Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 4th Aug 2012 00:24 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless RIM CEO Thorsten Heins: "We took the conscious decision not to go Android. If you look at other suppliers' ability to differentiate, there's very little wiggle room. We looked at it seriously - but if you understand what the promise of BlackBerry is to its user base it's all about getting stuff done. Games, media, we have to be good at it but we have to support those guys who are ahead of the game. Very little time to consume and enjoy content - if you stay true to that purpose you have to build on that basis. And if we want to serve that segment we can't do it on a me-too approach." As a geek, I applaud the decision not to go with Android, since it's already way too dominant as it is. If I were to have a specific interest in RIM's survival, though, I'm not sure I would be applauding.
Thread beginning with comment 529575
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Stuck between a rock and a hard place
by 1c3d0g on Sat 4th Aug 2012 01:06 UTC
Member since:

No matter how you look at it, RIM is in a very, very precarious situation. It would be a real shame to let QNX die like this.

Nevertheless, I believe they still should have taken the Android option. They could then differentiate themselves by integrating their secure BBM network on top of it. That would push many businesses to stick with them for a long time.

Reply Score: 4

bassbeast Member since:

It wasn't the OS that killed them friend, its the simple fact they sat on behind and let the competition get too far ahead. Its the same thing that happened to Palm that sat on behind until it looked like a dinosaur and for years there a blackberry was a blackberry, no real new designs or innovations.

Mobile tech is just not of those areas where one can sit on behind and not get clobbered, MSFT is learning that lesson now as a matter of fact. Just look how many years head start they had but instead of accepting mobile was a different beast they made WinCE teeny tiny desktops complete with start button. Along comes Apple and Google and now they have to blow $450 to get people to pay $50 for a Lumia and still can't get hardly any takers.

In the end RIM just sat on behind and didn't use their ownership of the business market to come out with new ideas and new products, they just cashed the checks until they stopped coming and panicked. My guess? Dead in 3, no matter what OS they push. Oh and Android would be a BAD IDEA because frankly Samsung and HTC do it so much better it'd just make RIM look that much worse in comparison.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dsmogor Member since:

WinCE was never actually a contender in core smart-phone space. It just failed to adopt to mobile phones and Symbian consortium made sure MS didn't enter the game using MS backdoor dirty tricks.
It only moderately succeeded where core Windows infrastructure interoperability was a key and where clueless CIOs were talked into by MS reps, but for actual users it was always only mobile version of Lotus Notes hatred story. For keyboard phone devices Symbian was simply better in every account besides app availability but that didn't matter, bc most of them sucked. Touch devices were no story before IOS.

Reply Parent Score: 2