BlackBerry convenes special committee to decide company's future

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 57

    Quote:


    RIM's failure wasn't in its ability to innovate, its failure was in the two knobs who used to run the company... they refused to open their eyes. Google realized what was happening when the iPhone was released and changed direction.



     


    RIM didn't innovate.  Innovation means looking forward, identifying and adopting new technology and trends early, and getting the jump on everyone else. It means being willing to cannibalize your successful products as better technology, new trends and opportunities evolve.  So innovation means not wasting your time and money protecting your existing "core" business and strengths that are going to become irrelevant.  But yet, many companies fight new trends and cling to their successful products for too long:


     


    1.  MS clung to Windows and Office, didn't develop their tablet, phone or Zune, and missed out on the whole mobile trend. And they had all of these things before Apple!


    2.  RIM clung to the enterprise market and missed out on the consumer mobility trend. 


    3.  Yahoo clung to their their core (content aggregation) and lost out to Google on keyword ad placement revenue, and lost out to Facebook on social media ad revenue.


    4.  Dell clung to their core strength in PC manufacturing and supply chain efficiency, and missed out on everything mobile (mp3 players, phones, tablets, etc).


    5.  Kodak clung to to their core business (film) and completely missed out on the digital revolution (they were even the first to develop an digital camera but decided film was their "core"). 


    6.  Xerox created desktop publishing, but clung to its "core" copier business and let Apple and HP (printers) run away with that new market.


     


    All these companies spent tons of money protecting their core business instead of committing to new trends and technology.  And if they did dabble in them, it was more to protect their core, and not to win in the new market.

  • Reply 42 of 57
    dnd0ps wrote: »
    1 down, 3 to go

    Really this is stupid native comment, since competition is health way to ensure competitive prices for the consumer, which is YOU. Blackberry have made the mistake of not changing with the times and now they are well behind the smartphone race.
    For me always liked their phones and Z10 is nice 'second' business phone for me to use.

    Wish them well in the future.

    Soul
  • Reply 43 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apres587 View Post


     


    RIM didn't innovate.  Innovation means looking forward, identifying and adopting new technology and trends early, and getting the jump on everyone else. It means being willing to cannibalize your successful products as better technology, new trends and opportunities evolve.  So innovation means not wasting your time and money protecting your existing "core" business and strengths that are going to become irrelevant.  But yet, many companies fight new trends and cling to their successful products for too long:


     


    etc. etc.


     

    All these companies spent tons of money protecting their core business instead of committing to new trends and technology.  And if they did dabble in them, it was more to protect their core, and not to win in the new market.


     


    Had you understood what I said then you would have realized that you are saying the exact same thing.

  • Reply 44 of 57
    jfc1138 wrote: »
    But what about all those nice "lifetime iPhone" users that have "just switched" to BB?

    "All" of them could fit into one lifeboat when the SS BlackBerry sinks into the deep.
  • Reply 45 of 57


    Even so, BBRY has patents, enterprise acceptance, and a still loyal and sizable user base that could worth an acquisition by Apple.


    I would wait for EV to fall well down of 2 billion again (as it were a week ago), then buy it all for that amount. Carriers all over the world, specially in low income countries, that currently have privileges for BB devices, would have to think it again and negotiate acceptable deals with Apple.

  • Reply 46 of 57
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    mieswall wrote: »
    Even so, BBRY has patents, enterprise acceptance, and a still loyal and sizable user base that could worth an acquisition by Apple.

    Question is how old are those patents? They've been around since 1999, so in a few more years anyone will be able to use their technology.
  • Reply 47 of 57
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    mieswall wrote: »
    Even so, BBRY has patents, enterprise acceptance, and a still loyal and sizable user base that could worth an acquisition by Apple.

    Cant see it happening.
    Do Apple need BBY ? Nah.
    Slim point on the patents, although Id expect Apple to have trawled through those and either have developed their own solutions or decided another course of implementation if there was anything there of merit.

    Enterprise acceptancve has all but disappeared as many corporates are transitioning.
    Their loyal user base isnt really so loyal, as is being proven in their sales figures.
  • Reply 48 of 57
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member




    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

    I have serious doubts that what Apple did can be replicated. It's kinda like Daffy Duck's trick, it can only be done once.


     


    Once per company or once per industry? I rather think Apple has proven both wrong.

  • Reply 49 of 57
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    Once per company or once per industry? I rather think Apple has proven both wrong.

    Per industry. There really wasn't a very popular portable music player at the time the iPod came out and there wasn't really much of a tablet market when the iPad came out and one was built on the success of the other. That's why I don't believe a company could replicate what Apple has done because it wasn't overnight, it was years in the making.
  • Reply 50 of 57

    fasdfdfQuote:

    Originally Posted by Apres587 View Post


     


    5.  Kodak clung to to their core business (film) and completely missed out on the digital revolution (they were even the first to develop an digital camera but decided film was their "core"). 


     


     



    They did enter the digital photo revolution early. Kodak released the Kodak DC40 in 1995. Apple's Quicktake 100 also failed; it was released in 1994. Kodak had digital printing, picture frames,  Easy Share, etc. Maybe it was bad products and marketing that failed them. 


     


    I don't think the tech was there in the 1970's, when they invented the digital camera, for it to be a low cost mass consumer product. 

  • Reply 51 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TechManMike View Post


    Could this possibly be an investment for Apple JUST to keep a company like Samsung from buying it also? Not that Apple would actually do anything with it but bury it in it's backyard. More than likely won't happen, but IJS.



     


    Apple would have all that technology from the back-end that RIM has.  


     


    Even better approach for Apple would be to buy it, then part out the company.  Sell off the phone business to whomever so Apple doesn't get hit with another DoJ lawsuit.

  • Reply 52 of 57

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


    RIM's failure wasn't in its ability to innovate, its failure was in the two knobs who used to run the company... they refused to open their eyes. Google realized what was happening when the iPhone was released and changed direction.



     


    Indeed.  One of them should have spent less time futilely trying to get an NHL team in Hamilton and working more in his day job.

  • Reply 53 of 57
    murmanmurman Posts: 159member


    If you think back to when the first iPhone came out, BB, Nokia, Microsoft were all in denial about its potential. Some tech pundits and a lot of lay people too, but these are the leaders of the industry not knowing the future when it hit them in the face, maybe they were merely putting up a brave face, but sure took them a long time to counter the iPhone, RIM was the last to move.

  • Reply 54 of 57
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,979member
    murman wrote: »
    If you think back to when the first iPhone came out, BB, Nokia, Microsoft were all in denial about its potential. Some tech pundits and a lot of lay people too, but these are the leaders of the industry not knowing the future when it hit them in the face, maybe they were merely putting up a brave face, but sure took them a long time to counter the iPhone, RIM was the last to move.

    In all honesty when have you heard a company praise another company's product? I think if BB had released the Z10 instead the crappy Storm they would've not been in it's current predicament.
  • Reply 55 of 57
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,066member


    Don't you just want to go to that meeting wearing a 'No Future' t-shirt.

  • Reply 56 of 57
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member


    lol


    They're busy trying to find a big enough recycle bin for their "I survived the iPhone" tees, before they put those on !

  • Reply 57 of 57
    godriflegodrifle Posts: 266member
    I wonder what their patent portfolio looks like...
Sign In or Register to comment.