Livefyre Profile

Activity Stream

@MichaelGiovinco Actually, the last point may or may not be possible. For example, if they sell them to someone who is a resident of the province of Alberta, they must maintain their value for as long as the business continues to exist. Gift cards (or their equivalent) sold in Alberta cannot expire. Ever. This is causing Groupon some headaches as a result.

1 year, 4 months ago on Like its other platforms, Amazon is taking the long view with its Coins virtual currency

Reply

Exactly. RIM has a network and solid strengths in enterprise integration and mobile security. They could be using those to build a new business. Android could benefit from a healthy rework of their rather weak security model, and the guys at RIM are probably the most qualified to do it. This is an older piece, but it puts forward some concrete ideas of how things could go. http://farwestab.wordpress.com/2011/09/19/next-steps-for-rim/

2 years, 2 months ago on Through the Lens of Kodak’s Past, We May Be Seeing RIM’s Future

Reply

I disagree that choosing Android would have relegated them to "also-ran" status. Samsung would likely disagree, as Android took them from "also-ran" in the feature phone business to one of the biggest providers of Android technology. Nokia had an amazingly strong brand in mobile phones, and they squandered that on an operating system that was virtually dead on arrival, even before the Nokia/Microsoft partnership was announced. Windows Phone managed to supplant its predecessor, Windows Mobile, in the first quarter of its sales, but that was as good as it ever got. Windows Phone has declined to about 2% of global sales and continues to fall. By the end of 2010, it was already clear that Android was going to be one of the two major players in smartphones, alongside iOS. It was already clear by mid-2010 that Symbian was going to go away.

 

Had Nokia chosen Android then, instead of waiting until early 2011 to go with Windows Phone, they could have avoided the 10-month lull, where Symbian sales were effectively shut down (why buy it when Nokia was abandoning it?) while they readied their new products. It was the Osborne II all over again. In the 10 months Nokia was off building the Lumia, they ceased to be part of the conversation, and as a result, ceased to be relevant in mobile computing. It only took 10 months to basically destroy one of the strongest brands in mobile devices. Choosing Android could have meant they could have built the new devices in secret, and simply announced "we're leaving Symbian and going with Android, oh, and here are the first devices". That doesn't work when you announce a major platform shift with no transition period available.

 

As for a previous comment about the "amazing ecosystem" Microsoft is building: sorry, but I'm not buying it, and neither are the rest of the consumers or enterprises out there. iOS and Android command 85% of the global smartphone market, and continue to see growth in terms of units and share. Windows Phone's unit sales continue to decline along with their marketshare. At the rate they are going, they will be below 1% of global share in the next 2-3 quarters, joining Blackberry, Bada and any other marginal mobile OS in the "other systems" category. While the previous commenter is correct that this is a long-term deal, it isn't one, long continuous slog, but a series of sprints, and you have to run every one of them. Drop out for too long, and you are too far behind the leaders to catch up.

2 years, 3 months ago on RIP, Nokia (1865 – 2014)

Reply