BB - BlackBerry

[txlaw]

1.5 to 2.5 billion? Of course IBM wants a bargain but just say no. This is the part of RIMM that has a great future..

 

Yeah, RIM would be crazy to sell those biz lines for $1.5 to $2.5 billion. 

 

If anything, IBM should be willing to pay a pretty full price as they can use their vast distribution network to greatly increase the worth of the business lines they want to buy.

[Parsad]

RIM rumoured to sell small assets like Newbay.  Cheers!

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48622230

[Parsad]

Blackberry 10 OS soon to be ready for licensing.  Cheers!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/rim-says-blackberry-10-will-soon-be-ready-for-licensing.html

[cwericb]

The following quotes from the above article probably accounts for Prem's confidence in RIM and it likely involves a lot more than phones and tablets.

 

"The new lineup uses technology from its 2010 acquisition of QNX Software Systems, which RIM bought... which is used in cars, nuclear plants and military drones. " 

"In Heins’s vision for RIM, the company will expand the scope of its devices beyond BlackBerry smartphones and PlayBook tablets into other areas of mobile computing and what he calls machine-to-machine communications. "  “Smartphones are a part of our business, but we’re looking way beyond this...”

 

 

[portfolio14]

Blackberry 10 OS soon to be ready for licensing.  Cheers!

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-13/rim-says-blackberry-10-will-soon-be-ready-for-licensing.html

 

Really difficult to judge whether it's good news or bad news from a long-term investor's perspective.

 

Don't forget it was a mistake for Apple to license MacOS in mid-90's.

 

But I can also see how licensing can strengthen the entire ecosystem as a whole.

 

I'm of two minds now.

[txlaw]

The possibility of licensing BB10 is good news, in my opinion. 

 

What I would like to see is RIM's OS being the carrier alternative to AAPL, GOOG, and MSFT.  Carriers worldwide would like having an alternative OS (that can be put not just on phones and cars, but other devices) that would enable the use of carrier infrastructure and services for content storage and consumption through cloud. 

 

After all, why should the big guys in tech be the only ones who benefit from end users' increasing use of cloud technologies?  Perhaps if the carriers can get in on the action, they will be more willing to let their legacy business models go and really spur growth in broadband.

 

If RIM could pull off putting itself in such a position, major handset manufacturers would, of course, want to license the OS to provide handsets to the carriers.

[Guest valueInv]

The possibility of licensing BB10 is good news, in my opinion. 

 

What I would like to see is RIM's OS being the carrier alternative to AAPL, GOOG, and MSFT.  Carriers worldwide would like having an alternative OS (that can be put not just on phones and cars, but other devices) that would enable the use of carrier infrastructure and services for content storage and consumption through cloud. 

 

After all, why should the big guys in tech be the only ones who benefit from end users' increasing use of cloud technologies?  Perhaps if the carriers can get in on the action, they will be more willing to let their legacy business models go and really spur growth in broadband.

 

If RIM could pull off putting itself in such a position, major handset manufacturers would, of course, want to license the OS to provide handsets to the carriers.

 

On the alternative OS point: That was one of the reasons why I bought Nokia. While the operators did a lot of handwaving on Windows device support and marketing dollars, none of it materialized. They seem to be quite content pushing Android.

 

On the cloud point: You seem to be confusing carriers and mobile operators. Mobile operators have not made any significant moves in cloud services. The wireline carrier may have some cloud stuff but nothing that is anywhere competitive to the likes of Amazon or Google. Other than a lot of handwaving, they haven't invested much in cloud hosting.

 

Handset manufacturers have a bunch of OS options available to them including Palm OS (free and open source), Moblin (free and open source), Windows 8, etc. So far there hasn't been much interest.

[txlaw]

On the alternative OS point: That was one of the reasons why I bought Nokia. While the operators did a lot of handwaving on Windows device support and marketing dollars, none of it materialized. They seem to be quite content pushing Android.

 

It's incorrect to believe that the "carriers" (I use this as a blanket term for telcos, MSOs, and MNO, as they are all intertwined with each other and getting into each others' businesses) are content with just pushing Android.  They are heavy into Android because it is the only good alternative to iOS that is available at the moment. 

 

But they certainly do not want to see GOOG, MSFT, and AAPL selling all the services and being the only ones to greatly profit from the cloud revolution.  Nobody wants to just become a dumb pipe.  But the big three are threatening to make these guys dumb pipes with all their acquisitions and capital spending on cloud infrastructure.  So I believe there will be demand for a carrier-friendly OS. 

 

NOK is a bet on the wrong horse, IMO.  MSFT got the better end of that deal, although there is always the possibility that NOK gets bought out.  You're better off going with MSFT than NOK if you believe Windows 8 will take off.

 

For more on RIM's efforts to get carriers on board, see http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57493580-94/blackberry-10-road-show-can-it-revive-rim/

 

On the cloud point: You seem to be confusing carriers and mobile operators. Mobile operators have not made any significant moves in cloud services. The wireline carrier may have some cloud stuff but nothing that is anywhere competitive to the likes of Amazon or Google. Other than a lot of handwaving, they haven't invested much in cloud hosting.

 

Incorrect on multiple fronts. 

 

As I pointed out above, I use "carriers" as shorthand for telcos (CLECs, ILECs, backhaul providers), MSOs, and MNOs -- basically anyone who transfers bits via wire or EM wave.

 

Last I checked, AT&T and VZ (who own AT&T Mobile and Verizon Wireless) were carriers who are trying to get into cloud services.  Verizon bought Terremark for $1.4 billion and is working to build that business out.  AT&T has its synaptic service, which I believe it will push heavily going forward.  Both will start with enterprise and then may try to get to consumers with the suggested carrier-friendly OS (hopefully, BB10).  Who knows what other services they may offer, but from a security standpoint, they are clearly in the best position.

 

I believe "carriers" worldwide will follow suit.  You have to skate to where the puck is going.

 

Handset manufacturers have a bunch of OS options available to them including Palm OS (free and open source), Moblin (free and open source), Windows 8, etc. So far there hasn't been much interest.

 

I wouldn't write off Windows 8 or BB10 yet.  Both end users and carriers will determine what OS'es the handset manufacturers use.  We shall see what happens based on their assessments of those two OS'es.

[Guest valueInv]

 

NOK is a bet on the wrong horse, IMO.  MSFT got the better end of that deal,

 

Why do you say that?

 

 

 

[txlaw]

 

NOK is a bet on the wrong horse, IMO.  MSFT got the better end of that deal,

 

Why do you say that?

 

Well, I should probably temper my comments a bit because I haven't done a breakup analysis of NOK.  It's possible that NOK is worth more than the current market cap on a sum of the parts basis.  Would be interesting to try to figure out what the mapping service they own is worth, particularly given the use of it by MSFT.  And there is acquisition value there. 

 

So at current prices, maybe NOK isn't such a bad investment.  But when the MSFT/NOK deal was announced I was wary about the deal because I wasn't at all sure that jumping solely onto the Windows platform was the right way to go.  Essentially, NOK made themselves into the Samsung for Windows, only they are not nearly as excellent a handset manufacturer, and they were taking a big risk on an untested platform.  Moreover, as far as I am aware, there was no exclusivity deal between NOK and MSFT.  So NOK risked being the guinea pig and jumping off platform while potentially having to face off against other OEMs in the future.  I believe Elop's ties to MSFT caused him to take this huge risk.

 

The majority of value is in the OS and services, not in the handset manufacturing, and it's difficult to do well unless you're a low cost, high quality manufacturer like Samsung.  If NOK wanted to become like Samsung, they should have negotiated a deal with MSFT where they could provide both Windows and Android phones, but I guess they needed the cash badly, since they knew they would start bleeding.  So MSFT got its guinea pig, which happened to be the number one phone manufacture back then.

[txlaw]

Speak of the devil:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-57494371-94/nokia-exec-throws-down-gauntlet-against-samsung/

 

Perhaps NOK will surprise us with the new Lumia.  If it's a hit, maybe NOK is substantially undervalued at sub-$3.  It's also notable that they feature Nokia Maps on that announcement.

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

if carriers want to start making and selling their own branded devices why don't they use WebOS which is open source? WebOS is a much more complete and refined Mobile OS than BB10 is. It is also free. They could also use Samsung's Bada, Tizen, or Meego. They could take Android source code and put a new user interface on it like Amazon did. Free of charge. It would be their very own mobile OS.  Yet the carriers are not doing any of this. Which leads me to believe they won't license BB10 either.

 

The Carriers know nothing about making mobile phones, or building mobile ecosystems. Look at it this way. Rimm knows a lot about making mobile devices mobile OS and mobile ecosystems. But they have utterly failed at it. Because it's Hard. How could the carriers, who have no experience in doing any of that, stand a chance against the likes of samsung, nokia, msft, google, and apple?

 

They will be dumb pipes. It's a good business if they don't screw it up. In the future you will be buying your phone from Google or Apple or Msft, or at Wallmart or costco or Amazon. Going to carrier stores for your phone is going to be an anochronism. we won't need them any more.

 

the road show rimm is doing now is to try to get the carriers to take their next two phones on terms that make sense for rimm. it's not to try to get them to license bb10. Samsung has already said they have no plans to license bb10. Nokia has no plans to license bb10. I would be surprised if anybody of consequence licenses bb10. I would be shocked.

[Guest valueInv]

if carriers want to start making and selling their own branded devices why don't they use WebOS which is open source? WebOS is a much more complete and refined Mobile OS than BB10 is. It is also free. They could also use Samsung's Bada, Tizen, or Meego. They could take Android source code and put a new user interface on it like Amazon did. Free of charge. It would be their very own mobile OS.  Yet the carriers are not doing any of this. Which leads me to believe they won't license BB10 either.

 

The Carriers know nothing about making mobile phones, or building mobile ecosystems. They will be dumb pipes. It's a good business if they don't screw it up. In the future you will be buying your phone from Google or Apple or Msft, or at Wallmart or costco or Amazon. Going to carrier stores for your phone is going to be an anochronism. we won't need them any more.

 

the road show rimm is doing now is to try to get the carriers to take their next two phones on terms that make sense for rimm. it's not to try to get them to license bb10. Samsung has already said they have no plans to license bb10. Nokia has no plans to license bb10. I would be surprised if anybody of consequence licenses bb10. I would be shocked.

 

+1

 

[txlaw]

if carriers want to start making and selling their own branded devices why don't they use WebOS which is open source? WebOS is a much more complete and refined Mobile OS than BB10 is. It is also free. They could also use Samsung's Bada, Tizen, or Meego. They could take Android source code and put a new user interface on it like Amazon did. Free of charge. It would be their very own mobile OS.  Yet the carriers are not doing any of this. Which leads me to believe they won't license BB10 either.

 

The Carriers know nothing about making mobile phones, or building mobile ecosystems. They will be dumb pipes. It's a good business if they don't screw it up. In the future you will be buying your phone from Google or Apple or Msft, or at Wallmart or costco or Amazon. Going to carrier stores for your phone is going to be an anochronism. we won't need them any more.

 

the road show rimm is doing now is to try to get the carriers to take their next two phones on terms that make sense for rimm. it's not to try to get them to license bb10. Samsung has already said they have no plans to license bb10. Nokia has no plans to license bb10. I would be surprised if anybody of consequence licenses bb10. I would be shocked.

 

+1

 

-1

 

What's your basis for the claim that WebOS is a more complete and refined OS than BB10?  And comparing BB10 to Bada, Meego, and Tizen?  Again, that's just off base.  And then to say that RIM has failed without even seeing the rollout of BB10?  What, do you have a crystal ball?

 

Yeah, something tells me you're looking for failure ;)

 

The point is not for carriers to sell branded devices, but rather to have an OS that is carrier friendly in that it allows for the use of carrier-provided services and cloud infrastructure.  How is VZ gonna scale up its cloud services biz if everyone who is using Android puts their stuff on GOOG infrastructure?

 

Love your forum name, btw . . . are you going to post exclusively about RIM?

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

WebOS has been out and on the market for years. It actually has been on working phones. People have bought them. BB10 is still a gleem in Mike L's eye. bb10 is vaporware. bb10 has not ever been on one phone yet.  It's not due till early 2013 and it will probably slip again.

 

And those other os? again they are all proven. they Work. Imagine. they work and you can take the code and make something with it. There are plenty of good mobile OS available for free. who  is going to PAY rimm for a product that is not even out yet, when there are plenty of free proven alternatives? 

 

If the carriers are planning to get into the phone business, why haven't they done it yet? You think they are waiting to PAY for bb10? a totally unproven unsupported system with no apps and no developers?

 

I don't understand carrier friendly. that seems like a nebulous concept to me. And there is no God given right for Verizon to get into web services. they aren't entitled to that business.

[DCG]

RE: WebOS - there is no App infrastructure.

 

Regardless of how good the OS might be, if they are unable to convince a lot of developers to build apps for the platform, people won't want the product.

 

RIM is most likely going to just piggyback on Android and let people install those apps, but I'm guessing that #1: Android apps won't function nearly as well on BB devices than on devices running Android (in my experience, Android apps are pretty buggy even on android devices), and #2, doing this is not a good way to build a brand.

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

true. if I was going to start a mobile platform from scratch (bad idea) I would not use WebOS either. I merely used it to illustrate that as bad as it is from an application standpoint, it's far better supported than bb10, which has Zero apps and zero developer support and won't even be out until 2013. And it's free. It's open source.

 

As far as rimm piggybacking on android, bad strategy. you go all in or don't go at all. halfway measures fail. This is why Nokia chose to take the pain now and go all in on windows phone 8. it's not doing any Android emulation simply to claim they have "apps".

 

Sometimes, as much as we wish there were, there are no easy answers.

 

rimm CEO has hinted what his licensing strategy will be with bb10. He wants rimm to build a few high end phones for mature markets. he wants to license bb10 to others to build low cost devices to sell in international / emerging markets. of course I dont' know how he is going to beat "free". Android is winning on low cost phones in emerging markets. It's free.

[txlaw]

Piggybacking on Android is actually a great idea, as long as the apps are not buggy, as DCG notes.  (Btw, Android isn't free.  For example, MSFT makes money extracting royalties from manufacturers that use Android.  It's low cost, but not free.)  Also, if more people start putting out HTML5 apps, you could certainly see those developers making apps that use BB10's various tool kits that allow HTML5 apps to incorporate native functionality.  And don't be surprised if developer support abroad is more pervasive in NA, as BB is only growing outside of NA.

 

The notion that there is zero developer support or zero apps for BB10 is unsubstantiated, and you're throwing out false information.  And to call BB10 vaporware is not very helpful.  After all, people have called both Windows and OSX vaporware at points in time. 

 

As for VZ's god given right, who said anything like that?  My point is that it makes a lot of sense for VZ, AT&T, and other "carriers" to try to get an OS going that will be just as good and that will drive use of their other business lines other than just communication services.  This is true of non NA "carriers" as well.  Why not deploy cash generated from dying business lines (for example, voice services) into growth businesses?

 

Whether BB10 will be just as good as the other OS'es is something for which we will have to wait and see.  To call it dead now is premature, though there certainly is a possibility that it will be DOA if there isn't support for it in the marketplace among end users and carriers.

[Guest valueInv]

If you're replying on RIMMs patents for a margin of safety, here's a data point to consider:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2012/08/17/interest-low-kodak-may-rethink-plans-to-sell-its-digital-imaging-patents/

[Guest valueInv]

if carriers want to start making and selling their own branded devices why don't they use WebOS which is open source? WebOS is a much more complete and refined Mobile OS than BB10 is. It is also free. They could also use Samsung's Bada, Tizen, or Meego. They could take Android source code and put a new user interface on it like Amazon did. Free of charge. It would be their very own mobile OS.  Yet the carriers are not doing any of this. Which leads me to believe they won't license BB10 either.

 

The Carriers know nothing about making mobile phones, or building mobile ecosystems. They will be dumb pipes. It's a good business if they don't screw it up. In the future you will be buying your phone from Google or Apple or Msft, or at Wallmart or costco or Amazon. Going to carrier stores for your phone is going to be an anochronism. we won't need them any more.

 

the road show rimm is doing now is to try to get the carriers to take their next two phones on terms that make sense for rimm. it's not to try to get them to license bb10. Samsung has already said they have no plans to license bb10. Nokia has no plans to license bb10. I would be surprised if anybody of consequence licenses bb10. I would be shocked.

 

+1

 

-1

 

What's your basis for the claim that WebOS is a more complete and refined OS than BB10?  And comparing BB10 to Bada, Meego, and Tizen?  Again, that's just off base.  And then to say that RIM has failed without even seeing the rollout of BB10?  What, do you have a crystal ball?

 

Yeah, something tells me you're looking for failure ;)

 

The point is not for carriers to sell branded devices, but rather to have an OS that is carrier friendly in that it allows for the use of carrier-provided services and cloud infrastructure.  How is VZ gonna scale up its cloud services biz if everyone who is using Android puts their stuff on GOOG infrastructure?

 

Love your forum name, btw . . . are you going to post exclusively about RIM?

 

Carriers/operators have a poor history of over the top services outside their walled gardens:

 

http://broabandtrafficmanagement.blogspot.com/2012/08/dan-rayburn-at-is-giving-up-on-carrier.html

 

If you think they have a chance competing against the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft, go ahead. Personally, I like betting on high probability events. They have failed in navigation services, they've failed in app stores and they are failing in mobile payments.

 

One more thing, until recently, I worked for a company selling data equipment to operators. If they were planning cloud services, it would have to go through our boxes and they would need to get us to support it. Most of the large operators around the globe are out customers. If anyone was planning cloud services of the kind and scale you are talking about, we would be among the first to know.

 

The kind of services some of them are working on is this, very different:

 

http://www.aepona.com

 

BTW, for all the time I've worked in mobile, I haven't been in or heard of a single meeting at my company with mobile operators where there was someone from the wireline side. They tend to be very separate companies.

[txlaw]

Carriers/operators have a poor history of over the top services outside their walled gardens:

 

http://broabandtrafficmanagement.blogspot.com/2012/08/dan-rayburn-at-is-giving-up-on-carrier.html

 

If you think they have a chance competing against the likes of Google, Apple and Microsoft, go ahead. Personally, I like betting on high probability events. They have failed in navigation services, they've failed in app stores and they are failing in mobile payments.

 

Go ahead and what?  Buy into the carriers?  No thanks.

 

I completely agree on the carriers' failures to build out suitable services.  Which is why they need a partner who won't try to extract all of the economics from the business opportunity.

 

That's the whole point of saying that RIM's BB10 could be valuable to carriers.  Note that the failure or success of BB10 does not greatly affect my estimation that the break-up/run-off value of RIM is higher than the current market price.

 

Also, strictly speaking, I'm not arguing that carriers themselves should provide OTT services.  On the contrary, I'm arguing that carriers should be providing infrastructure services to OTT providers.  So CDN services, storage, IaaS, security services, etc.  Their forte, after all, is in providing utility services to people who can actually build applications/services.

 

It's about cooperation for the carriers now, not trying to build out their own services to try to compete with OTT providers.

 

One more thing, until recently, I worked for a company selling data equipment to operators. If they were planning cloud services, it would have to go through our boxes and they would need to get us to support it. Most of the large operators around the globe are out customers. If anyone was planning cloud services of the kind and scale you are talking about, we would be among the first to know.

 

The kind of services some of them are working on is this, very different:

 

http://www.aepona.com

 

BTW, for all the time I've worked in mobile, I haven't been in or heard of a single meeting at my company with mobile operators where there was someone from the wireline side. They tend to be very separate companies.

 

Interesting.  Not sure how this supports your idea that the "carriers" are NOT trying to get into cloud infrastructure services.  It sounds like what Aepona is pushing for is "network as a service" and service provider solutions, which seems to encompass a subset of what I have described above in all of my posts.

 

As for the "wireline side," you have to understand that strategy is driven at the holdco level, so while wireline and wireless are, of course, separate, the point of combination is to derive benefit from the synergies that exist there.  And does it really surprise you that if you were working specifically in "mobile," the wireline reps were not there?

[Guest rimm_never_sleeps]

the heritage of the carrier is out of the regulated utility world. these folks don't exactly move fast. they also don't have a core competency of writing software and building cloud based ecosytems. rimm did not have this competency either and tried to assemble it over the last few years via acquisitions. the carriers are even less prepared than rimm was. google has been totally frustrated with them as they try to roll out the Nexus in an attempt to bring some innovation to the device buying experience.

 

the carriers have their own problems. the wireline assets are being milked for cash to pay down debt and to pay high dividends. not a lot of excess cash there to allocate to "cloud services". as for the wireless side, they have their hands full just building out the 3g and 4g networks to give users of smartphones a decent service level. cash is being allocated here. I agree with the poster above who has very little confidence in carriers ability to execute on plans outside their core competency of delivering network infrastructure and voice and data service.

[Guest valueInv]

 

Also, strictly speaking, I'm not arguing that carriers themselves should provide OTT services.  On the contrary, I'm arguing that carriers should be providing infrastructure services to OTT providers.  So CDN services, storage, IaaS, security services, etc.  Their forte, after all, is in providing utility services to people who can actually build applications/services.

 

Do you really think Google or Apple would buy storage from say AT&T? Do you think Verizon can run a data center as cost effectively as Google?

Why would they take a step backwards?

 

 

 

 

Interesting.  Not sure how this supports your idea that the "carriers" are NOT trying to get into cloud infrastructure services.  It sounds like what Aepona is pushing for is "network as a service" and service provider solutions, which seems to encompass a subset of what I have described above in all of my posts.

 

Look carefully at the "cloud" services that Aepona is selling. They're not the kind they would require the support of RIMM, they are very limited. Aepona is actually an API player. The whole "cloud" this is just marketing talk. A few years ago, the same product had no mention of cloud services. Now a days, every tech company uses "cloud" in their marketing. Don't be fooled.

 

Let's say BB!0 comes out and gets 10% marketshare. Let's say an operator introduces a cloud service and gains 50% traction among RIMM customers (very high, BTW). So its worth it to introduce a 5% traction service? If your were a product manager at AT&T, would you go the the CFO and ask him to divert some of this LTE budget for the new service?

 

As for the "wireline side," you have to understand that strategy is driven at the holdco level, so while wireline and wireless are, of course, separate, the point of combination is to derive benefit from the synergies that exist there.  And does it really surprise you that if you were working specifically in "mobile," the wireline reps were not there?

 

If they were trying to implement this strategy, they would have to come to us. Most new data services would require our support, so there would be no implementation without us. Further, we have very close relationships with them and talk to them constantly about their plans. And even if they didn't disclose it to us for some reason, most of their traffic goes through our boxes in their network. We know exactly where all the traffic is going.

[txlaw]

Do you really think Google or Apple would buy storage from say AT&T? Do you think Verizon can run a data center as cost effectively as Google?

Why would they take a step backwards?

 

Of course I'm not saying that someone like a GOOG will buy storage from AT&T.  In fact, I'm saying the opposite, so you appear to be a bit confused. 

 

I'm saying that AT&T and VZ will want to compete with GOOG, AMZN, MSFT, Rackspace, LVLT, AAPL (if they actually have their own data centers and cloud infrastructure going forward) for the provisioning of cloud infrastructure services. 

 

As to whether the carriers can run datacenters more cost effectively, that is a good question.  But that's what they're trying to do.  Why do you think VZ bought Terremark?

 

Look carefully at the "cloud" services that Aepona is selling. They're not the kind they would require the support of RIMM, they are very limited. Aepona is actually an API player. The whole "cloud" this is just marketing talk. A few years ago, the same product had no mention of cloud services. Now a days, every tech company uses "cloud" in their marketing. Don't be fooled.

 

I never said that Aepona would require support of RIM.  And I understand that they provide API services.  What I said above was not meant to indicate that Aepona itself is a "cloud" services provider -- those would be its customers.  It's notable that Aepona is trying to sell its wares to "cloud" service providers, which includes MSOs, MNOs, telcos, etc.

 

Let's say BB!0 comes out and gets 10% marketshare. Let's say an operator introduces a cloud service and gains 50% traction among RIMM customers (very high, BTW). So its worth it to introduce a 5% traction service? If your were a product manager at AT&T, would you go the the CFO and ask him to divert some of this LTE budget for the new service?

 

Again, you misunderstand.  The AT&T product manager or someone in charge of strategy at AT&T would say, hey, how do we get more use of our synaptics products?  We want to grow our utility service to compete with the likes of Rackspace, AMZN, etc.  See, e.g., http://www.business.att.com/enterprise/Portfolio/cloud/ .

 

One way to do this is to provide IT departments an end user OS that would drive the use of carrier infrastructure in the deployment of IT resources.  Thus, BB10 could possibly drive the use of carrier services the same way that GOOG drives use of its web services and infrastructure with Android. 

 

This is the potential opportunity for RIM if BB10 is a good product that people want.  It remains to be seen whether BB10 will be a good product or if RIM is actually trying to implement this strategy.  I might be wrong that this is RIM's intention.

 

If they were trying to implement this strategy, they would have to come to us. Most new data services would require our support, so there would be no implementation without us. Further, we have very close relationships with them and talk to them constantly about their plans. And even if they didn't disclose it to us for some reason, most of their traffic goes through our boxes in their network. We know exactly where all the traffic is going.

 

No idea about this.  But somehow I suspect these behemoths are not talking strategy with your company.  I could be wrong, though.

[portfolio14]

Share price dropped 50% didn't bother me; naysayers didn't bother me; Android and iOS dominating didn't bother me.

 

This bothers me like hell:

 

http://www.bgr.com/2012/08/21/blackberry-enterprise-server-blackberry-10/