Results 1 to 15 of 15
Like Tree3Likes
  • 3 Post By nhavar
  1.    #1  
    Hi all,

    FYI. See link.

    Take care,

    Jay

    Requiem for RIM
    By James Kendrick | July 25, 2011, 7:13am PDT

    Requiem for RIM | ZDNet

    The news of layoffs at Research in Motion (RIM) surprised no one following the maker of the legendary BlackBerry. The company has faced dropping market share for some time and has not instilled confidence in anybody that it knows how to curtail the drop in business. The layoffs of 2,000 employees is a bandaid to stop the bleeding, but the company needs far greater care than that alone. RIM is not dead yet, but unless it can lay out a concise plan to turn things around it is just a matter of time.
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  2. #2  
    Research in Motion (RIM) could do what Palm did and place themselves on the market.

    HP would probably buy them and put WebOS on all future BlackBerrys. HP would also get all the patents and intellectual property that is RIM.
    Palm m130 > Verizon Trēo 650 > Verizon Trēo 755p > Verizon Palm Prē Plus > TouchPad > Verizon Palm Prē 2
    ~ The Future's Just Not What it Used To Be ~
  3. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #3  
    It's funny how many people are pinning their hopes on the Playbook eventually being able to run all 250k Android apps. That seems to be the argument people come back to most often when they say RIM can't lose with the Playbook. They don't realize that in order to use an Android app it has to be repackaged for the BB app store. That means the original developer has to care enough about BB/Playbook to repackage and redistribute the app. There are three key problems with that thinking

    1) how many of the developers for all of those 250k+ apps are still actively developing or maintaining those apps (i.e. how many have moved off to WP7/webOS/iOS development)

    2) how many see a future in BB

    3) relying on Android apps means a lower likelihood of native BB/QNX app development, meaning fewer exclusive apps, and less ability to differentiate.
  4. #4  
    Should I buy short stocks for RIM... hmmm....
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by not-yet-pre View Post
    HP would probably buy them and put WebOS on all future BlackBerrys. HP would also get all the patents and intellectual property that is RIM.
    Hi all,

    I doubt HP would buy them....this came up a few weeks ago...I'm posting the same thing I did then....about 3 weeks ago, which is the last time I checked...RIM even with all of their problems is worth over $US 12 BILLION!

    That's a huge pill to swallow. They're worth so much more that Palm, in part b/c they handle the email themselves and their email system would be up for sale as well as their phone sales and most important their treasure trove of patents....

    Any firm that buys RIM has to have deep pockets and be able to shrug of several years of poor sales as they converted to new designs.

    HP bought Palm basically for webOS....however QNX has less mileage on it, then when HP bought Palm. Also QNX didn't get the great reviews that webOS has gotten & is still getting, (Palm's problems were hardware and marketing, not webOS both then and now)...

    I can't imagine that HP would want to saddle themselves with $US12 BILLION albatross around their neck and another OS. Although I'm sure HP and lots of other firms want RIM's patents, but not at that price. In fact, if RIM puts itself up for sale, IMHO they may have problems finding anyone who wants to buy the entire firm....That's why Carl Icahn has been sniffing around...he makes his money by buying companies in distress and breaking them up. RIM's parts are worth more than the whole company. Trust me, I've know Carl for decades, he is only interested in quick sales and braking up the firm...he doesn't actually own firms for long term investments...

    The email system, patents are worth a great deal, much of RIM"s smartphone designs are old and not worth that much. Also I wonder if QNX is worth that much, considering the reviewers didn't care for it that much and almost all of them called it a poor ripoff of webOS.



    Take care,

    jay
    Please Support Research into Fibromyalgia, Chronic Pain and Spinal Injuries. If You Suffer from These, Consider Joining or Better Yet Forming a Support Group. No One Should Suffer from the Burden of Chronic Pain, Jay M. S. Founder, Leesburg Fibromyalgia/Resources Group
  6. #6  
    I don't think you fully understand what QNX is...
  7. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    I don't think you fully understand what QNX is...
    QNX is a Posix compliant real-time operating system, created in the 80's, used predominantly in embedded systems and is known for it's speed, reliability, and low hardware requirements. QNX was purchased by RIM in order to revamp their outdated OS offerings (funny, picking an OS that's been around since the 80's to replace one that's been around since the late 90's).

    I used to run QNX off of a floppy as a nice portable OS. QNX was/is a great operating system and works very well. RIM has not necessarily leveraged it to it's fullest potential. RIM should have solidified it as the single OS for all new devices. Instead they chose to release BB 6, then QNX on playbook, then BB 7 and severely fragment the ecosystem. None of those OSes are necessarily compatible with one another. This causes a lot of rework on the developers part and no one wants to have to put that much maintenance into an app is less than a year's time.

    So let's qualify ilovedessert's statement with - QNX, in it's RIM incarnation (QNX kernel with a not quite fully baked UI), has less mileage on it and has not gotten great reviews. Underneath there's a good OS, but what RIM has presented doesn't reflect that. That being the case it's going to be hard for investors to want to spend billions of dollars to obtain an OS that doesn't have an immediately obvious benefit or differentiating features. While there are plenty of other patents RIM holds, the question still remains as to whether those patents are worth more than the cost of supporting a dying platform, plus the cost of trying to integrate technology from those patents. Patents that were really targeted at a specific business model, especially when that business model is no longer viable.
  8. #8  
    No argument here, RIM's strategy and their inability to let go of their Java-based nonsense is absolutely ridiculous.

    Much of the problems you list directly parallel Palm and webOS. HP still found the package attractive enough to acquire (albeit for far less than what RIM is valued at). I'd be amazed if anyone made a move for RIM at this time but they certainly have enough interesting things going on (both in embedded systems and enterprise middleware) to where people should, at least, be considering it.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    No argument here, RIM's strategy and their inability to let go of their Java-based nonsense is absolutely ridiculous.

    Much of the problems you list directly parallel Palm and webOS. HP still found the package attractive enough to acquire (albeit for far less than what RIM is valued at). I'd be amazed if anyone made a move for RIM at this time but they certainly have enough interesting things going on (both in embedded systems and enterprise middleware) to where people should, at least, be considering it.
    But one distinctive difference is the movement toward consumer oriented devices. Especially in situations where the end user is expected to foot the bill for his own hardware, the user wants as multifunction a device as possible. There are increasingly less users opting for a limited function Blackberry when (if they are paying the bill) can get something with more pizazz.

    While done imperfectly by Palm, their device fits the bill a bit better as a 'next generation' device as compared to the BB Curves and Bolds and the Treos of old.

    Similar stories - but no one-trick mobile company will survive in this environment (see Palm, Nokia, and now RIM) but Palm/HP is climbing back out while RIM hasn't hit bottom yet. I believe all of them would/will need to be absorbed by a company with deeper pockets and more diversity - even if they had a measure of success.

    And once the tipping point is reached, companies will begin to balk at paying the support fees for Blackberry servers and software when any ActiveSync phone will not incur such costs.

    Where I'm at, BB was far and away the phone of choice, but this is no longer the case. HP may not benefit from it if they don't get their stuff together, but even the anemic level of Palm users (with no widely released hardware in nearly a year) is moving up while the BB's are going down.

    C
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  10. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by C-Note View Post
    And once the tipping point is reached, companies will begin to balk at paying the support fees for Blackberry servers and software when any ActiveSync phone will not incur such costs.
    To be fair ActiveSync phones aren't cost free. It's just a matter of how/when/ and to whom one is paying the price. ActiveSync requires MS, MS Licensing, and various MS "taxes". This happens on both the consumer and the enterprise side (i.e. the consumer has to have a Windows phone and a Windows computer or pay via ad-supported MS Windows services like Live.com, the enterprise has yearly support and licensing costs for Windows Server and Exchange plus desktop windows licensing costs which are needed in order to support ActiveSync). The problem is that most enterprises are already paying MS and Blackberry BES is "extra" cost. If it was an either/or choice it might be different but right now it's a BOTH choice. So they don't compete on pricing.
  11. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by nappy View Post
    No argument here, RIM's strategy and their inability to let go of their Java-based nonsense is absolutely ridiculous.
    Except that Android is also basically java.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    To be fair ActiveSync phones aren't cost free. It's just a matter of how/when/ and to whom one is paying the price. ActiveSync requires MS, MS Licensing, and various MS "taxes". This happens on both the consumer and the enterprise side (i.e. the consumer has to have a Windows phone and a Windows computer or pay via ad-supported MS Windows services like Live.com, the enterprise has yearly support and licensing costs for Windows Server and Exchange plus desktop windows licensing costs which are needed in order to support ActiveSync). The problem is that most enterprises are already paying MS and Blackberry BES is "extra" cost. If it was an either/or choice it might be different but right now it's a BOTH choice. So they don't compete on pricing.
    Kind of a distinction without a difference...on second thought, nevermind.
    "Sometimes I feel like an OS-less child..."
    (with apologies to Billie Holiday )
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    ActiveSync requires MS, MS Licensing, and various MS "taxes". This happens on both the consumer and the enterprise side (i.e. the consumer has to have a Windows phone and a Windows computer or pay via ad-supported MS Windows services like Live.com, the enterprise has yearly support and licensing costs for Windows Server and Exchange plus desktop windows licensing costs which are needed in order to support ActiveSync).
    To be completely accurate, some of the licensing fees that you mentioned are not required. I certainly do not pay yearly licensing fees for my servers (SBS 2003, SBS 2008, SBS 2011) or the devices that access them, nor do I pay for MS support for them. But yes, BES is a cost that is in addition to the MS licenses a company will already be paying/have paid for, and as I have been saying for quite some time, it is becoming an increasingly unnecessary cost. RIP RIM.
    Touchscreens are a fad.
  14. ogeneo's Avatar
    Posts
    348 Posts
    Global Posts
    530 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by ilovedessert View Post
    Hi all,

    I doubt HP would buy them....this came up a few weeks ago...I'm posting the same thing I did then....about 3 weeks ago, which is the last time I checked...RIM even with all of their problems is worth over $US 12 BILLION!
    It's pretty simple. HP doesn't have the cash to buy RIM, with $13B in cash and twice that in debt, it would never happen.

    There is nothing there for Apple to buy, but they could and hardly blink doing so. They actually have cash on hand to buy HP if they wanted

    Give Apple about 3 more months, they will have enough cash on hand to buy both
  15. #15  
    they will have enough cash on hand to buy both
    Well... only until Jobs go to other surgery. When this happens, turn apples in pineapples...


    Best Regards...
    "If A Man Isn't Willing To Take Some Risk For His Opinions, Either His Opinions Are No Good Or He's No Good!" - Ezra Pound (Poet & Critic)
    (Happy A Lot, As A Good Carioca!)

Posting Permissions