BB - BlackBerry

[Guest valueInv]

I haven't looked into the fees but there seems be an implicit assumption that RIMM will have pricing power going forward when it comes to subscription fees.

[Smazz]

the days that rimm is going to be able to get people to pay for subs is just about over.

Can you post an annoymous letter as proof?

[Uccmal]

Question, Peterburke, Why do you think someone wins and loses?

 

I can show you multiple industries where there are multiple winners of various sizes.  Why should this be a winner take all scenario.

 

Maybe not the best of examples from an investment standpoint but certainly apropo from a product loyalty standpoint.  My parents have owned Chryslers for 40 years.  I try to tell them there are better products out there but there is no convincing some people.  There are those who only buy Ford, GM, etc, even though many Korean cars are the same price and far better built.  It cannot be patriotic anymore since the average car part gets multiple stamps on its passport before it ever ends up in an assembled vehicle.  Whatever governs human behaviour will prevent this from being a winner take all scenario.

 

The soft side of the tech industry seems to be closer to winner take all, or at least it was.  I dont see that the hardware side has ever been like that.  There will be Apple loyalists, BB loyalists, Samsung loyalists, etc. and product changers.  There are literally hundreds of phone companies worldwide.  There is no reason that one brand or type of device will get a monopoly.  RIM will bring out its new units sometime in the not too distant future and increase their base with all new buyers and maintain the existing base.

[CONeal]

i see three winners. apple google and msft. I think rimm is isolated on a little island. I don' t see room for them. I would focus on what Steven Elop has been saying about the mobile business. He offered rimm a lifeline. he was turned down. Elop says it's no longer about devices. It's a battle of Ecosystems. That's Crucial.

 

It's very much like the early PC industry where there was OS/2, CP/M, MS/DOS/Windows, Apple II/Mac. Now it's just windows and mac. why didn't os/2 and cp/4 survive? There were also some proprietary systems from Tandy and Amiga and Atrari. They are history. Tech is about winners and losers and that's why Buffett hates the business. You can win for a while then lose everything (nokia, rimm). See data general, tandem, and DEC, former "darlings". Hoping, along with you, for a rimm bounce. Only for different reasons. :)

 

So why is Apple, Google, and Microsoft the winners?  Why is RIM not a winner?  Your a making a blanket statement without providing any logic in your reasoning.

[alertmeipp]

Obviously, the next product line will do the talk.

[Liberty]

I second Peter on his "ecosystems" comment.

 

Smartphones are getting to be less about hardware than about software and brand. Consumers want to associate with a "cool" brand (it's like buying a car - many people think their choice reflects their personality, it's a way to signal status), and they want to be part of the best ecosystem (familiar UI, lots of Apps, fastest rate of innovation, access to music, movies, etc). The soft network effect provides a moat (not super deep and wide, but better than nothing)..

 

Why are they less about hardware? Because they'll soon all have high rez screen, GPSes, nice cameras, multi-touch, decent amounts of storage, etc. Once you have all that, what matters is the software ecosystem as well as what I would call the 'social' ecosystem (branding is part of that -- if you see your friends and people on the train with iPhones or Android phones and get familiar with those UI metaphors, you'll be more tempted to get a phone like that).

 

IMHO, winners are Apple and Android, everybody else lagging significantly behind.

[CONeal]

From my view ya'll are overlooking the difference between RiM and the others.  RIM's ecosystem has been in place for years and is used by many companies and governments.  Everything in the past has been based on business users and the needs of the corporation, this was their customer.  Businesses in turn have a track record with BlackBerry providing reliable phones with security being at the forefront of every BlackBerry put into the market.  Whether a company has 10 phones or 1,000 phones it can all be controlled at one location.  Companies don't care about cool, they care about are emails going to be hacked and does the phone meets their needs.  RIM has done that and provided giant steps forward in innovation that everyone just see,ms to overlook bc it's not an Apple or Google brand.

 

 Has RIM reacted slowly in the changing tide? Yes, but they have gotten the message and taking the steps for phones to have the "cool" factor.  Once these new phones are out the will have the "new" and "different" stigma attached to them in the consumers eyes.  People will go out and give it a try bc it makes them different and the center of attention.  How many people will be in shock asking 'is that really a BlackBerry'?

 

Consumers are a very fickle crowd, to say anyone will be the winner in x amount of years is naive.  Four years ago who would have said Google would have their own cell phone and have the largest market share?  The chairs are still moving for everyone and it's still to soon to determine who the winners will be.  Software maybe an important part of the smartphone experience and I'm comfortable and excited with what RIM is doing in the area.

 

Keep in mind RIM entered I to the consumer market "officially" this year, the kinks will be worked out in some of the area they lack in as they gain a better understanding of the best way to reach this crowd.

 

How many people will switch phones bc of tiered data plans now?  Those that thought Apple was a data hog should look at android data consumption.  Once there is a major security breach on a phone (it's only a matter of time) will will see where the consumers priorities really are.  Banking over a cell phone is not as safe as most people believe.

 

 

[bookie71]

Since this whole area is out of my comfort zone, I thought you might be interested in the comments of my fishing buddy.  His firm write software thet is used all over the world. It is a Blackberry using company (if that is the right term).  When it first came out he bought his wife an i-phone.  He saw she was enjoying it so much, he bought himself one. It took him about a year to convince the IT folks his i-phone could do everything his Blackberry could.  He is now Blackberry free (his term) and about 1/4 of the exec'sa at his company have switched (at their own cost)

[Liberty]

RIM has some lock in in the enterprise market, but a lot less than, say, MSFT. Phones are still mostly used for calls and emails. It's a lot easier to add some security features to iPhone and Android than it is to add the whole software ecosystem to RIM.

 

To say that things are moving fast in the smartphone world and 'who knows what will happen in 4 years' is only partly correct, because the smartphone category was mostly a greenfield opportunity. RIM claimed lots of ground at first thanks to a first-mover advantage, but now their model isn't as effective anymore and iPhone and Android are gobbling up so much of the fast growing market that they'll be very hard to displace (especially Android, since at any time if one of the phonemakers makes a crappy product, a number of others can be making desirable ones, while if Apple stumbles, they only have one phone).

 

To think that security is paramount for business is only partly true, IMO. If it was the case, they wouldn't have used the uber-insecure MSFT windows for the past decade. What's cool and desirable also matters to businesses, because they're made up of individuals who have influence over these kinds of decisions. Windows was never uncool in the enterprise because there was a big lock-in, there wasn't an obvious alternative/way out, and that's what people used at home anyways.. But RIM doesn't have that kind of lock in, people see the alternatives all around, and when people buy a phone for themselves, it's mostly Android and iPhone. Nobody wants to carry two phones.. I wouldn't be surprised if over time RIM lost the enterprise partly because of that.

 

When I see someone pull out a Blackberry, I think: "Oh, he got it from work, or if not, he's not very savvy and still thinks BBs are the phone to get" while if I see an iPhone or Android I think "That's nice, I wish I could justify buying one of those...". I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking like that.

[Liberty]

I don't agree with everything here, but worth adding to the pile:

 

http://blogs.forbes.com/ericjackson/2011/07/15/research-in-motions-leading-and-lagging-indicators/

[Guest VAL9000]

To say that things are moving fast in the smartphone world and 'who knows what will happen in 4 years' is only partly correct, because the smartphone category was mostly a greenfield opportunity. RIM claimed lots of ground at first thanks to a first-mover advantage, but now their model isn't as effective anymore and iPhone and Android are gobbling up so much of the fast growing market that they'll be very hard to displace (especially Android, since at any time if one of the phonemakers makes a crappy product, a number of others can be making desirable ones, while if Apple stumbles, they only have one phone).

Liberty, it looks like you're mixing two opposing thoughts to come to your conclusion here.  On one hand you're telling us that Android and Apple are gobbling up market-share, which makes them difficult to displace.  On the other hand, you're also saying that Apple is perilously close to failure because they are only one product away from having their market taken away from them.  These two ideas don't seem to fit together well.  Either an ecosystem is good enough to be sticky...  or it isn't.  Also don't forget that Apple sells multiple models (3GS and 4 today), with multiple configurations.  Sure it's "the same phone" but they are also hedged against a total product failure.

 

You may also be overlooking the negative impact of an undesirable product flying under the Android banner.  I notice that you have a negative view of Windows - do you think that Windows' poor reputation is earned more by Microsoft's underachieving efforts at quality assurance, or those efforts put forth by their device and software partners?  Android has the same problem.  Many developers are annoyed at having to satisfy so many hardware configurations that vary widely in quality.  It's a problem that Google is actively trying to solve.  That said, this is a RIM thread and RIM has the same problem.  Curve, bold, torch all have different form factors, resolutions and capabilities.

 

One of the reasons why console gaming is so successful is that you're guaranteed a market of n million hardware devices that are exactly the same.  As a game publisher/developer you can avoid wasting your time trying to ensure that x video card works with y motherboard.  Instead you focus on the game content and create a commercially better product for it.  This is one of the reasons why Apple has the strength in numbers that its competitors do not.  Diverse hardware offerings come with many benefits, however improved software quality and lower cost development aren't among them.

 

To think that security is paramount for business is only partly true, IMO. If it was the case, they wouldn't have used the uber-insecure MSFT windows for the past decade. What's cool and desirable also matters to businesses, because they're made up of individuals who have influence over these kinds of decisions. Windows was never uncool in the enterprise because there was a big lock-in, there wasn't an obvious alternative/way out, and that's what people used at home anyways.. But RIM doesn't have that kind of lock in, people see the alternatives all around, and when people buy a phone for themselves, it's mostly Android and iPhone. Nobody wants to carry two phones.. I wouldn't be surprised if over time RIM lost the enterprise partly because of that.

 

When I see someone pull out a Blackberry, I think: "Oh, he got it from work, or if not, he's not very savvy and still thinks BBs are the phone to get" while if I see an iPhone or Android I think "That's nice, I wish I could justify buying one of those...". I'm sure I'm not the only one thinking like that.

 

How can anyone make investment decisions based on whether or not something is cool?  It's such an insane idea to think about your money along these lines.  You may as well be investing in diet fads, fitness routines, and fashion trends.

 

It's time that we return to rational discussions about things like price, value, and risk.  Who creates the most value for the lowest price?  I would say Android.  Who delivers the most value for the price paid?  I'm going to guess Apple.  And who is the least risky person to buy from next quarter?  In Q1 it was RIM for sure.  In Q3, it's really really tough to call.  RIM has performed well for its customers (if not for the market), whereas Android, Apple, and WP7 are untested in the enterprise.  Tricky.  Too tricky for me, so I'm staying out of RIM.  Seems like the right decision.

 

[Smazz]

I hope I dont offend anyone here but using the term "ecosystem" in the framework of handheld devices is a bit of a joke. A true ecosystem is something that has been around for almost eternity - incubating life and never changing and the users just keep going through the same cycles.

This sector is the furthest thing from being ecosystem relevant. There is nothing here BUT changes (as per a completely new ecosystem). Microsoft, ok, that was something closer to an ecosystem - that will be about as close as we will prob ever see in this sector.

What is good today is old tommorrow and 0bsolete.

If you are using an analogy for this sector, besides RIMs lock on the security network, use something like fashion. Everyone knows RIMs products are better than others in some aspects. Apple has bells and whistles today but guess what? those bells and whistles werent around yesterday - and prob wont be around tommorrow. There will be different bells and whistle and, if you want to use the term ecosystem than Im going to gaurantee that it will be a totally different ecosystem tommorrow.

Security (for one) will keep RIM relevant - 70M subscribers say so... whats to stop Apple from going back to a MAc if someone brings out something more fashionable?

[Guest VAL9000]

I hope I dont offend anyone here but using the term "ecosystem" in the framework of handheld devices is a bit of a joke. A true ecosystem is something that has been around for almost eternity - incubating life and never changing and the users just keep going through the same cycles.

This sector is the furthest thing from being ecosystem relevant. There is nothing here BUT changes (as per a completely new ecosystem). Microsoft, ok, that was something closer to an ecosystem - that will be about as close as we will prob ever see in this sector.

So Microsoft has been around almost an eternity and therefore almost satisfies your personal definition?  I don't really want to get into arguing about semantics because it's pointless, but I'll continue to use ecosystem because it's the most accurate term I've come across that describes the environment correctly.  And here's where TechCrunch and Wired both use the term to describe the environment:

http://techcrunch.com/2009/06/08/40-million-iphones-and-ipod-touches-and-50000-apps/

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/mf_android/

 

Keep in mind that this is tech - it moves faster.  Ecosystems are created and destroyed in a few years instead of decades in the case of the PC, and centuries with respect to, say, the seafaring ecosystem.  Depending on where you put your perspective, you could say that mobile is just part of the internet ecosystem, which I'd agree with.  But then the rain forest's ecosystem is just part of earth's ecosystem and both are fair terms.

 

I might also agree that ecosystems are fashionable of late :)

 

[Liberty]

Liberty, it looks like you're mixing two opposing thoughts to come to your conclusion here.  On one hand you're telling us that Android and Apple are gobbling up market-share, which makes them difficult to displace.  On the other hand, you're also saying that Apple is perilously close to failure because they are only one product away from having their market taken away from them.  These two ideas don't seem to fit together well.  Either an ecosystem is good enough to be sticky...  or it isn't.  Also don't forget that Apple sells multiple models (3GS and 4 today), with multiple configurations.  Sure it's "the same phone" but they are also hedged against a total product failure.

 

I didn't say that Apple is "perilously close to failure". I just think it's harder to look ahead because they have more eggs in the same basket. This can magnify successes, but also failures.

 

 

You may also be overlooking the negative impact of an undesirable product flying under the Android banner.  I notice that you have a negative view of Windows - do you think that Windows' poor reputation is earned more by Microsoft's underachieving efforts at quality assurance, or those efforts put forth by their device and software partners?  Android has the same problem.  Many developers are annoyed at having to satisfy so many hardware configurations that vary widely in quality.  It's a problem that Google is actively trying to solve.  That said, this is a RIM thread and RIM has the same problem.  Curve, bold, torch all have different form factors, resolutions and capabilities.

 

One of the reasons why console gaming is so successful is that you're guaranteed a market of n million hardware devices that are exactly the same.  As a game publisher/developer you can avoid wasting your time trying to ensure that x video card works with y motherboard.  Instead you focus on the game content and create a commercially better product for it.  This is one of the reasons why Apple has the strength in numbers that its competitors do not.  Diverse hardware offerings come with many benefits, however improved software quality and lower cost development aren't among them.

 

I agree most of this, except that I think Android's fragmentation is manageable (more than the PC market was) because phones are more monolithic devices and the phonemakers have more control over what they include and what they can QT against (while PCs can be customized and modified a lot more). I also think that GOOG and its partners have shown that they take this seriously and have taken steps in the right direction.

 

But I do think on top of this that microsoft hasn't done a very good job at quality assurance for a very long time. This often happens with (near) monopolies (Bell Canada had particularly bad service when they were a monopoly, etc). I mean, Windows ME? Vista?

 

How can anyone make investment decisions based on whether or not something is cool?  It's such an insane idea to think about your money along these lines.  You may as well be investing in diet fads, fitness routines, and fashion trends.

 

When it comes to consumer products, this is important. It shouldn't be your only reason for investing or not, but if you think that, for example, Chrysler being uncool doesn't impact their market opportunities, and that their being uncool isn't a proxy for many of their perceived mistakes, then you can misunderstand why certain companies succeed better than others. What I called "cool" you can call "brand equity" or whatever. Buffett understands that this makes a difference in Coke vs RC Cola and Gillette vs no name or whatever.

 

It's time that we return to rational discussions about things like price, value, and risk.  Who creates the most value for the lowest price?  I would say Android.  Who delivers the most value for the price paid?  I'm going to guess Apple.  And who is the least risky person to buy from next quarter?  In Q1 it was RIM for sure.  In Q3, it's really really tough to call.  RIM has performed well for its customers (if not for the market), whereas Android, Apple, and WP7 are untested in the enterprise.  Tricky.  Too tricky for me, so I'm staying out of RIM.  Seems like the right decision.

 

It's a false choice. You can do both fundamental analysis and more qualitative analysis. Both approach complement each other, IMHO.

[Liberty]

I hope I dont offend anyone here but using the term "ecosystem" in the framework of handheld devices is a bit of a joke. A true ecosystem is something that has been around for almost eternity - incubating life and never changing and the users just keep going through the same cycles.

 

"Ecosystem" is a term often used by programmers. It's jargon that has specific meaning in that technical context. I can understand how someone not used to that sphere could find it weird.

[Smazz]

I hope I dont offend anyone here but using the term "ecosystem" in the framework of handheld devices is a bit of a joke. A true ecosystem is something that has been around for almost eternity - incubating life and never changing and the users just keep going through the same cycles.

 

"Ecosystem" is a term often used by programmers. It's jargon that has specific meaning in that technical context. I can understand how someone not used to that sphere could find it weird.

if it were of true value in the context used by those using it here, Apple would not be alive today.

Why did they survive the "ecosystem"?

 

Val9000, yes, it seems to be the reporters and analysts latest pet phrase.

[Liberty]

if it were of true value in the context used by those using it here, Apple would not be alive today.

Why did they survive the "ecosystem"?

 

You seem to be misunderstanding what it means. In technology, an 'ecosystem' is just a bunch of stuff and people (hardware, software, developers) who work together based on a set of shared standards. There's the Windows ecosystem, the Linux ecosystem, the IOs ecosystem, etc. The word doesn't imply that there's just one or that it never changes, just that if you decide to make software or hardware for Windows, you'll probably have a bigger ecosystem to plug into (and to get support from) than if you decide to write software for Amiga OS.

[Smazz]

I hope I dont offend anyone here but using the term "ecosystem" in the framework of handheld devices is a bit of a joke. A true ecosystem is something that has been around for almost eternity - incubating life and never changing and the users just keep going through the same cycles.

 

"Ecosystem" is a term often used by programmers. It's jargon that has specific meaning in that technical context. I can understand how someone not used to that sphere could find it weird.

if it were of true value in the context used by those using it here, Apple would not be alive today.

Why did they survive the "ecosystem"?

 

Val9000, yes, it seems to be the reporters and analysts latest pet phrase.

 

simple Steve Jobs diversified away from computers and created a new ecosystem from scratch.

now this is getting humorous...

 

Ive made my points - I'll leave it at that...

[Rabbitisrich]

I hope I dont offend anyone here but using the term "ecosystem" in the framework of handheld devices is a bit of a joke. A true ecosystem is something that has been around for almost eternity - incubating life and never changing and the users just keep going through the same cycles.

 

"Ecosystem" is a term often used by programmers. It's jargon that has specific meaning in that technical context. I can understand how someone not used to that sphere could find it weird.

if it were of true value in the context used by those using it here, Apple would not be alive today.

Why did they survive the "ecosystem"?

 

Val9000, yes, it seems to be the reporters and analysts latest pet phrase.

 

simple Steve Jobs diversified away from computers and created a new ecosystem from scratch.

now this is getting humorous...

 

Ive made my points - I'll leave it at that...

 

It looks like you are conflating moat and ecosystem. An environment doesn't have to be resilient versus all competitors to qualify as an ecosystem. It merely has to survive long enough to nurture "beings" whose existences are a function of every other element in the environment.

[Rabbitisrich]

This article neatly summarizes the RIMM short thesis that built momentum after the last quarterly report [emphasis added]:

 

http://www.bgr.com/2011/07/13/rims-inside-story-an-exclusive-look-at-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-company-that-made-smartphones-smart/

 

“They essentially just channel stuff,” a former exec said. For instance, when RIM wants to sell to a new market, it will go to two or three primary carriers and make those carriers purchase a set amount of devices up front to stock the channel for what is typically the remainder of the calendar year. Then RIM will sell those devices at full margin. It’s a great quick and easy profit from the channel. So RIM has now opened up three new carriers in a new country, let’s say, and it had them each purchase “X” thousand units each. Now, RIM can report to the Street that it shipped 700,000 devices at full market value.

 

After multiple sequential quarters of opening up new countries, there’s obviously a lot of volume there. Though the consensus of many is that RIM is nearing capacity with this strategy. The company now has to rely on the old school model of growth within these existing channels, and just as we’re seeing in North America with the tide changing now that long-standing BlackBerry customers are moving to other platforms and devices, that will happen in countries outside of the U.S. and Canada that have been stuffed with BlackBerry phones. Growth will slow to a stall in these markets, one source told me, and the problems will be compounded by the fact that a lot of these devices are not being sold through to end users. “They’re selling a screen with a giant calculator attached to it. It’s not a cool device anymore.”

 

As far as the PlayBook is concerned, RIM’s initial 500,000 shipments weren’t even sold at full margin. “RIM’s thought process was that they hoped if they put a product in a carrier’s hands that was less than full margin, it would entice the carriers to apply whatever number of discounts against that to bring it to market at an even lower price — a subsidy on the tablet. RIM isn’t making any money on the PlayBook.” To complicate matters, however, Jim Balsillie told the carriers at the 11th hour that the PlayBook wouldn’t have native email and would require the Bridge app in order to receive emails and provide calendar functions. “RIM is notorious for dropping these bombshells at the 11th hour on the carriers, and the PlayBook not having native email was a shock to the carriers.” They were all expecting a BlackBerry with a bigger screen. RIM was hoping to blow through the 500,000 units and have carriers take orders for millions of additional PlayBooks, but that has not happened yet.

 

The article is largely negative on Mike Lazaridis and cites a bunch of "former employees", but the main arguments are supported by domestic vs. foreign market trends from the last 10-Q.

 

 

 

EDIT: It's worth noting that the author, Jonathan Geller, wrote the BGR articles containing the claims of "anonymous employees". His recent authorship for BGR has been consistently negative with respect to RIMM.

[Liberty]

BB not doing too well in this consumer survey:

 

http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/07/ios-android-catching-buyers-eyes-while-blackberry-suffers.ars

[Liberty]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/second-rim-executive-moves-to-samsung/article2103690/

[Smazz]

ok, I'll bite:

When you have 100s of Millions of handsets sold worldwide by all mfgs, giving a 4000person servey is not really going to mean much especially when there is no Non US input - this with the understanding one of the companies has the largest % growth in emerg mkts.

 

About the Ex leaving, Pullleaazze... is this the first time an ex went to another firm?

 

[beerbaron]

The thesis for RIM is simple:

 

-They will keep their leadership position in the enterprise market.

-When their new OS comes out phones will start to look a lot more attractive.

 

Any surveys showing customers do not intend to buy BB is kinda useless data. We know their phone interface is crap. But looking at the Playbook gives a good insight as to what the new phones will look like and the response from the customers. There is no way the future is seen in this survey.

 

Secondly, any enterprise with a good amount of cell phones will tell you it's a mess to manage with Android or iOS. I was interviewing a senior employee in charge of IT security at a large company and here were it's comments:

 

"Well, Android and iOS are interesting for a company of say up to 100 employees. But right now their offering for the large entreprise is really poor, it's almost impossible to manage those phones. The security issue is not the main problem it's more the management of the cell phone park that becomes a headache. Some people do find ways to forward their mails on their iPhone, but it does not work as well and why bother if a BB does the job perfectly well"

 

Now if they could just get their shit together and ship those new phones... who do I have to pay to get those FCC approvals? :)

 

BeerBaron

[S2S]

The thesis for RIM is simple:

 

-They will keep their leadership position in the enterprise market.

 

... about that leadership position:

 

The iPad and the iPad 2 now account for 97 percent of all tablet activations. And iPad figures have helped boost Apple’s overall share of activations to just under 80 percent, compared to just under 70 percent in the first quarter. IPhone activations are up to 66 percent, compared to 62 percent in the previous quarter. Good said iPad adoption was driven by the financial services sectors, which accounted for 46 percent of all adoption, more than triple that of any other industry.

 

Good Technology, which provides management and security tools that allow companies to deploy smartphones and tablets, doesn’t account for Research in Motion devices, which connect through a BlackBerry Enterprise Server. So it’s unclear how the Playbook or BlackBerry phones figure into the mix... But the results show how iOS and Android, two platforms not designed specifically for enterprise, are faring in corporate adoption. Good Technology is used by 40 of the Fortune 100.

 

The latest Good figures falls in line with Apple’s own data on enterprise use of iOS devices. Apple said Tuesday during its quarterly earnings call that 91 percent of the Fortune 500 have deployed or are testing the iPhone up from 88 percent last quarter. And 86 percent of the Fortune 500 are deploying or are testing the iPad, up from 75 percent in the previous quarter.

http://gigaom.com/2011/07/21/ipad-moves-ahead-of-android-at-corporations/

 

As I wrote in a post some dozen pages back, most Wall St. banks have either made iPhone available as an option for corporate phone or are running pilot programs to do just that. Anecdotal evidences at industry conferences suggest iPhone is just as popular as BB. And companies in the financial services sector have arguably the highest switching costs due to (a) security needs and (b) a multitude of apps/plug-ins built in-house for accepted platforms.