Frankly, I can't say I didn't see this coming.
Co-CEO's Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis are now done being the CEO's.
I am a huge fan of RIM.
Their QNX and BB10 (too bad they can't get the bbx trademark) os is really good. A strong contender to Android and iOS in terms of UI and UX. Definitely failing in the ecosystem department though.
I really applaud RIM's move of porting QNX into car tech (http://cnettv.cnet.com/qnx-puts-apps-web-your-dashboard/9742-1_53-50118126.html). This is, in my opinion, the next innovation from mobile solutions manufacturers (smart phones, tablets etc) is the "Connected Life" concept (more on this in an upcoming post).
In a nutshell, it is all about integrating all aspects of your life with your mobile devices. From waking up in the morning and being able to access the information you need such as weather, emails etc. then to the drive to work and then in the office. All is being connected to your mobile solutions. The goal is to create a more wholesome and integrated experience for the user.
Who knows what will become of RIM?
I do hope that there are no more delays in their release schedules. With a shake up at the top management level, I feel that the company structure down to the individuals level will need to be redefined and streamlined. Processes and practices will need to become more efficient if they are to compete with the "big boys" such as Microsoft, Apple and Samsung.
I'm gonna make a bold prediction here.
Putting this on record as well.
RIM, assuming releases are back on schedule and app porting becomes easier for Android developers, will regain some of the lost market share at the expense of Windows Phone 7 Mango and Apple's iOS.
Android will undoubtedly remain in a dominant position in terms of market share.
This is for the next two-three years.
I still love this video ad:
The winning factors for RIM in the battle of the OS's and ecosystem is two-folds, BB10 and the ability to port Android apps into BB10 and QNX.
If they can get the next generation phones out (and on time), the company will be able to move forward and start to be able to compete in the smartphone and tablet space.
ps. Licensing BBM is not a good move.
pps. I'm pretty sure the quality of this post isn't that high, but cut me some slack... I have blogger rust.
Cheers
EDIT:
I came across this cool article: http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/23/rim-new-ceo-thorsten-heins-still-in-trouble/
Did a tl;dr
But I do agree with the sentiment that CEO swap-out isn't the be-all, end-all saving grace that RIM needs.
It needs a shake up at the process level and re-evaluate why products aren't ready as scheduled.
If there are some kind souls out there, it'll be great if you can summarize what that article's about for me.
Thanks!
Showing posts with label apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apple. Show all posts
Monday, January 23, 2012
Monday, August 1, 2011
golden apple
It seems that everything Apple touches now turns to gold.
What I want to talk about today is the disillusioned people that are nonsensically buying into this apple plot to take over the world.
Let's not talk apples for now, and focus on oranges.
Imagine walking into a dealership and you see someone insistently asking for a particular car.
"I want that new car I heard so many great things about. I don't care whether it's a v4 or a v6. Horsepower is irrelevant. I just want it because it's the latest thing"
Sounds stupid right?
I get furious and irate when I hear people say, "I want a new phone - oh, maybe I'll just wait for the iPhone 5 and get that". It's insane, these people doesn't even know how the phone looks like (let alone the phone's innards) and they are sold on the idea of purchasing it already.
Frankly, there are many, many phones out there that are equally good as (if not better than) the iPhone 4 and people still mindlessly get drawn in by the whole distortion field.
But this also brings up a very valid point in consumer behaviour. This is a case in point for the emotional aspect of the purchase decision-making process. Consumers (particularly the ones highlighted in this article) are ingrained with strong emotional ties to the brand and the product. It is this emotional attachment that can cause the purchase decision to be heavily influenced by the emotional processing centre of the brain rather than the rational centre.
This also can be seen in car sales.
The whole purpose of the test drive to allow you to get emotionally attached to the car. The idea of ownership and envisioning yourself driving/owning the vehicle can be a strong subconscious leveraging point even most sales people aren't aware of (I may revisit this idea with an interesting article).
In hindsight, apple deserves to the top dog. Utterly brainwashing people into believing their elegant design and unique (read: enclosed and dictatorial) ecosystem is worth the premium you are paying (not only that but you're getting a good deal).
/Apple rant
 |
| This was found here. |
 |
| The above pictures were spotted here. |
To keep up with demand, Foxconn (the Chinese manufacturers of iPhone; and yes, your iPhones are made in my glorious motherland by unfairly-treated and overly-stressed workers) are planning to hire 1 million robots to work in their plants. Talk about robotic armageddon eh?
But that's beside the point.What I want to talk about today is the disillusioned people that are nonsensically buying into this apple plot to take over the world.
Let's not talk apples for now, and focus on oranges.
Imagine walking into a dealership and you see someone insistently asking for a particular car.
"I want that new car I heard so many great things about. I don't care whether it's a v4 or a v6. Horsepower is irrelevant. I just want it because it's the latest thing"
Sounds stupid right?
I get furious and irate when I hear people say, "I want a new phone - oh, maybe I'll just wait for the iPhone 5 and get that". It's insane, these people doesn't even know how the phone looks like (let alone the phone's innards) and they are sold on the idea of purchasing it already.
Frankly, there are many, many phones out there that are equally good as (if not better than) the iPhone 4 and people still mindlessly get drawn in by the whole distortion field.
But this also brings up a very valid point in consumer behaviour. This is a case in point for the emotional aspect of the purchase decision-making process. Consumers (particularly the ones highlighted in this article) are ingrained with strong emotional ties to the brand and the product. It is this emotional attachment that can cause the purchase decision to be heavily influenced by the emotional processing centre of the brain rather than the rational centre.
This also can be seen in car sales.
The whole purpose of the test drive to allow you to get emotionally attached to the car. The idea of ownership and envisioning yourself driving/owning the vehicle can be a strong subconscious leveraging point even most sales people aren't aware of (I may revisit this idea with an interesting article).
In hindsight, apple deserves to the top dog. Utterly brainwashing people into believing their elegant design and unique (read: enclosed and dictatorial) ecosystem is worth the premium you are paying (not only that but you're getting a good deal).
/Apple rant
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Spaceships, subways and sexy alternative revenue
So, when we think of innovations I really just mean Apple.
I mean c'mon, they started by building personal computers and forayed into person media players and now, they're building a spaceship in Cupertino!That's moving forward. That's innovations.
Check out the spaceship pics:
 |
| Check out MSN Money here. |
 |
| Check out Afterdawn.com here. |
 |
| Check out geekygadgets.com here. |
Introducing the iSteve:
 |
Snagged this shooped here. |
It just works! It's purely magical! This will revolutionize everything, again!
Jokes aside, when we think innovations, we often conjure up images of revolutionary products and cool new technologies. What if innovations can come in creating alternative revenue models?
Actually innovation can mean anything from a new product, method or idea. No, really!
As a Torontonian, subway delays seems like a daily occurrence (back when I worked downtown). What helped me endure the ubiquitous delays was my iPod Touch with its cornucopia of apps and games. Often though, I sensed something was missing - my connectivity to the outside world through cell phone and wifi.
Wouldn't it be amazing if you can Skype out a call while in the tunnels?
Or tweet about that large guy that's leaning on you while he's sleeping and snoring (this actually happened to me so it's not a stereotype)?
Or email to the office when you're running late?
Oh the joys of having internet access on the go.
But often, because a major part of an average Torontonian's "on the go" means underground, this is impossible.
 |
| Snagged this from CityTV's website, visit them here. |
Enter my proposed alternative revenue model!
If Bell or one of the major telecoms can partner up with the TTC (Toronto Transit Commission, for those not native to this region of the True North Strong and Free) to set up access points along the subway tunnels there is serious money to be made here.
Imagine a subscription model.
TTC pays the telecom for its service and use of its infrastructure. Then the TTC charges a small monthly subscription fee that may or may not be subsidized based on metropasses (monthly/weekly transit pass). For example, if you purchase monthly passes then you will be eligible for internet access within the tunnels for the period of the metropass (or a discounted subscription fee during that period).
This encourages people to purchase metropasses as well as an extra source of revenue for the commission.
Suppose the ad model:
Before gaining full access to the internet users must go through a EULA sort of page and accept the terms and conditions. During that time, users will also be exposed to one ad. This can be an ad through the telecom or through the TTC. Either way, the infrastructure will be paid for.
If only the telecom gets the money, what's in it for the TTC?
Well, increased customer satisfaction for one. Easing the stress and frustration of riders while they are stuck in a tunnel without any means of communication with the outside would is a huge plus for them.
These are rough ideas and haven't given too much serious thought process to. If I spend some time to refine this idea, it will probably be much, much better. For now, the concept is there.
Let me know what you think about this.
If you like the idea, please leave a comment below and send it to your friends.
Oh btw, TTC if you're reading this:
Please train the operators of the trains and buses better!
Jerky subway and bus rides are not good. Especially when you're surfing the internet on the phone.
I appreciate the operators driving fast, but I do not appreciate them stopping just as fast/suddenly.
Almost killed myself this one time even while I was holding onto something!
Note: I am always courteous to TTC operators, most of them are really nice people.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Liver, fava beans, chianti and the Lion
I wonder how many people can make the intended reference.
If you connected liver, fava beans and chianti to Dr. Hannibal Lecter, then you're certainly bright in my books.
Just yesterday, I received a questionaire as part of my interview process for a marketing position. One of the questions read: "What do you think is the most difficult part of ‘Marketing’ from the point management decides to add a particular product to their existing product line?".
I answered managing the cannibalization of the existing products in the line is probably the most challenging and difficult aspect of marketing.
If you push out a new product, you obviously want people to purchase it. At the same time you wouldn't want the sales of your older products to suffer.
Let's take a look at the basic principles from a case study of two companies. Their products do not go through the traditional product life cycle but the basic principles to prevent market share cannibalism within a product line are there still.
I think taking a look at the way Microsoft and Apple does their operating systems.
First, the Windows operating system.
In the past, the software giant has dealt with this problem rather poorly.
New operating systems offered little differentiating features. The reasons for switching to the new OS is not compelling. People can get by whether they are using the new version or the old.
That said, the problem back then didn't actually affect their performance as a company that significantly though - I guess that's the perk of being the acting monopoly in the market.
More recently however, they are addressing the issue much better. Creating versions of their operating system that are vastly different than the predecessors thus maintaining both versions' functionality and uniqueness.
The usability of both Vista and 7 are still high. Both are unique but the key is that Microsoft is phasing out the older systems.
The Lion
The large cat motif is rather fun when it comes to branding the big A's flagship operating system. Historically they have used: Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Lion.
The brilliance of the OS product manager is that upgrading to the new iteration is so simple for users and often inexpensive in the grand scheme of things.
The difference with the big A is that with the efficient distribution system, they aim to bring all the users of the old OS onto the new one. In essence cannibalization of the market share becomes replacement.
In the bigger picture though, cannibalization isn't too big of a factor here because the two products are still within the same company. Overall, the market share of the company may actually increase due to the new product.
My next post will revisit this topic. Look forward to it.
If you connected liver, fava beans and chianti to Dr. Hannibal Lecter, then you're certainly bright in my books.
Just yesterday, I received a questionaire as part of my interview process for a marketing position. One of the questions read: "What do you think is the most difficult part of ‘Marketing’ from the point management decides to add a particular product to their existing product line?".
I answered managing the cannibalization of the existing products in the line is probably the most challenging and difficult aspect of marketing.
If you push out a new product, you obviously want people to purchase it. At the same time you wouldn't want the sales of your older products to suffer.
Let's take a look at the basic principles from a case study of two companies. Their products do not go through the traditional product life cycle but the basic principles to prevent market share cannibalism within a product line are there still.
I think taking a look at the way Microsoft and Apple does their operating systems.
First, the Windows operating system.
In the past, the software giant has dealt with this problem rather poorly.
New operating systems offered little differentiating features. The reasons for switching to the new OS is not compelling. People can get by whether they are using the new version or the old.
That said, the problem back then didn't actually affect their performance as a company that significantly though - I guess that's the perk of being the acting monopoly in the market.
More recently however, they are addressing the issue much better. Creating versions of their operating system that are vastly different than the predecessors thus maintaining both versions' functionality and uniqueness.
The usability of both Vista and 7 are still high. Both are unique but the key is that Microsoft is phasing out the older systems.
The Lion
 |
| Beautiful picture from National Geographic (check them out here) |
The large cat motif is rather fun when it comes to branding the big A's flagship operating system. Historically they have used: Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, and Lion.
The brilliance of the OS product manager is that upgrading to the new iteration is so simple for users and often inexpensive in the grand scheme of things.
The difference with the big A is that with the efficient distribution system, they aim to bring all the users of the old OS onto the new one. In essence cannibalization of the market share becomes replacement.
In the bigger picture though, cannibalization isn't too big of a factor here because the two products are still within the same company. Overall, the market share of the company may actually increase due to the new product.
My next post will revisit this topic. Look forward to it.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
How far is too far... hmmm? *squints eyes
I've been ingrained at an early age that plagiarism will ruin your life, academically and otherwise.
If you dare to plagiarize, you'll become the pariah of society and be shunned in shame for all of eternity. Eventually, so full of self-loath, you'll commit suicide. End of story.
Needless to say, I've never plagiarized in my life. I have however done some "creative paraphrasing". Honestly, who's gone through post-secondary (or even high school) without doing that?
Point is, plagiarism is bad.
However, in marketing we glorify it a tad and call it "prototyping". Taking the market leader's products and prototyping our own to resemble it. Thus lending all the positive association with the market leader's product to our own. Pretty convenient.
To some extent this amazing. It leverages all the marketing the market leader's done and boosts our own products by eroding the leader's market share. But now we ask ourselves as marketers, how far is too far?
If we prototype too much isn't it just copying their product and implicitly admitting defeat to their superior products?
Case in point is the recent lawsuit between Samsung and Apple.
Let's start off by saying I own both company's products and am personally a huge fan of Samsung's new products and their (generally) strategic direction. Also, I have a school boy admiration of the sales and marketing skills that are masterfully displayed at each Apple keynote by Steve Jobs.
This lawsuit alleges that Samsung copies Apple's iPhone and iPad designs.
I'm not here to pass the judgment on who's in the wrong - that's the court's job.
I'm here to analyze the effectiveness of prototyping and its role it plays in modern mobile technology industry.
The industry and its trends
Since the beginning of time, prototyping has been around. From copying the designs of weapons of neighbouring countries during war-torn eras to the modern day Apple vs Everyone-Else-That-Has-Produces Tech-That-Resembles-Apple-Products, it's been around.
A recent, notable event in history is the introduction of what I'd like to call the Apple Fever. Very much akin to the b***** fever (to protect the little boy's privacy). I draw parallels because there are obviously better alternatives out there but people just flock to them. It's unimaginable and illogical, right?
Because of this craze, people started "prototyping" the iPods. There was even an episode of Simpsons that poked fun at the fact that all you need are Apple ear buds stuck in your ear to make others believe you have an iPod.
Because of this, more and more companies are copying the big A's product designs (HP Envy series, Samsung Galaxy smartphones, Galaxy Tab 10.1, etc etc).
It's harder to find "innovative" designs nowadays. Of course, it doesn't help that the innovative designs are often duds (ahem BlackBerry Torch).
So why "innovate" and risk a big R&D flop?
The role prototyping plays
In my opinion, prototyping is an important aspect in capturing market share. It is absolutely vital in the early stages when trying to slay Goliath.
The first few products pushed out should be textbook examples of prototyping with a few distinguishing features to differentiate it from the market leader.
Here's where I give kudos to Samsung.
With the introduction of their super AMOLED display, they have a strong differentiating feature.
Slowly however, as their brand matures in the market after a few products that are prototyped from the market leader's, the company should start to capitalize on the distinguishing feature and diverge away from the prototypical design.
I believe Samsung is going to approach this step near the end of the next quarter or latest, end of this year.
Sony (you and your arc/xperia play) kinda jumped the gun. But I admire the guts you displayed and give kudos to you. However, recently with the bad PR (PSN hack) and the natural disaster (3.11, prayers still with Japan), it's hard to make a strong comeback in the next little while.
All in all, to establish yourself as a strong brand, companies that aren't the market leader in their industry can do one of two things:
1. Do something radically different and hope it flies.
2. Prototype a little while and diverge.
So now that we've understood more about this prototyping business, we get back to the main question: how far is too far?
I draw the line when the two products look exactly the same when you place it a few meters away and squint really hard. Of course when you pick it up and play around with it after riding the teacups and it seems exactly the same to you then; that's also too far.
His honourable judge Brian Leung presiding.
My verdict: Samsung is not guilty of copying Apple's design.
There are so many features available only on Samsung that aren't found in the egoPods.
Final word:
Technology are like girls. All the top-notch ladies are very similar on the outside, but once you get to know them and discover their unseen attributes you'll really find out that they're all different. In the end, lucky lady you choose to keep says a lot about yourself as a person. Obviously there will be dudes who will just want to date people purely based on outward appearances, there's a market for everyone. To each their own.
To the millions of companies out there trying to climb to the top of the market by stepping on other companies: please exercise moderation and common sense when prototyping. Consumers are smart. We don't appreciate (for the most part) excessive copying.
Cheers and stay busy!
PS. If you're an xx chromosomed being or your orientations are different, change the gender thing to your liking. I write in the first person and in my personal views. Life's too short to rewrite things to accommodate everyone, I hope you understand. No hard feelings
If you dare to plagiarize, you'll become the pariah of society and be shunned in shame for all of eternity. Eventually, so full of self-loath, you'll commit suicide. End of story.
Needless to say, I've never plagiarized in my life. I have however done some "creative paraphrasing". Honestly, who's gone through post-secondary (or even high school) without doing that?
Point is, plagiarism is bad.
However, in marketing we glorify it a tad and call it "prototyping". Taking the market leader's products and prototyping our own to resemble it. Thus lending all the positive association with the market leader's product to our own. Pretty convenient.
To some extent this amazing. It leverages all the marketing the market leader's done and boosts our own products by eroding the leader's market share. But now we ask ourselves as marketers, how far is too far?
If we prototype too much isn't it just copying their product and implicitly admitting defeat to their superior products?
Case in point is the recent lawsuit between Samsung and Apple.
 |
| http://hitechanalogy.com/apple-files-lawsuit-against-samsung-blaming-samsung-galaxy-s-phone-tab-as-copies-of-iphone-ipad/ |
Let's start off by saying I own both company's products and am personally a huge fan of Samsung's new products and their (generally) strategic direction. Also, I have a school boy admiration of the sales and marketing skills that are masterfully displayed at each Apple keynote by Steve Jobs.
This lawsuit alleges that Samsung copies Apple's iPhone and iPad designs.
I'm not here to pass the judgment on who's in the wrong - that's the court's job.
I'm here to analyze the effectiveness of prototyping and its role it plays in modern mobile technology industry.
The industry and its trends
Since the beginning of time, prototyping has been around. From copying the designs of weapons of neighbouring countries during war-torn eras to the modern day Apple vs Everyone-Else-That-Has-Produces Tech-That-Resembles-Apple-Products, it's been around.
A recent, notable event in history is the introduction of what I'd like to call the Apple Fever. Very much akin to the b***** fever (to protect the little boy's privacy). I draw parallels because there are obviously better alternatives out there but people just flock to them. It's unimaginable and illogical, right?
Because of this craze, people started "prototyping" the iPods. There was even an episode of Simpsons that poked fun at the fact that all you need are Apple ear buds stuck in your ear to make others believe you have an iPod.
Because of this, more and more companies are copying the big A's product designs (HP Envy series, Samsung Galaxy smartphones, Galaxy Tab 10.1, etc etc).
It's harder to find "innovative" designs nowadays. Of course, it doesn't help that the innovative designs are often duds (ahem BlackBerry Torch).
So why "innovate" and risk a big R&D flop?
The role prototyping plays
In my opinion, prototyping is an important aspect in capturing market share. It is absolutely vital in the early stages when trying to slay Goliath.
The first few products pushed out should be textbook examples of prototyping with a few distinguishing features to differentiate it from the market leader.
Here's where I give kudos to Samsung.
With the introduction of their super AMOLED display, they have a strong differentiating feature.
Slowly however, as their brand matures in the market after a few products that are prototyped from the market leader's, the company should start to capitalize on the distinguishing feature and diverge away from the prototypical design.
I believe Samsung is going to approach this step near the end of the next quarter or latest, end of this year.
Sony (you and your arc/xperia play) kinda jumped the gun. But I admire the guts you displayed and give kudos to you. However, recently with the bad PR (PSN hack) and the natural disaster (3.11, prayers still with Japan), it's hard to make a strong comeback in the next little while.
All in all, to establish yourself as a strong brand, companies that aren't the market leader in their industry can do one of two things:
1. Do something radically different and hope it flies.
2. Prototype a little while and diverge.
So now that we've understood more about this prototyping business, we get back to the main question: how far is too far?
I draw the line when the two products look exactly the same when you place it a few meters away and squint really hard. Of course when you pick it up and play around with it after riding the teacups and it seems exactly the same to you then; that's also too far.
His honourable judge Brian Leung presiding.
My verdict: Samsung is not guilty of copying Apple's design.
There are so many features available only on Samsung that aren't found in the egoPods.
Final word:
Technology are like girls. All the top-notch ladies are very similar on the outside, but once you get to know them and discover their unseen attributes you'll really find out that they're all different. In the end, lucky lady you choose to keep says a lot about yourself as a person. Obviously there will be dudes who will just want to date people purely based on outward appearances, there's a market for everyone. To each their own.
To the millions of companies out there trying to climb to the top of the market by stepping on other companies: please exercise moderation and common sense when prototyping. Consumers are smart. We don't appreciate (for the most part) excessive copying.
Cheers and stay busy!
PS. If you're an xx chromosomed being or your orientations are different, change the gender thing to your liking. I write in the first person and in my personal views. Life's too short to rewrite things to accommodate everyone, I hope you understand. No hard feelings
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)