS to a bunch of commodity handset manufactures, like MS. Because that's how MS has achieved the prohibitive advantage in the cell phone market that they enjoy today.
Right and that's why at this stage in the game RIM has 55% and Apple a mere 20%.
Uh, and they've achieved that with a system that's more "closed" than Apple's, so......
At any rate, they've been at it quite a while, while Apple has only been in this market for a few years, so it's a little premature to start throwing around market share numbers.
At any rate, they've been at it quite a while, while Apple has only been in this market for a few years, so it's a little premature to start throwing around market share numbers.
Now that's intelligent.
If RIM sucks so bad it should be much closer. I guess people are ignorant like those that buy glossy screens.
the historical track of pcs vs. Mac is a useless model for judging the progression of the smartphone market. For all we know, it's completely unique and the product of irreproducible circumstances, because we don't have any other examples of "the advent of personal computing."
but consider what that history might have looked like if apple in 1984 had had upwards of 25% market share, against multiple competitors, with products that were as cheap if not cheaper than the competition, in a market with no de facto hardware standard and very little software lock-in?
And if they actually had a massive advantage in the amount of software available for the mac, not to mention what was generally acknowledged as hands down the best distribution system for that software? And far and away the most developer enthusiasm?
and, as solopism mentions, they had done all that with devices that you kept on your person, completely blurring the distinction "business" and "home" use?
Comments
Yea, it would take a drastic change to Apple itself and the look and feel of the iPhone and it's supporting software to even make a dent in RIMs corporate market share.
Apple is a consumer products company, period.
I changed my post to reflect that...
I disagree! If Apple is serious about entering the enterprise, they can buy (hire) that talent/capability.
It's like saying "Apple will never succeed in the retail market", just because they weren't already in the market... or: the music player market; the cell phone market; the smart phone market, the online music/video/application distribution market... ad nauseam.
in each of the above, Apple was not first-- rather, they looked at what existed and then did it the "Apple Way", often buying or hiring needed capability.
If and when Apple perceives "entering the enterprise" to be in its best interest (with an acceptable ROI), they will do it!
Dick
Some IT guys were mentioning that the iPhone was no good for the enterprise because it doesn't do full background processing which causes some problems with software that needs full notification or something. Plus it doesn't run Javascript properly. Anyway, it's always something that the iPhone is short of that the BlackBerry can handle without a hitch. The iPhone is not going to be let in the enterprise just yet. 95% functionality doesn't cut it with IT. It's either 100% or stay the hell away.
The iPhone runs Javascript perfectly fine.
I think you mean Java and J2ME, and it could indeed be the case that this is an issue if a company has in-house mobile applications written for these devices. J9 provides a full Java VM on PocketPC devices for example (and it's pretty nifty). The Palm Pre also includes a Java VM, so surely soon it too will be supporting these applications.
Other companies will simply have web based applications where suitable, and this won't be a big hurdle.
Some IT guys were mentioning that the iPhone was no good for the enterprise because it doesn't do full background processing which causes some problems with software that needs full notification or something. Plus it doesn't run Javascript properly. Anyway, it's always something that the iPhone is short of that the BlackBerry can handle without a hitch. The iPhone is not going to be let in the enterprise just yet. 95% functionality doesn't cut it with IT. It's either 100% or stay the hell away.
And we all know, if corporate IT says no, then it's no.
Thems the geeks in charge. Make them happy or as happy as possible with no other viable alternative and your set.
Roll in corporate and then push down into consumer,
You can always scare the consumers too "your kids won't be able to get a job unless they know the Blackberry"
Worked for Microsoft. And why Apple's approach from the consumer end doesn't work. Except for the rich niche.
I'm Steve Jobs and I approved this message.
Psss I stole your license plate...
Yes, Apple changing it's DNA into becoming more appealing to corporate customers and introducing a iPhone version that appeals to this market is entirely too late to do any damage to RIM.
Apple will always be at least second best.
Second is good of course.
The Windows v. [Mac] example is not valid in this case. Most people generally bring their work phones home with them and many use as personal phones. They don’t do this with their work PCs, except for some notebooks users, but I think you’ll find that there are a higher percentage of Mac notebooks than Mac desktops because people who get to work away from home are more likely to get to make some choices in the machine type, at least experience.
You think that it’s too late for Apple (or anyone?) to damage RiM then you have no idea what a beating RiM will be facing and how technology moves. Even if RiM —on every carrier and with many different phone models with varying prices— beats iPhone unit sales each quarter, RiM will be losing out as they have historically made the vast majority of their money from the BES side. RiM’s advantage there is dwindling. What was a novel solution that has been highly profitable for RiM simply isn’t needed like it was in years past. They will lose customers because of the cost and will eventually have to cut back prices.
Why this is not widely understood, I’ll never know, but Apple doesn’t put marketshare above profits. Having RiM beat them in unit sales means nothing when Apple is beating them in net profit of sales. Also, using a quarter well after the iPhone was introduced with many knowing another on the way, while RiM is offering BOGO through carriers isn’t exactly game/set/match for the company. At best it’s minor, short term victory for the Curve and at worst it’s Pyrrhic.
That is not to say that RiM will fall. These all or nothing stances posters here take is always unnerving. RiM has a lot of money and lot talent. While their business model will change they will surely live on for the foreseeable future as the de facto business phone. The keyboard is simply too important for many users.
But consider what that history might have looked like if Apple in 1984 had had upwards of 25% market share, against multiple competitors, with products that were as cheap if not cheaper than the competition, in a market with no de facto hardware standard and very little software lock-in?
And if they actually had a massive advantage in the amount of software available for the Mac, not to mention what was generally acknowledged as hands down the best distribution system for that software? And far and away the most developer enthusiasm?
And, as Solopism mentions, they had done all that with devices that you kept on your person, completely blurring the distinction "business" and "home" use?
The Windows v. [Mac] example is not valid in this case. Most people generally bring their work phones home with them and many use as personal phones. They don?t do this with their work PCs, except for some notebooks users, but I think you?ll find that there are a higher percentage of Mac notebooks than Mac desktops because people who get to work away from home are more likely to get to make some choices in the machine type, at least experience.
You think that it?s too late for Apple (or anyone?) to damage RiM then you have no idea what a beating RiM will be facing and how technology moves. Even if RiM ?on every carrier and with many different phone models with varying prices? beats iPhone unit sales each quarter, RiM will be losing out as they have historically made the vast majority of their money from the BES side. RiM?s advantage there is dwindling. What was a novel solution that has been highly profitable for RiM simply isn?t needed like it was in years past. They will lose customers because of the cost and will eventually have to cut back prices.
Why this is widely understood, I?ll never know, but Apple doesn?t put marketshare above profits. Having RiM beat them in unit sales means nothing when Apple is beating them in net profit of sales. Also, using a quarter well after the iPhone was introduced with many knowing another on the way, while RiM is offering BOGO through carriers isn?t exactly game/set/match for the company. At best it?s minor, short term victory for the Curve and at worst it?s Pyrrhic.
That is not to say that RiM will fall. These all or nothing stances posters here take is always unnerving. RiM has a lot of money and lot talent. While their business model will change they will surely live on for the foreseeable future as the de facto business phone. The keyboard is simply too important for many users.
RIM has 55% of the market; iPhone 20%. You do the math- ain't gonna happen.
Sometimes I think it might be better to start with small companies and define an Apple Business way, then work their way up with a superior offering.
They could start with small companies they are already familiar with - say media companies - not only providing tech infrastructure, but a whole-business process. Isn't someone from Quicken/Intuit/? on the board already?
Another point: There's a big difference between companies for whom IT is part of their competitive advantage and those that want IT to get all the 'other stuff' out of the way so they can concentrate on what they do best. This latter category could really use some Apple goodness.
The historical track of PCs vs. Mac is a useless model for judging the progression of the smartphone market.
No it's not - Apple used a closed system for both and the results will wind up the same.
Not the mexicans themselves, the garden and people working in a high end residential neighborhood like it's a farm.
If you point was that having people work in the garden was unattractive, then why mention their nationality. If it was not important to your point (Mexicans working in plain view in a nice neighborhood, as I read it) then you would not have mentioned it.
Furthermore, how do you even know they were from Mexico? I have had meny people toss out Mexican as an "acceptable slur" towards people of (apparent) Latino origin.
Shows where your mind is at.
Maybe. I suppose I am very sensitive to racisim towards my family members, though I would like to think that I am sensitive to all types of insensitivity...
Speaking of hippies have you seen the huge organic garden in front of Steve's house?
Nice house, nice historic neighborhood, he drives a nice car, but a nasty garden right on the front lawn. Strange...
The money he has he could own a whole farm and the workers etc., instead he has it on his front lawn!
Yep and about 10 mexicans working it too. What a eyesore the garden is. (edit to clarify)
Dude, you just lost the argument with that crap. Your other arguements are failing, so you fall back on good ol' ad hominem.
Weak.
No it's not - Apple used a closed system for both and the results will wind up the same.
In what sense is the iPhone a "closed system"? Compared to what?
Also, my point about the history of the PC market is that it is a single data point. You simply can't make broad predictions about tech trends based on a single data point, no matter how much post hoc rationalization one might make about what that history "proves."
In what sense is the iPhone a "closed system"? Compared to what?
Also, my point about the history of the PC market is that it is a single data point. You simply can't make broad predictions about tech trends based on a single data point, no matter how much post hoc rationalization one might make about what that history "proves."
1) It?s funny how he says it will fail because of the closed system, without once considering the closed BB HW and OS system.
2) It?s doubly funny how he thinks that closed systems will fail when smartphones and PMPs have done quite well on that front. He can?t remember what he wrote a single post back in the same thread so I guess we can?t expect him to remember the iPod model.
3) You have asked him a rational question, do you really expect a rational answer?
It’s funny how he says it will fail because of the closed system, without once considering the closed BB HW and OS system.
Never said it will fail- STOP LYING. I said it will remain in second place. IF THAT'S FAILING THEN BY YOUR REASONING aPPLE HAS ALREADY FAILED 10 TIMES OVER.
2) It’s doubly funny how he thinks that closed systems will fail when smartphones and PMPs have done quite well on that front. He can’t remember what he wrote a single post back in the same thread so I guess we can’t expect him to remember the iPod model.
Right and that's why at this stage in the game RIM has 55% and Apple a mere 20%. iPod model?
3) You have asked him a rational question, do you really expect a rational answer?
Yes and not a emotional defensive name-calling response like you give.
1) It?s funny how he says it will fail because of the closed system, without once considering the closed BB HW and OS system.
2) It?s doubly funny how he thinks that closed systems will fail when smartphones and PMPs have done quite well on that front. He can?t remember what he wrote a single post back in the same thread so I guess we can?t expect him to remember the iPod model.
3) You have asked him a rational question, do you really expect a rational answer?
I guess the idea is that Apple should be licensing the iPhone OS to a bunch of commodity handset manufactures, like MS. Because that's how MS has achieved the prohibitive advantage in the cell phone market that they enjoy today.
Right and that's why at this stage in the game RIM has 55% and Apple a mere 20%.
Uh, and they've achieved that with a system that's more "closed" than Apple's, so......
At any rate, they've been at it quite a while, while Apple has only been in this market for a few years, so it's a little premature to start throwing around market share numbers.
At any rate, they've been at it quite a while, while Apple has only been in this market for a few years, so it's a little premature to start throwing around market share numbers.
Now that's intelligent.
If RIM sucks so bad it should be much closer. I guess people are ignorant like those that buy glossy screens.
the historical track of pcs vs. Mac is a useless model for judging the progression of the smartphone market. For all we know, it's completely unique and the product of irreproducible circumstances, because we don't have any other examples of "the advent of personal computing."
but consider what that history might have looked like if apple in 1984 had had upwards of 25% market share, against multiple competitors, with products that were as cheap if not cheaper than the competition, in a market with no de facto hardware standard and very little software lock-in?
And if they actually had a massive advantage in the amount of software available for the mac, not to mention what was generally acknowledged as hands down the best distribution system for that software? And far and away the most developer enthusiasm?
and, as solopism mentions, they had done all that with devices that you kept on your person, completely blurring the distinction "business" and "home" use?
qft++