Smazz Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 If you replace EK with RIMM in the above paragraph, you will generate an eerily accurate story. I think not - its almost as comical as when people compare RIM to PALM Name me one thing EK has been a market leader in over the last 5 years? Name on major part of the world EK has been a leader. No offense but those type of comparisons are futile. Fair to say that in a technology environment EVERY company in the sector can be blown away by a new technology. In the case of MSFT, APPL and to a lesser extent RIM - they have the benefit of building up cash with no debt that they could ride things out or buy a new technology. Just today on a non investment website: I'm currently on a iPhone 4 but am thinking of jumping back to a Blackberry just because alot of my colleagues are still on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Name me one thing EK has been a market leader in over the last 10 years? Name on major part of the world EK has been a leader. VAL was talking about EK circa 1996. If you go back to that period and the 10 years prior to it, I'd say that EK was in a leadership position or close to one (at least based on what I know of the company, which isn't that much). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Well kodak was the leader in medical imaging printing until, until everything went digital.... There were one of the leaders in photography until, until everything went digital.... Funny thing that Rimm has started to move into Kodak's medical imaging business just as kodak is disappearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 There were one of the leaders in photography until, until everything went digital.... Funny thing that Rimm has started to move into Kodak's medical imaging business just as kodak is disappearing. The irony here is that significantly better smartphones are killing RIM, and they're also killing the Kodak-killer: point-and-shoot digital cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Well kodak was the leader in medical imaging printing until, until everything went digital.... There were one of the leaders in photography until, until everything went digital.... Funny thing that Rimm has started to move into Kodak's medical imaging business just as kodak is disappearing. Kodak was/is a family controlled company in the third or fourth generation. Unlike aapl, msft, dell, rimm, all of which are owned and run by their founders, until two weeks ago anyway. The family trust companies often lose momentum and ability to adapt. Whats the saying about shirt sleeves? Seriously I cannot remember how it goes - when a company is built by founders and then the next gen comes in and absolutely shits the bed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I wasn't clear there. I had to look up kodak' earlier history. Not sure what role the family had. He had no direct decendants At any rate the culture had got a little sluggish moving into the digital era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I wasn't clear there. I had to look up kodak' earlier history. Not sure what role the family had. He had no direct decendants At any rate the culture had got a little sluggish moving into the digital era. no worries - weather they are blood or not its not uncommon for those inheriting or taking over companies to burn it down by not doing what made it such a great co. in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Time for a little levity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 There were one of the leaders in photography until, until everything went digital.... Funny thing that Rimm has started to move into Kodak's medical imaging business just as kodak is disappearing. The irony here is that significantly better smartphones are killing RIM, and they're also killing the Kodak-killer: point-and-shoot digital cameras. Have you seen the new Razr. That thing is a game changer. I have always had a compact P&S but now whats the point, especially when its used for nightlife and travel. Why not just use a cell. I am usually quite comfortable having a 1 year old phone or device, but I want that Razr and may bite the bullet and buy one. Black Berries are stone age technology, and having had an Android for 5 months, I get frustrated using an old black berry... All anecdotal, so its not worth much, but RIMM is dead in the water unless they go after the consumer space. The only thing saving them inmo is the IP / Security features. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 There were one of the leaders in photography until, until everything went digital.... Funny thing that Rimm has started to move into Kodak's medical imaging business just as kodak is disappearing. The irony here is that significantly better smartphones are killing RIM, and they're also killing the Kodak-killer: point-and-shoot digital cameras. Have you seen the new Razr. That thing is a game changer. I have always had a compact P&S but now whats the point, especially when its used for nightlife and travel. Why not just use a cell. I am usually quite comfortable having a 1 year old phone or device, but I want that Razr and may bite the bullet and buy one. Black Berries are stone age technology, and having had an Android for 5 months, I get frustrated using an old black berry... All anecdotal, so its not worth much, but RIMM is dead in the water unless they go after the consumer space. The only thing saving them inmo is the IP / Security features. That new Razr is pretty cool. Clearly, they're going after both the high end consumer market and the business market. I'm really interested in seeing what people think about the webtop software that comes with the phone. Being able to dock your phone and use it to stream media, browse the web, edit documents, and use Android apps on an HD screen is really intriguing. Android is really starting to become attractive to me, and the pace of innovation is amazing. We see the new Razr and Galaxy Nexus. The Ice Cream Sandwich update is coming. The Asus Transformer Prime looks really nice and could actually be an iPad competitor when it is released. We'll have a Google TV 2.0 update within the month. Of course, as I write this, I'm updating my iPhone to iOS5. I have to say, I'd be worried about RIMM's ability to make its BBX OS a success. The market innovators, Apple and Google (maybe MSFT will make inroads, but that remains to be seen), are slowly but surely becoming the OS's for our three screens (phone, PC, and TV). RIMM needs to think about that and adjust its strategy accordingly. Ultimately, there is value in RIMM. But what you get out of the investment will depend on the price you paid for the company. I'm not ready yet to go with RIMM at current prices until I see a transformation a la DELL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAL9000 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I have to say, I'd be worried about RIMM's ability to make its BBX OS a success. The market innovators, Apple and Google (maybe MSFT will make inroads, but that remains to be seen), are slowly but surely becoming the OS's for our three screens (phone, PC, and TV). RIMM needs to think about that and adjust its strategy accordingly. This is an interesting direction of thinking. In a way you're saying that a major determinant to success in the phone OS market is how well it is represented in the other two OS markets: TV and PC. I think this is pretty accurate. Accurate enough to consider the market position: - AAPL: I think they are in the dominant position. They have presence in all three markets, and their integration is better than anyone else's. OSX and iOS are getting closer, and the non-hobbyist AppleTV will probably be built off of/out of iOS. Plus all of the cloud / back-end media stuff is pure plug and play. - GOOG: Not sure where they rank. Great position in the phone market, but almost no integration and limited presence in the PC and TV markets. There's good potential here but historically Google has done a poor job of integrating their product offerings. - MSFT: Great presence in the PC market and pretty good in the TV market with Xbox. Phone presence is terrible. I would guess that MSFT has the greatest integration challenge among all competitors and its media strategy is lagging. - RIM: No presence in PC or TV. Two more things to consider from this line of thinking: 1. Will the next version of AppleTV (integrated screen and software) effectively launch the next generation of gaming consoles? The AppleTV would compete directly with Xbox Next and PS4 or whatever they call them. 2. This type of competition might force Sony and Google to team up on the gaming/TV front. Sony going it alone would be a bad thing - akin to RIMM in the phone OS market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm really interested in seeing what people think about the webtop software that comes with the phone. Being able to dock your phone and use it to stream media, browse the web, edit documents, and use Android apps on an HD screen is really intriguing. That is a step backwards. With IOS you can display whatever is on your phone screen on your TV at a press of a button. With iCould, all your documents, music, etc are synced across multiple devices, so that you can pick up where you left off on another device. You don't have to do anything. Why would you need to dock your phone to do the same? Using the same app on a bigger screen is a bad idea. Bigger screens have more real estate that allow UI designers to add more functionality and rearrange things to suit the screen. A phone app is designed to the limitations of the phone (which are not the same at your 30" monitor). Why would you limit yourself to a phone UI on a 30" monitor? Rather what is needed is data and state syncing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I would "siri" is a step backwards. but that's just me. I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, but I've been pretty impressed with Siri so far. It's still in its infancy, but works well so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I have to say, I'd be worried about RIMM's ability to make its BBX OS a success. The market innovators, Apple and Google (maybe MSFT will make inroads, but that remains to be seen), are slowly but surely becoming the OS's for our three screens (phone, PC, and TV). RIMM needs to think about that and adjust its strategy accordingly. This is an interesting direction of thinking. In a way you're saying that a major determinant to success in the phone OS market is how well it is represented in the other two OS markets: TV and PC. I think this is pretty accurate. Accurate enough to consider the market position: - AAPL: I think they are in the dominant position. They have presence in all three markets, and their integration is better than anyone else's. OSX and iOS are getting closer, and the non-hobbyist AppleTV will probably be built off of/out of iOS. Plus all of the cloud / back-end media stuff is pure plug and play. - GOOG: Not sure where they rank. Great position in the phone market, but almost no integration and limited presence in the PC and TV markets. There's good potential here but historically Google has done a poor job of integrating their product offerings. - MSFT: Great presence in the PC market and pretty good in the TV market with Xbox. Phone presence is terrible. I would guess that MSFT has the greatest integration challenge among all competitors and its media strategy is lagging. - RIM: No presence in PC or TV. Two more things to consider from this line of thinking: 1. Will the next version of AppleTV (integrated screen and software) effectively launch the next generation of gaming consoles? The AppleTV would compete directly with Xbox Next and PS4 or whatever they call them. 2. This type of competition might force Sony and Google to team up on the gaming/TV front. Sony going it alone would be a bad thing - akin to RIMM in the phone OS market. Apple is certainly the leader at this time. I think Ice Cream Sandwich plus Google TV 2.0 could easily put Google on the same footing with or just behind Apple, but we'll have to wait and see. I think you've hit the nail on the head with respect to Sony. Sony already has a Google TV box and a TV that has Google TV integrated into it. I would expect the next version of the PlayStation to run some version of Android. AppleTV is interesting. There are reports out there that Apple is developing a fully integrated Apple TV. Maybe they will release that or maybe they will release a box that is somewhere in between the current AppleTV and the MacMini. It's possible that the box will be heavy duty enough to be a game console, or maybe they will partner with someone like OnLive. It will be interesting to see what market share these companies take from each other in the next decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm really interested in seeing what people think about the webtop software that comes with the phone. Being able to dock your phone and use it to stream media, browse the web, edit documents, and use Android apps on an HD screen is really intriguing. That is a step backwards. With IOS you can display whatever is on your phone screen on your TV at a press of a button. With iCould, all your documents, music, etc are synced across multiple devices, so that you can pick up where you left off on another device. You don't have to do anything. Why would you need to dock your phone to do the same? Using the same app on a bigger screen is a bad idea. Bigger screens have more real estate that allow UI designers to add more functionality and rearrange things to suit the screen. A phone app is designed to the limitations of the phone (which are not the same at your 30" monitor). Why would you limit yourself to a phone UI on a 30" monitor? Rather what is needed is data and state syncing. It's not really a step backward. Keep in mind that Google will probably be doing something similar to what Apple is doing with its Ice Cream Sandwich and Google TV 2.0 updates. Furthermore, Google is preparing for a future when you don't really need to sync anything, as most of your stuff will either be accessible from or located in the cloud. See, e.g., MotoCast. The thing I find interesting about the Moto webtop software is that it has the potential to displace the need for a separate processor for your "work device" as phone hardware and software becomes more powerful. In the future, why wouldn't you be able to have a version of Android on your phone that presents different UIs depending on what type of screen your phone is attached to? There may be hardware/software limitations that I don't understand, but I would think that they're working on this sort of stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm really interested in seeing what people think about the webtop software that comes with the phone. Being able to dock your phone and use it to stream media, browse the web, edit documents, and use Android apps on an HD screen is really intriguing. That is a step backwards. With IOS you can display whatever is on your phone screen on your TV at a press of a button. With iCould, all your documents, music, etc are synced across multiple devices, so that you can pick up where you left off on another device. You don't have to do anything. Why would you need to dock your phone to do the same? Using the same app on a bigger screen is a bad idea. Bigger screens have more real estate that allow UI designers to add more functionality and rearrange things to suit the screen. A phone app is designed to the limitations of the phone (which are not the same at your 30" monitor). Why would you limit yourself to a phone UI on a 30" monitor? Rather what is needed is data and state syncing. It's not really a step backward. Keep in mind that Google will probably be doing something similar to what Apple is doing with its Ice Cream Sandwich and Google TV 2.0 updates. Furthermore, Google is preparing for a future when you don't really need to sync anything, as most of your stuff will either be accessible from or located in the cloud. See, e.g., MotoCast. The thing I find interesting about the Moto webtop software is that it has the potential to displace the need for a separate processor for your "work device" as phone hardware and software becomes more powerful. In the future, why wouldn't you be able to have a version of Android on your phone that presents different UIs depending on what type of screen your phone is attached to? There may be hardware/software limitations that I don't understand, but I would think that they're working on this sort of stuff. You don't need to sync anything with iCloud. It happens automatically. The difference between Google's and Apple approach is this: Apple's cloud is just a service that can be used by any interface native or web. This allows the app maker to select the whichever interface is better or even combine the two. The user doesn't have to know anything about the cloud. In other words, it just works. Even when the user is offline. Google's approach is that the cloud is the web. They want you to use HTML and related technologies that have many limitations currently. They do so because Google is good at monetizing the web. Take away the web and Google has challenges monetizing it. This has two disadvantages for others: - Web interfaces are currently way behind native interfaces. This is partially because they are dependent on standards bodies that take forever. - They require more awareness and effort on part of the user such as remember the URL, type it using your keyboard and then login. In other words , it not "it just works" Try an experiment. Don't Apple's spreadsheet application on an iPhone. Then try out Google spreadsheets on an Android phone. TRy a few tasks and compare the experience. You'll see a big difference. There's a reason why there are over a million native smartphone apps and people have downloaded them billions of times. Phones have several limitations size, battery life, processor power, etc. Everything on the phone is designed with these limitations in mind. So why would you limit your desktop experience by limiting them with your phone? You Android phone could carry two versions of everything, one for phone usage and one of desktop usage. But that means you now have less that half of the storage available. Further, the software gets more complicated, buggy, bloated and runs more slowly. In other words you'll need to make tradeoffs that result in two crappy experiences instead of two good ones. You may save on a processor by powering your desktop with your phone. But processors are not that expensive. How much do you really gain? This is flashy technology but they need to think about the value to the user. GoogleTV is another of these examples. Watching TV is a completely passive activity that most people use to relax, shut down and veg out. There's a reason why its called an idiot box. Putting a browser, search, email, etc on your TV goes against that. They are not passive activities. Don't you watch TV to get away from your email? People don't want to watch TV with a keyboard. Aren't remotes complicated enough? Why would you want to read a news article on your TV? Try reading about 20 articles on your TV, sitting on your couch and let me know how it feels. Hell, most of the time, people are lying down when they are in front of the TV. In the end, technology is to make a user's life easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 You don't need to sync anything with iCloud. It happens automatically. The difference between Google's and Apple approach is this: Apple's cloud is just a service that can be used by any interface native or web. This allows the app maker to select the whichever interface is better or even combine the two. The user doesn't have to know anything about the cloud. In other words, it just works. Even when the user is offline. Google's approach is that the cloud is the web. They want you to use HTML and related technologies that have many limitations currently. They do so because Google is good at monetizing the web. Take away the web and Google has challenges monetizing it. This has two disadvantages for others: - Web interfaces are currently way behind native interfaces. This is partially because they are dependent on standards bodies that take forever. - They require more awareness and effort on part of the user such as remember the URL, type it using your keyboard and then login. In other words , it not "it just works" Try an experiment. Don't Apple's spreadsheet application on an iPhone. Then try out Google spreadsheets on an Android phone. TRy a few tasks and compare the experience. You'll see a big difference. There's a reason why there are over a million native smartphone apps and people have downloaded them billions of times. Phones have several limitations size, battery life, processor power, etc. Everything on the phone is designed with these limitations in mind. So why would you limit your desktop experience by limiting them with your phone? You Android phone could carry two versions of everything, one for phone usage and one of desktop usage. But that means you now have less that half of the storage available. Further, the software gets more complicated, buggy, bloated and runs more slowly. In other words you'll need to make tradeoffs that result in two crappy experiences instead of two good ones. You may save on a processor by powering your desktop with your phone. But processors are not that expensive. How much do you really gain? This is flashy technology but they need to think about the value to the user. GoogleTV is another of these examples. Watching TV is a completely passive activity that most people use to relax, shut down and veg out. There's a reason why its called an idiot box. Putting a browser, search, email, etc on your TV goes against that. They are not passive activities. Don't you watch TV to get away from your email? People don't want to watch TV with a keyboard. Aren't remotes complicated enough? Why would you want to read a news article on your TV? Try reading about 20 articles on your TV, sitting on your couch and let me know how it feels. Hell, most of the time, people are lying down when they are in front of the TV. In the end, technology is to make a user's life easier. I agree that syncing occurs automatically with iCloud, and I'm not trying to diss iCloud. What I'm saying is that you're incorrectly assuming that Google will not give users a solution that allows everything to "just work." They will have to do that, though they may not be as successful as Apple. You are mistaken, by the way, about Google' s general approach. Google is betting on both client-side apps and web apps. It's not true that they're focusing solely on the web. There is a well-publicized internal debate within Google in that respect that is manifested in Android versus ChromeOS. Google does appear to believe that web apps are the future in the long run, though. Google TV is all about providing options and increased functionality to users. You don't have to use it for reading articles or surfing the web. But it's nice to actually have a browser attached to your TV because not all content out there is accessible when you're limited to running a curated set of apps. And it will be very nice to have the ability to run Android apps on your TV, which will not merely be the same apps as those for your Android phones. Just as there are different iPhone and iPad apps, there will be different Android mobile phone apps and Google TV apps. And you won't necessarily interact with these apps by using a keyboard in later versions. You really think that Apple's Siri is the end all be all of voice activated assistance? I'm willing to be that Google's competing solution will be just as good if not better than Siri. I'm also willing to bet that Apple's new TV or AppleTV box will run some version of iOS and that it will incorporate Siri. I wonder if your tune will change on what a TV screen is for when that happens. As for UI, the point I tried to make with my last post is that there are obviously differences between how you use a phone screen, a tablet screen, a PC screen, and a TV screen, but that these differences won't necessarily require a computer behind each screen. Our phones are already incredibly powerful today. If we move to a world with a greater percentage of computing occurring remotely, the phones of tomorrow will be sufficient to give us a great "desktop" or other experience. I view the Moto webtop as Motorola/Google trying to test the limits of what sort of hardware and software we actually need to get stuff done. It's very impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Another warning sign: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20125295-248/gazelle-blackberry-trade-ins-at-all-time-high/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CONeal Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Well with the delay of Playbook 2.0 until after the holidays I'm offically crying UNCLE on this investment. My reasoning for this investment has been broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 I can't imagine a company that keeps screwing up like that, delays delays delays. Sucks to be a RIM shareholder, their turnaround does not seem to be happening. Except their new BB7 phones which are getting very good review. BeerBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 WOW Guys You would think this was something related to their phones! You know, where with the service revenue they generate ALL their $? I dont know about some of the investors here but i dont bake any playbook $ into current figures. The Playbook, though not where it will be one day and in addition, this is not entirely a Company issue this is related to a provider issue. If you know about the AT&T situation and their new phones Im sure this is similar. And as a Tablet it is still better in alot of ways to what is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 WOW Guys You would think this was something related to their phones! You know, where with the service revenue they generate ALL their $? I dont know about some of the investors here but i dont bake any playbook $ into current figures. The Playbook, though not where it will be one day and in addition, this is not entirely a Company issue this is related to a carrier issue. If you know about the AT&T situation and their new phones Im sure this is similar. And as a Tablet it is still better in alot of ways to what is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Denial? how about diluusional Im not the one calling myself CEO and im not the one who spends so much effort on something i dont use or own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Denial? how about diluusional Im not the one calling myself CEO first level thinker. did you ever stop to consider that a username might be a "gag". dont worry - everyone here with half a brain knows you are nothing more than a "gag" still waiting to hear why Liberty had to come into another post to correct something you wrote as if he was actually you.. hmmmmmmmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santayana Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Denial? how about diluusional Im not the one calling myself CEO first level thinker. did you ever stop to consider that a username might be a "gag". dont worry - everyone here with half a brain knows you are nothing more than a "gag" still waiting to hear why Liberty had to come into another post to correct something you wrote as if he was actually you.. hmmmmmmmm Ahh, I wasn't the only one that noticed that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now