Should RIM create a Windows Mobile powered device? This isn’t the first time that I have asked this question, however, I do have a bit of a different spin on it this time.
Tangent coming…
Over a year ago, when Microsoft put out the first beta of Windows Mobile 5 SP2, I wrote a post about why I was worried about Research in Motion. At the time I thought that wireless email device would become the commodity and that the game would be won on the email backend. I was worried about RIM because they made, and still make, most of their money off of device sales and that they would need to win the service provider battle in order to compete with Microsoft long run. For brevity’s sake, lets just say that I may have gotten this one wrong.
Research in Motion is making money hand over fist off of device sales, in fact, they are doing so well, RIM co-CEO Jim Balsille is floating around the idea that carriers may start to offer BlackBerrys without the BlackBerry service plan. Why would RIM ever allow a BlackBerry to be sold without a BlackBerry data plan? Because, as we have stated earlier, they are making a killing off of selling BlackBerrys.
By know you are probably asking what this has to do with whether or not RIM should make Windows Mobile powered devices. (Notice that I am careful not to say Windows Mobile powered BlackBerry) Well, it tells me that if RIM could pull it off, they would make a killing off of them.
Just like many die-hard BlackBerry users will never switch to a Windows Mobile powered device, there are Windows Mobile users that will never switch to the BlackBerry OS. For Research in Motion, this means that there is a fairly large segment of smartphone users used to paying a lot of money for hardware glitch prone devices that RIM currently cannot have a conversation with because they don’t support the OS that these poor souls are using with no intention of ever changing.
RIM is known to make good, stable, reliable handsets, in fact, the BlackBerry is considered to be the Mac of the PDA world. If anyone can figure out how to make a Windows Mobile device that doesn’t need to be rebooted twice a per day and make it more than 24 hours without having to be recharged, the gang in Waterloo can.
You may have noticed that I have been careful not to say that RIM should make a Windows Mobile powered BlackBerry. A BlackBerry is a BlackBerry and deserves a throne all to itself, however, RIM should use that brand name that ranks right up there with iPod and market the hell out of a new device”From the makers of the Blackberry” that just happens to run Windows Mobile.
Imagine that deep voice movie trailer guy doing a promo for a new RIM device using an introduction like, “From the company that first brought email to your mobile, makers of the the most stable PDA known to man, Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry, along with Microsoft is proud to present …” Mike Lazaridis and Jim Balsillie just came into half a billion dollars recently. Maybe they should fund a “Skunk Works” of some sorts to at least look into the idea.
What do you think?
I think that this would be a bad move for RIM. The problem with Pocket PCs is not just buggy hardware. The OS itself has issues as well. RIM should stay clear from MS becasue the stability and reliability of the BlackBerry that we have come to know and love cannot be mantained if it were to run Windows Mobile 5.0.
I agree with Amit.
The problem is inherent in the Windows Mobile OS itself.
There is no way that RIM could create a stable, secure Windows Mobile device without rewriting the source code from the ground up. But then it wouldn’t be WM, it would be a BB, and we already have that.
You mention the iPod…that works so well because Apple creates both the hardware and software and it makes for a great integrated package.
The only way to create a device as great as the BB or the iPod is for one vendor to create an end to end integrated solution.
Plus, there is the issue of diluting the RIM/BB name by association with WM. Granted, you suggest preserving the BB name by reserving it only for BB OS devices, but let’s face it…once RIM would team up with Microsoft, the name of BlackBerry would be dragged down with it.
Imagine if Apple created an iPod that ran Microsoft software…I don’t think that would improve Apple’s positioning in the market.
Let RIM be RIM and compete against Microsoft. So far they’re doing a great job doing so.
Thought,
I hear what you are saying and agree with many of your points, however, the sales guy in me tells me that getting hardwardware from company a to work with software from company b is more of a business process problem than it is a technical issue.
Microsoft doesn’t manufacture a single PC, yet, it’s OS is shipped on over 9 out 10 of every PC sold, and that includes the Mac. I don’t mean to upset any Mac Addicts but Apple lost that battle a long time ago.
Knowing that Windows Mobile 5 isn’t going anywhere, isn’t RIM missing an opportunity to sell more hardware if they don’t support the second most popular PDA OS out there.
Robb: I hear ya, buddy.
However, the problems with Windows Mobile isn’t a matter of getting the various hardware models out there to work with the software…the problem is with Windows Mobile, period. In other words, you could have the greatest hardware integration with WM possible, and the machine would still suck because of WM. RIM cannot make up for the deficiencies in WM, without totally rewriting WM from the ground up. But then it’s back to being a totally RIM product, with no MS involvement.
As to the PC world…sure Windows dominates the desktop. But as you mention, that was a battle long ago with entirely different conditions.
And let’s face it…no matter which manufacturer has installed Windows OS on their machines, none have worked as elegantly as a Mac. So even the best hardware vendors have not been able to get Windows to work on a PC with nearly the same degree of quality as the Mac OS on a Mac machine.
RIM is not coming from the same marketshare disadvantage that Apple is. RIM does not need Microsoft. For RIM to put WM on any of their devices would be to elevate their main competitor, MS in the minds of the consumer, and at the same time, lower their own reputation.
No matter how much money RIM has, it is always finite, and there are always better ways to spend that money to strengthen their own BB product line that will result in a better market position for RIM, rather than give Microsoft a helping hand.
Here’s a question that I would enjoy some additional perspectives on:
Microsoft is obviously not made of dummies. So what is it about the product they are trying to create that forces/allows them to create a product that is significantly less stable? In other words, what is the design trade-off they are facing? What are they gaining in exchange for a less stable product?
Bob: excellent question.
With regards to their desktop OS, I can only surmise that Microsoft has already travelled so far with regards to the evolution of their Windows OS, that they cannot just scrap all of that and start all over again. In other words, it’s too late to change…they can make all sorts of incremental improvements, but they cannot reinvent their own wheel.
With regards to Windows Mobile, I believe it’s the same dynamic. MS has too much invested in this evolutionary branch, and so cannot easily start all over again.
It’s interesting to note that with regards to both the X-box and their new Zune music player, that Microsoft is actually embracing the same end to end model that has worked so well for Apple and RIM. Even Microsoft appreciates this approach to creating a functional and well designed product. Ironically, with the Zune, Microsoft is even turning its back on its old “Plays for Sure” approach, which mimicked the strategy that worked so well with their Windows OS.
I would also like to congratulate Robb for consistently generating some very interesting discussions.
I here him as well and the more I think about, the more what Robb says makes sense, although, I don’t think RIM should create a MS device because compared to the BlackBerry, it would suck.
Personal opinions aside, if RIM’s goal is to make hardware devices and sell as many as possible, alternate operating systems could be a viable means to that end.
It would be a joke to call these abominations BlackBerrys but as much as it pains me to say it, there is a market for Windows Mobile devices and RIM could probably profit from it.
Now this is interesting, they could do windows and go head to head with the existing device makers…or would implementing support for things like SyncML and P-IMAP be more effective? That fits with their existing OS and picks up a fairly large market already
Is this not what BlackBerry connect is for? Why do we really need the entire OS to be Microsoft?
d_fisher,
I would say not exactly. In my opinion, the goal of BlackBerry Connect is to boost BlackBerry service plan offering by providing access to BES and RIM’s backend network to non BlackBerry devices.
The question that I am asking has to do with RIM actually selling more hardware by increasing their footprint beyond BlackBerry devices.
I used Windows Mobile as my example because it is number two to BlackBerry OS, however, the argument could apply to Symbian, Palm OS, or any other OS for that matter.
Let me ask the question a different way. Could RIM increase hardware sales if they offered platforms other than BlackBerry?
Bob: Excellent question indeed,
Allow me to ask a follow up question. What is it about the OS that is clearly less stable than the BlackBerry OS, however, allows it remain firmly planted in the number two spot?
HELL NO! If RIM ever soils its self with windoz that would end me buying anything from RIM ever again.
Palm going with windoz is going to kill Palm dead
That sounds an awful lot like folks who said that they would never buy a BlackBerry again if RIM ever started putting digital cameras in them. That is just not rational.
Palm was bleeding long before they ever put Windows Mobile onto the 700w. I am willing to blame MS for a lot, but, not the demise of Palm.
Robb asks:
“What is it about the [Microsoft] OS that is clearly less stable than the BlackBerry OS, however, allows it remain firmly planted in the number two spot? ”
My guess:
One, the familiarity of the Microsoft name. Many people mistakenly assume a Windows Mobile device will be easier to learn to use, given that they already know Windows on the desktop.
Two, the fact that there are so many devices released with the WM OS. It seems like every other day HTC alone announces a new WM device it will be cranking out. So MS tends to try to overwhelm the market with the sheer number of devices.
Three, MS throws alot of marketing resources behind their products, and WM is no exception.
In short, you have the brute force of Microsoft coupled with leveraging the Windows brand, and that is why WM is where it’s at in the market.
Imagine if you had the WM OS, but without the Microsoft clout behind it. That OS wouldn’t go anywhere in the market if it had to stand on its own merits.
windoz sucks
Totally agreed with “hell NO”. The reason I got a black berry is because I hate
windows based phones. I’m a die-hard mac user, I’d never go back to blackberry
if they made a windows phone. ew.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t understand how someone could say that they are a die-hard BlackBerry user, however, if RIM ever decided to offer a Windows device, in addition to the BlackBerry that you know and love, that you would never use a BlackBerry again.
I am not asking the question if RIM should make a Windows Mobile device in place of the BlackBerry. I am talking about a completely separate line of hardware in addition to the BlackBerry.
Think about how Ford makes F-150 pick-up trucks. Ford also makes the Lincoln MKZ. Multiple hardware lines within the same company are not mutually exclusive. Saying that I will no longer buy GE kitchen appliances because GE also makes trains just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.
I still don’t think that this is a move that RIM needs to make, however, I do see your point Robb. No matter what RIM does with their BlackBerry line of devices there will always be a market for Windows Mobile Devices as Microsoft isn’t going anywhere and many of it’s users, like users of the BlackBerry will never switch.
This is a very good, thought provoking question my friend. 🙂
No doubt Robb hit a home run with this question…look at the number of responses!
As to those who say they’d abandon BB if RIM also made a WM unit…I agree that it may not be a totally rational move given that RIM would also in this scenario still make the BB units…but humans are emotional, psychological creatures too, and so it is very probable that any RIM association with WM would alienate some of their current customer base.
With the customer, perceptions are reality, and so this has to be taken into account.
However, going back to the original question of whether this makes sense…I don’t see any point in RIM putting out any models with such a broken OS as WM. A company is judged by consumers often on the totality of its reputation in the marketplace, and putting out a WM device can only subtract from RIM’s reputation. Better to put the resources to work developing even better BB’s…
I have a question for those of you who say you wouldnt buy RIM products if they make a WM device. What product would you use? Palm? Their Versa Mail isnt push. So what would you do?
I would personally like to see RIM make a WM device, it would be interesting to see what they could come up with. There are alternative push technologies though. SyncML (OMA-DS) and LEMONADE are the two most common standards based push technologies P-IMAP (Push IMAP) is replaced by LEMONADE so it is getting down to two standards. These of course are the technologies that can sync the 80% of the devices out on the market (not RIM and WM devices). Most SymbianOS phones already support them and the support is growing. Take a look at Funambol, Isode, Consilient, Synchronica, Sun, the list goes on and on for companies supporting these two standards. The feature sets supported are strong and the ideas behind them are as well.
Ideally RIM will end up supporting one of these (kind of like how everyone supports SMTP for email and how IM is getting close completely open).
Stay tuned, I will put up a better analysis of the alternatives.
I am with Josh on this one. I have been using a BlackBerry for about 4 years now and a Windows Mobile device for about 3 1/2. I love my BlackBerry, however, if I could only keep one, I would keep my new Palm 700w hands down.
I’ll even admit that Windows mobile 5 isn’t as stable as my BlackBerry 7250 as I make a point to softboot it before I charge it for the night. There are, however, just too many things that I use Windows Mobile for that aren’t available on the BlackBerry that I cannot live without.