1. bxp24's Avatar
    The Globe published this article on Friday about Heins and RIM, which was a pretty good read. I think the statements below are really telling about Heins and the grasp he has on RIM's situation.

    After seven months on the job, Mr. Heins is more willing to be critical of RIM’s errors. Looking back, he says, the BlackBerry rose to prominence on four key pillars: typing, security, wireless data compression and battery life. As the company grew, Mr. Heins admits “we missed … paradigms.”

    One such paradigm shift, he says, was ignoring the move to fourth-generation (4G) wireless networks in the United States. RIM’s engineers thought 4G was a fluffy marketing term and didn’t build any devices, ending up sidelined as carriers such as Verizon mobilized vast advertising budgets to promote RIM’s rivals.

    Another mistake was underestimating the popularity of touchscreen phones such as the iPhone.

    “If you have a great touch interface, people are actually willing to sacrifice battery life … which we thought wouldn’t happen,” Mr. Heins says. “Same thing with security. Some companies decided that, ‘Maybe I can let go on some security a little bit.’”

    The obvious suggestion is that RIM focused on the wrong "paradigms:" typing, security, wireless data compression and battery life. OK, there's some merit to that. But in the follow-up statement to the comment about missing paradigms, Heins brings up 4G. My first reaction was, "4G?! THAT's the paradigm he thinks RIM missed the boat on??"

    Then, Heins mentions security, after which the article segues into a discussion of BYOD. Although I agreed with him, I worried that the focus on 4G and BYOD implied a continued focus on carriers and enterprises while RIM's competitors are focusing on end users. Isn't THAT the paradigm RIM's been missing this whole time??

    But after thinking about it, I started to see the logic in Heins comments. Yes, RIM was slow to catch on to changes in consumer taste. But what he subtly alludes to is that RIM also failed to catch on to changing needs among its own customers: the carriers and enterprises.

    Take the comments about data compression and 4G. In the days before 4G, carriers had two tenuous goals: they wanted users to consume more data, but didn't necessarily have the infrastructure to support it, which could cause customer satisfaction issues. But, as they started rolling out 4G, data efficiency became less critical. More importantly, carriers now had an opportunity to sell more expensive 4G devices along with higher-tier data plans. Take the Galaxy Note: AT&T requires that Note users sign up for a 5GB data plan to start (they can later change it). Aside from missing out on the carriers' marketing blitz around 4G, RIM also missed a nice opportunity to begin marketing its data efficiency as a consumer value proposition through a "get more for your data dollar" campaign.

    Now let's look at security. Is security really any less important to enterprises or governments? Of course not. Rather, users in these organizations started demanding the ability to access corporate resources from their non-BB smartphones. While not the best news to the security team, IT suddenly realized that as long as they could access corporate resources, users were willing to pay for these devices themselves. In the battle between security and money, money wins. Had RIM produced devices that appealed to users while meeting organization's security needs, it could have capitalized on this. Heck, many companies likely are willing to give people the option: BYOD or an employer-issued BB. If the BB delivered a comparable personal experience to iPhones and Android devices, more users might have decided based on their own pocketbooks and opted for the employer-purchased phone. And the IT security team would be happy.

    We could debate whether RIM should stop catering to carriers and enterprises, who arguably haven't been loyal back, and start focusing on the consumer space. But, the issue is that RIM wasn't even meeting the needs of its carrier and enterprise customers, let alone general consumers. Of course, you could argue that the distinction is semantic, since general consumers are the customers of the carriers and enterprises. And, based on Heins' comments, he would agree when it comes to developing and marketing its products to users.

    But RIM's relationships with carriers and enterprises can be a huge asset and differentiator when it comes to go-to-market leverage. Let's face it: for better or for worse, our smartphones wouldn't be that useful without the carriers or that "smart" without the corporate data we need. Users are king, but that doesn't mean that carriers aren't frustrated with Apple or that enterprises aren't concerned about mobile device management. The industry is ripe for a fresh take and a leader who can solve problems from multiple perspectives. This seems to be the approach Heins is taking: let's just hope RIM hangs on long enough to see it executed.
    Last edited by bxp24; 08-27-12 at 07:09 AM.
    08-26-12 10:46 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD