I'm quite surprised that RIM is making Android apps that run inside the "player" have to be manually ported and then submitted to their own store and signed. I know that personally the chance of me investing the time and effort to do that is pretty small, especially from what I've heard about their signup process. To me the entire point of having an Android player is to ensure there is a large pool of apps on day one. It seems like they've done all the technical work to achieve this and then killed it stone dead with dumb bureaucratic hurdles.
The purpose of the signing is so that they can identify the developers of any rogue apps. That way they can crack open the sandbox and (theoretically) offer you a little bit more freedom, since they know if you misbehave they can track you down (or possibly revoke your keys so that your apps stop working? <- so far as I am aware your apps on their phiones will still work even without network access, so probably not this)
There's lots of reasons to get stroppy at RIM, but code signing is the very least of them, and if you squint hard enough and look sideways it's actually a good thing.
I'm not complaining about signing per se. I'm complaining that I'll have to re-sign applications that are already perfectly well signed, using a process that I'm sure will involve lots of obscure, poorly documented and error prone tools that I have no other reason to want to install or use, all to give some faceless RIM executives a power trip.
There is nothing to stop RIM from tracking me via the certificate I already use for my Android APKs. They should just import them and verify them the way any Android phone does.
Couldn't agree more. I've developed for the Blackberry platform for several years now, and they've gotten slightly better the past few months but compared to Android or iOS, we're treated like dogshit.
If they want complete control of their apps they shouldn't be making virtual machines to run other people's apps.
As stated above - the vm route only makes sense if it immediately taps into the large pool of apps existing for other devices. It's a compromise to provide convenience to users.
As soon as developers have to expend effort to get a worse version of their app running on these devices the plan falls apart.
Good developers will shun the device until they can be sure than they can create a great user experience and that the effort of doing so will be worth the effort.
Does anyone think RIM would be a prime acquisition candidate?
I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out - what if Microsoft bought RIM?
WP7 hasn't gained any traction, RIM seems lost in the weeds - the could merge the two entities and ring-fence the entire enterprise market. MS could convince enterprises to buy their phones/tablets/etc and achieve "full synergies" with their other enterprise applications.
I believe the response I had to Microsoft and Nokia getting together was something to the effect of "merging two entities that don't Get It together does not generally produce one that Gets It." I'd say the same thing here.
If someone is going to buy RIM and actually make something of it, it would have to be a company than Gets It. All the companies that Get It already seem to be facing the problem of having more success than they know what to do with. I don't see how acquiring RIM would solve any of their problems. But I'd love to hear about those problems if you can explain them.
Both RIM and Microsoft "get" the Enterprise. This matchup makes sense for both of them.
I didn't feel that it made sense when RIM was committed to a Java-only vision, but now that they're whoring themselves out to anybody with an app platform and they hung their existing base of Java devs out to dry, it makes a lot more sense for them to jump in bed with Microsoft.
"Both RIM and Microsoft "get" the Enterprise. This matchup makes sense for both of them"
Based on what? I'd argue that they "got" enterprise, but are in the process of losing it. Are a very cruse measure, what about share price over time? Or units shipped? or...?
Apparently Microsoft wants to target WM7 at consumers. They've done very little to integrate WM7 with Windows Server -- in fact WM7 is a big step backwards in this respect compared to WM6. I think you're right that going after the enterprise market would have made a lot more sense but for whatever reason Microsoft is still in denial about losing their death grip on the consumer market and as a result squander opportunities to succeed in markets they already own. As for RIM I think their enterprise credibility isn't what it used to be. Apple in particular, and Android to a lesser degree, have surpassed them in many ways. Not so much on the device management side, which is somewhat trivial on these devices anyway, but more so on pure functionality. There are just so many things you can't do on the latest & greatest BlackBerry. It's great you can manage the hell out of the device but the gap in functionality is massive these days. The only reason RIM hasn't totally imploded is that BlackBerries are dirt cheap which makes up for the lack of functionality. This isn't really sustainable.
> The only reason RIM hasn't totally imploded is that BlackBerries are dirt cheap which makes up for the lack of functionality.
I was looking for a new phone for company use a few weeks ago. The BlackBerry Torch was the only one in the store that wasn't included free with any of their longer price plans. In fact, I would have had to pay hundreds of pounds to get one, in addition to the usual multi-year contract tie-in.
I laughed and bought a £15 Nokia and a pay-monthly plan with no tie-in, because as a business user, what matters most to me is having a separate number from my personal mobile and a separate allowance of minutes/texts/etc. that I can expense. Smart phones are all very nice, but if you have a laptop and mobile broadband with you most of the time on business trips anyway, also mostly just a cute gimmick. (That goes for the other mobile OSes as well, of course, but at least they don't insult me by asking me to pay more for their device than I can pay for a real computer. If I were willing to accept a two-year tie-in, I might have picked up an Android phone.)
It is hard to imagine that MS will have any appetite for an acquisition in this space until they have digested the Nokia partnership.
It is an interesting point however because we may soon find that the writing is on the wall for RIM just like it was for Nokia. The question is, when will RIM's 'burning platform' moment be? And more importantly, if the bottom does fall out from their market share dramatically, where will they turn?
It might be that Microsoft is in no mood for an acquisition but RIM will be forced to make them an offer so good they can't refuse. The lean towards Android with their tablet offering is pretty interesting however so one might well wonder if they are actually starting the first step of hedging their bets in the other direction.
The Danger acquisition didn't really make sense from an engineering perspective - the Sidekick was a great phone - 5 years ago.
MS doesn't have the greatest track record with consumer products (Xbox not withstanding).
They OWN the enterprise. While I'm not sure the resulting products would be all that great (though everyone usually has great things to say about Windows 7 Mobile), it would be an easy sell to an enterprise.
Chinks in the apple/android armor:
1) Right now, enterprise applications have to go through the App Store (for both devices). It would be pretty powerful for enterprise to be able to push their own applications at their leisure to their phones
2) Existing tie-in to blackberry servers.
3) Android phones irritate me b/c you need a gmail address to even set it up. This is just an additional requirement for enterprise phones that shouldn't even be there.
4) Dev tools that people are familiar with. Objective C experience is harder to find that C#/.NET experience (Android is wash here with Java).
"1) Right now, enterprise applications have to go through the App Store (for both devices). It would be pretty powerful for enterprise to be able to push their own applications at their leisure to their phones"
This isn't true for iOS.
On iOS, enterprise managed phones can absolutely push out their own apps and bypass the App Store:
And Android phones which aren't third-party app locked by the carriers (so no ATT phones) can already install any app the user wants. It doesn't look like enterprise phone management for Android can "push out an app" though.
This is a nice-to-have, and has IMO no bearing on the success of a platform. How many devs knew Obj-C well before the iPhone SDK came out? How many do now?
It's a bitter pill for developers to swallow, but the truth is that consumers drive platform adoption, and developers will learn whatever it takes to have a crack at the goldmine. Nokia went well out of its way to be dev-friendly, but couldn't produce a platform consumers wanted. Having a solid dev platform that's easy to use is good, but makes little difference when nobody's wielding your phone in the first place.
> "2) Existing tie-in to blackberry servers."
Doesn't last forever. The consumer preference for iOS and Android device is so strong that enterprises are starting to decouple themselves from BB enterprise servers. There's a difference between the bitchings of rank and file engineers and the CEO being unable to use the new fancy sexy device because IT doesn't support it. One gets more change than the other, sadly.
The tie-in to RIM's proprietary servers is a stopgap at best. Without it RIM would be sinking far more rapidly than they already are. It is an advantage that is shrinking and won't last for much longer.
Up until the Nokia partnership, I though RIM would be a good pickup for Microsoft. Both are strong in the enterprise and could do a lot of common sales. Integrating Blackberry's message services with Exchange would provide a pretty good solution for enterprise.
The bad news start with unit growth, it is out of sync with the rest of the industry where percentages are more in the 50% to 100% range. For reference, Apple’s iPhone unit sales grew by 93% from 2009 to 2010. More recent Android devices grew even faster.
I wonder if that's really a valid metric to be using. iOS and Android devices have much less market penetration than RIM, so, of course their growth rate will be higher.
"iOS and Android devices have much less market penetration than RIM, so, of course their growth rate will be higher."
I'm pretty sure that should read "had much less market penetration", because Android and iOS both currently have larger market share than RIM (according to Nielsen: http://www.marketingcharts.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/03...). I'm honestly surprised RIM had any sales growth, at all. I simply don't know anyone still using a Blackberry, even among people who were formerly absolute fanatics.
I guess the enterprise market moves slowly enough to keep them afloat for another couple quarters, but it certainly doesn't look good.
I think there are 2 markets here that need to be separated when comparing RIM with Apple and Android.
Corporate and Consumer.
RIM dominates the enterprise/corporate market and as of recent has been trying to break into the consumer market.
Black berries where made for the corporate/work industry. Apple always has made consumer based products. So we are comparing apple to oranges.
It's like taking a car company that's focuses on building trucks and then comparing it to a car company that builds luxury cars.
They are completely different. That being said, when entering into a new market, for instance with RIM entering into the consumer market, it's going to take some time for RIM to gain market share.
Now, has RIM made some bad development platform decisions in their process? yes they have. But if you're going to compare RIM to consumer based companies, I think it's a little premature - give them another year or two.
It's not up to me. The market will decide how much longer RIM has.
I suspect you're overly optimistic about their hold on the enterprise market, as well. While the smart phone market has grown dramatically, and thus RIM can continue to grow sales while losing market share at a tremendous clip, the fact is that if they're making phones no one wants, even enterprises will change eventually. CEOs and CTOs want nice phones, too, and they'll make the necessarily decisions to switch infrastructure to nice phones. This has already happened at every major company I know of that used to be Blackberry-only. They're now offering iPhone and Android to their people, alongside Blackberry, and everyone is obviously (and sensibly) choosing iPhone or Android.
Not the case on LATAM and emerging economies where BB devices are the preference phone for a lot of young people.
BBs just works fine for simple tasks, with low technical knowledge requirements for users, even old ladies can chat with their relatives and friends really easy, email? yes, and of course make calls. Plus in many countries is a sign of distinction and social status. So, sales growth? yes.
Customers don't buy technology, they buy ways to meet their needs.
What need was the Blackberry meeting?
What need is the iPad meeting?
From the article, it sounds like the Blackberry is being disrupted by the iPad - but I'm not sure it fits. A disruption is where the disruptive product is initially not good enough for the incumbents' customers' needs, and it has to go elsewhere and get started with other, less demanding customers, who value it for being cheaper, more convenient or simpler. Then, the disruption gradually improves til it is good enough for the incumbents' customers. At which point, it's game over for the incumbent.
I'm not sure that the iPad fits this bill. It depends on the needs of the Blackberry's customers, and what they were trying to get done with it.
It's also probably important to see the iPad not as standalone, but as "iPad+AppStore"; and as an extension of the iPhone, since it can run iPhone apps.
EDIT now I'm thinking that the Blackberry was a special-purpose solution (for the enterprise), and the iPad is a general-purpose solution. As soon as the iPad can also do what the Blackberry does, customers will switch. The odd thing is that the iPad/iPhone wasn't cheaper, more convenient or simpler - it was mainly just more general. Maybe more convenient, in being more usable.
EDIT2 The crucial innovation of the iPhone was adding a pointing device (multi-touch - the fact that it's multi is a nice extra) and a large screen. Before then, there was no mouse-like input device. Adding it was comparable to going from the Apple IIe to the Macintosh; or DOS to windows. It made the device easier to use - the crucial about this is not that it was less tedious, but that it became accessible to a new group of users, who previously could not use it. For smartphones, these people simply weren't customers before. They wouldn't have bought a Blackberry.
In other words, the iPhone was actually more convenient than the Blackberry - convenience that enabled it to target non-consumption.
At this point, the iPhone still wasn't good enough for Blackberry users, because it didn't have exchange integration, so RIM wasn't threatened. But when integration was added, it was good enough, and game over for RIM.
