07-15-11 01:26 AM
109 ... 345
tools
  1. Tõnis's Avatar
    Probably because RIM is in the phone business, and selling phones is rather critical to their long-term survival. I would think this was self-explanatory. It's like asking Toyota why they're so concerned with what "sells cars."
    No, I was asking Katie, not RIM. Why is she so concerned?

    ... you offer up these two exceptions as proof of what? No one ever claimed consumers were always right, or even right at all. But as a business you don't get credit for doing the right thing as consumers screw things up; the idea is to find an audience for your product.
    For what, short term "results"? At the expense of your product? If listening to idiots in the short term brings rewards but trashes your product for the long run (when the idiots finally realize how stupid they were or leave for some other reason), it could be an irreversible mistake.

    This would matter if "% of sales to intelligent people" was a metric in RIM's financial results, but it's not. You get no credit for being the choice of "intelligent" people if there aren't enough intelligent people around to sustain growth. We're talking about product sales, not the incoming freshman class at Harvard; the idea is to move lots of product, not prove that your customers are smarter than others.
    I disagree. Same thing I wrote above in this post applies here. Quantity is not the only thing that matters. I would rather deliver a better quality product and make less money instead of an inferior product and make more. It comes down to ethics, and before you start that sh*t about how corporations only owe their stockholders profits, and ethics don't matter, I'll say I disagree with that, too.
    Last edited by Tõnis; 07-13-11 at 09:59 AM.
    07-13-11 09:57 AM
  2. Economist101's Avatar
    No, I was asking Katie, not RIM. Why is she so concerned?
    I would think anyone who cares about RIM would want them to perform well in terms of sales. Not a big leap there.

    For what, short term "results"? At the expense of your product? If listening to idiots in the short term brings rewards but trashes your product for the long run (when the idiots finally realize how stupid they were or leave for some other reason), it could be an irreversible mistake.
    Oh I see. You think that when I say "consumers don't care about security" you read "RIM should make itself less secure to sell devices." To be clear, I don't think anyone is claiming that RIM should make itself less secure; all we're saying is that security doesn't sell. That doesn't mean RIM makes itself less secure and suddenly starts selling phones; it simply means that "security" is not something RIM can rely on to maintain its market position. It's a great feature to tout, but it doesn't "move the meter" like you seem to think it does.

    Oh, and finding an audience for your product isn't a "short term" proposition at all. It's called "business."

    I disagree. Same thing I wrote above in this post applies here. Quantity is not the only thing that matters. I would rather deliver a better quality product and make less money instead of an inferior product and make more.
    Of course quantity isn't the only thing that matters. We're all aware of what's happening at Nokia.

    And I would rather deliver a better quality product and make more money, so I guess that's the difference between you and me.

    I disagree. Same thing I wrote above in this post applies here. Quantity is not the only thing that matters. I would rather deliver a better quality product and make less money instead of an inferior product and make more. It comes down to ethics, and before you start that sh*t about how corporations only owe their stockholders profits, and ethics don't matter, I'll say I disagree with that, too.
    I never said ethics don't matter, so please don't assume I'm going to make that claim. All I've said is that security doesn't matter to most consumers. This isn't an argument against security; it simply acknowledges that based on the way most people behave, security is not a high priority. If you disagree with that statement, then you're not very perceptive.
    lssanjose likes this.
    07-13-11 10:18 AM
  3. Tõnis's Avatar
    I would think anyone who cares about RIM would want them to perform well in terms of sales. Not a big leap there.
    Well, most of the people doing the complaining hardly seem like the types who want RIM to succeed. But okay, seems you think they're doing RIM a favor with their posts. I get it ... showing what that golden calf, the market, wants.

    Oh I see. You think that when I say "consumers don't care about security" you read "RIM should make itself less secure to sell devices." To be clear, I don't think anyone is claiming that RIM should make itself less secure; all we're saying is that security doesn't sell.
    If the things consumers who don't care about security are demanding, like Flash, make BlackBerry less secure, how is giving those consumers what they want not going to make BlackBerry less secure? Some could say innovation, but then there's reality. I might want flash, a battery that holds a charge for three weeks at full bore and security, but RIM realizes that's not realistic. It realizes that there are limitations to battery and other technologies. I suppose if I wanted those features, I could just get an Android.
    07-13-11 10:26 AM
  4. h20work's Avatar
    This makes you the exception, not the rule. Sure, there are some people that care about security, just like there are some people that own WP7 devices. But let's be realistic. If security were important to a majority of consumers, do you think Android would sell as many devices as it does? Do you think BlackBerry share would be falling? It's not about anyone here speaking for consumers; it's about understanding consumer attitudes by examining consumer behavior.

    As an example, here in the U.S. it's hard to believe a significant percentage of the population really cares about what they eat or how much exercise they get when the obesity rate keeps climbing. It's also hard to believe people care about making sound financial decisions when credit card balances keep climbing and Best Buy keeps extending their "no interest for N number of years" financing offers. I've seen these offers for as long as 3 years, which only makes financial sense for a lender if a good number of people are failing to pay their balances in that time, thus allowing the lender to charge interest on the purchase going back to the purchase date at 20+%. It's also why despite people here claiming to "love underdogs" in sports, the best TV ratings are generally for the traditional powers. Put simply, you learn to ignore what people say, and instead look at how they behave.
    You actually think RIM's stock is low because people don't care about security? Guess it has nothing to do with the outdated product lineup.

    There are always exceptions, no one product is perfect for everyone.
    07-13-11 10:32 AM
  5. Economist101's Avatar
    Well, most of the people doing the complaining hardly seem like the types who want RIM to succeed. But okay, seems you think they're doing RIM a favor with their posts. I get it ... showing what that golden calf, the market, wants.
    Ah. So you take my answer to one question (why someone might care about RIM's sales) and turn it into an answer to another question (Are these people doing a favor for RIM with their posts). Got it. To be clear, I don't think posts here help or hurt RIM; their issues do not begin or end on Crackberry.com.

    If the things consumers who don't care about security are demanding, like Flash, make BlackBerry less secure, how is giving those consumers what they want not going to make BlackBerry less secure? Some could say innovation, but then there's reality.
    Ah. So RIM made the PlayBook less secure by adding Flash? Interesting. Now I keep reading (mostly on forums) that consumers are demanding Flash, but at last check every single one of the BlackBerry phones sold (over 150 million) plus all of the iOS devices sold since June 2007 (200 million plus) lack Flash. Add to this the fact that sales of Flash-enabled tablets have been paltry at best, and it appears your claim that consumers "demand" Flash is unsupported. If you're looking for reality, there it is.

    I might want flash, a battery that holds a charge for three weeks at full bore and security, but RIM realizes that's not realistic. It realizes that there are limitations to battery and other technologies. I suppose if I wanted those features, I could just get an Android.
    You mentioned "reality" before, so here's some for you. There's no reason why RIM can't sit right where it is, selling 13-15 million BlackBerrys a quarter. They could stay right where they are. But if you believe RIM will get back "on top" one day, they're going to need to do more, because what they're doing right now isn't working.
    lssanjose likes this.
    07-13-11 10:42 AM
  6. Economist101's Avatar
    You actually think RIM's stock is low because people don't care about security? Guess it has nothing to do with the outdated product lineup.
    I didn't mention RIM's stock, which is low because of RIM's negative trends (average selling price dropping, new subscriber percentage dropping, no new devices in 10 months). From what I understand, there's really no debate that RIM offers the most secure platform. So, since RIM is losing market share, it follows that most consumers must not be placing "security" at or near the top of their list of things to consider when purchasing a device.
    07-13-11 10:48 AM
  7. Tõnis's Avatar
    You mentioned "reality" before, so here's some for you. There's no reason why RIM can't sit right where it is, selling 13-15 million BlackBerrys a quarter. They could stay right where they are. But if you believe RIM will get back "on top" one day, they're going to need to do more, because what they're doing right now isn't working.
    I never said I want RIM back "on top." I don't mind paying what I pay now, and I don't even care if I have to pay a bit more. You're the one who implied on other threads that that was necessary by asking if I alone (or in my minority or something to that effect) will bail out RIM if it continues to lose "market share." Personally, I'd like to see RIM cull/shed the complainers who should just should go to Android and be happy.
    Last edited by Tõnis; 07-13-11 at 11:08 AM.
    07-13-11 11:02 AM
  8. olblueyez's Avatar
    I'm sure you don't bother to lock your car or house either, or did you fall for that scam too?? It's all about the govt, not the identity thieves that operate daily, right? You probably write your PIN on your ATM card because you have no cares about security. For intelligent people, security is a forethought and not ignored until after they've become a victim.
    Smart people care about security, ignorant people don't...

    Thank You for my drinking problem it's a cool hobby. - Jimmy Fallon


    I'm not your kiddo, buddy...

    We should all focus on the "coprorations" and the "government" to the exclusion of all other things... Gotcha... Sounds like you should add an additional layer of tinfoil to your bunker.
    How many times do I need to explain it for you Pal?
    07-14-11 11:28 PM
  9. TheScionicMan's Avatar
    How many times do I need to explain it for you Pal?
    Maybe give it one more try, but type it really slowly this time cuz I can't read very fast...
    07-15-11 01:26 AM
109 ... 345
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD