
First Nokia, Now RIM: The Mighty Are Falling - evo_9
http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2011/07/rim-mighty-are-falling/
======
phuff
I am not fully versed in the notion of innovative disruption, but it seems
pretty obvious that a Clay Christensen-esque Innovator's Dilemma disruption is
what's going on here: somebody had a decent product, is first to market, but
doesn't have a clear enough vision to see how to stay on top and stay
innovative and gets blindsided by unexpected (read Apple + Android)
competitors. I wonder how closely the non-cliff notes version of RIM's fall
matches the innovator's dilemma model.

~~~
IsaacL
The term is 'disruptive innovation'. It's an often misunderstood concept - the
key point is that not all innovation is disruptive. The defining feature of
disruptive innovations is that they are initially worse than the technology
they displace, but as they are significantly cheaper they allow the tech to
reach new markets. Since the iPhone was a high-end product, it can't be called
disruptive.

~~~
MikeCapone
"Since the iPhone was a high-end product, it can't be called disruptive."

Do you have a suggestion of what it should be called, then? Sounds disruptive
to me.

~~~
dantheman
revolutionary or evolutionary - depending on your perspective; though I'd say
the android is disruptive to the GPS market

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology>

------
brudgers
While in the short term, Android and iOS are having an impact, RIM's longterm
fate is affected by Windows Phone 7 because that is the easiest Mobile OS upon
which Enterprise can standardize comfortably - iOS is just too consumer
centric [e.g. three year obsolescence] and has a history of sloppy security
practices [e.g. lying to Exchange], and Android is somewhat fragmented due to
diversity of device capabilities and does not give a high priority to
integration with the Microsoft stack.

All the things RIM does well for enterprise, Windows Phone is likely to do
better over the long term. And with Nokia getting set to leverage their
existing reputation for quality on top of WP7, it is hard to see what RIM can
bring to the table when it comes time to convince IT.
[[http://www.cio.com/article/501815/iPhone_3.1_Breaking_Exchan...](http://www.cio.com/article/501815/iPhone_3.1_Breaking_Exchange_E_Mail_for_Enterprise_iPhone_3G_Users_)]

~~~
wmil
To be fair, every mobile device that Microsoft released was supposed to
destroy RIM. I'm still not convinced that Microsoft can pull of a decent phone
with full Exchange integration.

------
nkassis
I'm a little sad for RIM and would like to support a Canadian company but in
the end they just aren't able to adapt. I don't think they ever will unless
there is a management change. Seriously a tablet that can't receive email
Nativity? That's what they were know for yet they can't use there strength
right. QNX is a decent system, open it up, let others use it, in the end they
won't be able to stop the tsunami of apple and android without help, other
manufacturers using their QNX platform could help.

~~~
michaelcampbell
I don't have the deisre to support a Canadian company simply because they're
Canadian, but I'm with you on the rest of it. When I heard RIM bought QNX I
was ready for a game changer from them, but alas... too little too late.
Perhaps it never could have worked; maybe Google with buy the QNX part of RIM
and do something with it with respect to Android. I'd like to see it shine
someday.

------
wmeredith
Their problem is they make phones and no one wants phones, they want
computers.

~~~
Geee
That was exactly Nokia's problem, they tried to cram whole computer in a
phone. They even called their smartphones 'multimedia computers' and primarily
targeted them for geeks. They never had a real idea why smartphones are
useful. That strategy led them to huge amounts of code bloat and features
without usability and made the development of updates horribly slow.

~~~
digikata
I think that Nokia's problem was they tried to redesign their software stack
3-4 times, never waiting long enough to get a mature enough product with real
feedback before ripping things up and starting again. The worst case was the
latest switch to WP7, especially after looking at the first (and maybe last)
Meego phone release. It's like trying to build a house, getting the framing
and walls up and right after you paint it you decide to go to a completely
different foundation.

------
programminggeek
I don't think I've ever seen a company cut employees en masse like this truly
help a company come from behind to regain their former status. It sends so
many wrong messages. If those 10% of your company aren't worthwhile, why were
they hired and employed in the first place?

If management can afford to cut staff by 10%, the C and VP level management
should be fired. Start by cutting at the top, not at the bottom.

Cutting that deep means that management was fine with spending money like
drunken sailors. Nothing RIM or Nokia has announced in the last few months in
terms of changes has shown that they are going to do anything other than
wither and die on the vine.

~~~
dsmithn
I can't disagree with the first two paragraphs, but for the last, what about
shutting down entire divisions? If a company invested in a failed product that
requires a number of specialized employees, does it imply they were spending
money like drunken sailors when they have to let them go?

~~~
cpeterso
I'm reminded of Steve Job's advice to Nike:

 _"Nike makes some of the best products in the world. Products that you lust
after. But you also make a lot of crap. Just get rid of the crappy stuff and
focus on the good stuff."_

------
MikeCapone
Well, that's what a functioning market where there is competition does. Allow
people to pick what they want, and it so happens that what people now want
aren't BlackBerries. Both Apple and Google should remember that -- their
positions aren't set in stone and to maintain them in the long term they need
to avoid resting on their laurels.

------
ForrestN
I would be really interested to read an informed analysis of these two cases
in the context of public company shareholder dynamics. I think it's an
understated advantage of Steve Job's ultra-centrality at Apple that
shareholders tend to defer to him in a way that I expect they might not with
other companies (obviously this might become a disadvantage when he leaves).
Has pressure from shareholders meaningfully affected the decision-making of
companies like Nokia and RIM? Are short-term incentives defeating long-term
incentives because of such pressure? I don't know, but I'd love to hear from
someone who does.

------
doctoboggan
Nokia has been a company since 1865, so it might take more than this to stop
them

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia>

~~~
bergie
And they've done a lot of amazing turnarounds, from paper mills to rubber
boots to cables to TVs to mobile phones. But this is the first time they
surrender the decision making power of the company to a third party,
Microsoft.

That may make adapting to changing situations harder.

------
Luyt
esr also keeps a close eye on the developments in the mobile phone market. His
latest blog post on this is at <http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3493> , a short
quote:

 _"Nokia’s strategy, insofar as it’s actually had one since the tie-up with
Microsoft, has been to hang in there on volume sales of dumbphones until it
could deliver world-beating WP7 handsets. The major risk here, other than the
wild unlikelihood of WP7 ever becoming anything consumers actually want, was
that the Chinese electronics industry would undercut them on price-
performance. I predicted this would happen, it is happening, and Nokia’s
disastrous July earnings call is the result."_

~~~
sedev
While "keeps a close eye on" is certainly an accurate description of what he
does, "makes accurate and/or well-founded predictions" is not, and that's more
important. Someone who wanted to be well-informed about mobile would do far
better by reading Horace Dediu, for example.

------
thematt
I'm not sure if it's related to their troubles, but their corporate structure
has always seemed odd to me. Starting with the whole "co-CEO" role, which
seems like an experiment that hasn't quite panned out.

~~~
MikeCapone
Technically, Google has almost had that for a while with Larry and Sergey, and
then the Trifecta with Eric. Not quite the same, though, obviously...

------
RexRollman
To me, they are both victims of a paradigm shift. The only thing that saddens
me is that their employees will pay the price for their lack of vision.

~~~
VladRussian
as a former multi-year employee of a formerly glorious company that fell
victim of its self-denial to recognize a paradigm shift i can say that
employees can blame only themselves.

~~~
aculver
Yeah, I agree. The parent post makes it sound like there is some other force
in a company that can be blamed other than the employees. I suppose someone
might say "management", but to me it's all the same.

~~~
RexRollman
From what I've seen, many companies do not listen to their employees,
especially as they get larger. RIM in particular strikes me as a company where
its employees have no voice.

------
Silhouette
Wasn't there an open letter from a senior staffer at RIM just a few days ago,
which spelt out the problems on the ground and what needed to be done about
them in brutally honest fashion, which was promptly brushed under the carpet
(or not) by RIM PR? It seems like the rank and file staff at RIM get it, but
the top level management don't, which is a sufficient condition to know how
the story ends.

Edit: Yes, here it is: [http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/30/open-letter-to-
blackberry-boss...](http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/30/open-letter-to-blackberry-
bosses-senior-rim-exec-tells-all-as-company-crumbles-around-him/)

~~~
eric-hu
I was thinking of the same thing when I read this. To be fair, one of the
letter's suggestions was that they hold people accountable for failed
products. Excerpt:

"Just because someone may have been a loyal RIM employee for 7 years, it
doesn’t mean they are the best Manager / Director / VP for that role"

...although maybe they're doing the reverse...

------
ruslan
QNX ? What for ?

I think RIM should learn from Nokia's mistake and switch to Android soon as
possible. This is the only way to survive for them.

~~~
hello_moto
Wow, CEO of the year for you sir.

If things would be as easy as that, flip to Android and compete with the
rest... to the bottom. How would you differentiate yourself vs HTC, Motorola,
etc?

What if the Chinese android handsets comes up with cheap mobile phones similar
to BB hardware interface (the golden keyboard, you know that BB users love BB
because of the keyboard).

Switching to Android makes RIM an average company like everybody else.

~~~
MatthewPhillips
Samsung in on pace to become the #1 seller of phones in the world and the #1
seller of smartphones in the world. I don't have access to their numbers since
they're a private company, but from what they report their revenue and profits
dwarf that of RIM.

~~~
hello_moto
Most Asia-based manufacturers can have lower cost than any North America-based
manufacturers. Just ask Broadcom whether they're feeling the heat from Taiwan-
based manufacturers.

Race to the bottom doesn't necessarily mean a bad thing if you can produce the
cheapest alternatives. But it is bad if you can't do that.

------
Zachhack
In tech, there is no such thing as 'too big to fail'

