An Open Letter to RIM

To: Jim Balsillie, Mike Lazaridis and RIM employees

From: Jonathan Hoover

I love BlackBerry. I was an early and loyal user for years. You got me with the Pearl. (your best kept secret to date) I know you are getting a lot of these letters, a lot of advice, a lot of it you're not going to pay attention to. I understand that, but that's the problem. You're clearly not paying attention.

You already know iPhone is eating your lunch. That's a big deal, BlackBerrys have become a "pushed on me device" instead of your customers "pulling (choosing) them". See what I did there? I know that you tout your "push" services and they are without a question still the best. However, when IT managers are the last remaining advocates of your devices and services, it's a problem. Yes, consumers care about security and yes, consumers love your keyboards and I'll talk about the wonder that is BBM.

That's not enough. iPhone security is very strong, strong enough for a lot of Fortune 500 companies, many of whom were your customers last year. Android, HP/Palm's webOS and Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will all get there too. They are all gunning for your customers and they are winning.

Let me tell you a story. I know a small company who recently adopted smart phones for their employees, many of whom work out of the office. Their primary reason for finally making this investment? Email. It has just now become important enough to their day to day that the decision makers wanted them to be able to get email while out of the office. That's it. They weren't concerned about the browser or media playback or apps. They bought Android devices. BlackBerrys weren't even on their radar! RIM that's YOUR market! That's your business model! You built your company for this and they didn't even look at you. Why? Mindshare. You've fallen so far off the radar that the Business to Business sales guy at Verizon didn't even recommend your product. I was flabbergasted. They would've been much better off with BlackBerrys, you have a superior product but no one cares anymore.

You are now where Palm was before webOS and Nokia was before it embraced Windows Phone. That means it's time for something big but we don't see it coming or even that you know you need it.

I'm really not trying to jump on the anti RIM bandwagon here. You know that the PlayBook was half baked. You know that your iterative updates to your handsets aren't getting anyone excited. You know that your OS is a generation behind. I know you know because of the acquisitions you've been making. Torch (thanks for the browser), QNX (thanks for PlayBook OS) TAT (thanks for the bit of UX help) but it isn't enough.

I thought you should've bought Palm, but that ship has sailed, I'm sure you were in on the bidding but HP won. I am in strong disagreement with anyone who thinks you should adopt another platform. Thats not the right move, you are a platform company and as Apple and Palm have always said, to have the best devices you have to control the hardware and the software and I know you know that. So what do you do?

Acknowledge the problem. Being open about the fact that you are behind the times will only help, really. It gives people hope. I don't know if you've done this internally, but if not, start there. Tell your employees you know you screwed up. Maybe not this extreme but close. Then, tell the public, tell them great things are ahead, make teaser sites, let it get picked up by the tech blogs, whatever, just give hope. That adds current brand equity. As a consumer, I'd be much more comfortable entering into a service agreement and buying a BlackBerry if I thought that the company had something great around the corner. Even if "around the corner" is years. Microsoft admitted they "missed a cycle" in the smartphone market. So did you. Admit it.

Again, you've got a great product. If all I needed was messaging (email, text, and above all BBM) and phone calls I'd still be your customer but the reality is Apple and Google showed me I can have more from my smartphone and they do it better than you.

Here's what I'd like from you next. First, do a better job of telling your story. Why should I buy a BlackBerry? No one has an answer for that. The best you've done is BBM and that's because that's what your users are saying to their friends with iPhones and Androids. "Why do you have a BlackBerry?" "BBM." That's it. Not enough. It's the network effect in reverse. If your users are leaving BBM becomes exponentially less attractive. Ask MySpace. So open BBM up. Make iOS and Android BBM clients. The demand is there, the "group messaging" apps space is white hot. GroupMe and Kik are growing real fast and bringing in lots of funding. (well, you know that, you sued Kik) Again, you invented the space and are allowing someone else to define it. Give iOS and Android users BBM so they can have a taste for it. I'd pay for the app, and others would too. Whether its a subscription or a one time for the app or ads just make it happen. You could even "dumb it down" so it's text only for non-BlackBerry platforms. Only BlackBerry customers can send audio and video over BBM. That's a way to draw customers who get hooked on the service back to your platform.

Secondly, remember you are a platform company. You used to want to sell your BES and BIS services to everyone and that was your bread and butter. It should be! When I set up my iPhone or Android device BES or BIS should be an option right there with Exchange. I can't tell you how bad there needs to be something between MobileMe (consumer), Google apps (a half hearted attempt at Exchange style stuff) and Exchange. BIS and BES could be that! Charge less than Microsoft so small business can afford it and let it be device agnostic but again leave the best features for BlackBerry devices.

For now I'll use my iPhone. (until HP/Palm ships something that catches my attention) I hope to be your customer again one day.

Google TV

Obviously it's been awhile since I've posted on here and look what's happened in the meantime- Google came out with a product that's almost exactly like what I described in my last post. Google TV will start shipping this week and I couldn't be more excited.

Google TV is a new platform that offers almost everything I asked for in my last post but of course things I didn't even consider. Namely, the integration with an Android handset. This is huge. During Google I/O 2010 a demo was shown where you could be browsing the web on your Android phone and then push the content to the TV. During the demo they shared a YouTube clip but I imagine it can be any type of web content. I can think of several times a day I would take advantage of this. How many times have you found something you wanted to share with someone in the room while you were browsing and had to hand them your phone or laptop? Now you just push it up to the big screen and everyone can see it.

There isn't much more to describe how it works it's better if you just go here and see it for yourself. What I really want to talk about of course is the tech.

Here's the big news: Google TV has Intel inside. This means Google has ported Android to run on Intel's x86 architecture versus the ARM processors it had been originally been written for that power smartphones. I wonder what this will open up for the future, Android on Intel powered tablets? A few auto makers' infotainment systems are powered by Atom. Android powering your car's ICE system? Yes please.

It is going to be very interesting. I can't wait to see how everyday people react to this. Check out the video above for a good run down of Google TV from Best Buy. (full disclosure: I work for Best Buy but they have no part in this blog)

Google HDTV

Google needs to put Android into cable boxes just as it does into phones. I want a Google OS to power the cable box connected to my HDTV. Imagine Google, and Android, apps on your TV. Imagine a browser (Chrome, of course) optimized for the "10 foot experience". Imagine an open development platform for the living room. Imagine a UX that doesn't suck. This all could happen if Google adopted the same model it currently uses for it's Android handsets to the cable business.

Currently, cable and satellite customers who want HDTV service really only have one, maybe two choices for how they interact with their service. They can either have a mediocre experience with their cable provider's box or a slightly better experience from TiVo.* This is much the same as the relationship consumers have when they buy a dumbphone from a cell phone carrier. The hardware is mediocre and the software is uninspired, full of crap carrier-branded applications with an awful UX.

There is no denying that Apple is responsible for raising the average consumer's expectations of what a phone experience should be and Google used that to its advantage to get customers interested in their Android platform. In contrast, Apple has had zero impact with it's AppleTV device. Just as Apple shook up the mobile phone market with iPhone in 2007 Google could have a similar impact in the TV space.

Using their Android model Google could write the software that powers the cable and/or satellite boxes in customer's homes then freely distribute it to hardware partners who would then sell the Google set top boxes to cable/satellite companies.

The revenue model is obvious. Google could be the ultimate ad company with all of the data they would gain from users behavior when watching TV. The Google set top boxes would phone home to Mountain View and Google would be able to target ads to very specific consumer behavior.

I would really like to hear what the downside would be. In writing this I could not come up with a reason why Google wouldn't do this. I'm sure it's just a matter of time.

If you are interested in my feelings toward TiVo read this. (although written in 2005 the fact that it is still true proves TiVo's irrelevance)

Apple's Response to Verizon Ads

By now I'm sure you've all seen these Verizon ads that use the "There's a Map For That" slogan and the DROID Does campaign to compare Verizon's network to AT&T's and the Motorola DROID to the Apple iPhone. Finally, today, Apple comes back with response ads that are way better than what AT&T came up with.

If you clicked on the link and watched the Apple Ads you saw that their response to the Verizon ads was to highlight AT&T's 3G network's ability to support simultaneous voice and data.

Verizon started this whole thing by hitting AT&T and their customers where it hurt: AT&T's coverage. This has been a major pain point for iPhone users around the country as many users in major cities don't get to experience the advantages of AT&T's 3G network due to the congestion kicking them down to Edge coverage (which doesn't support simultaneous voice and data).

In my experience there aren't a lot of Verizon users complaining about their inability to access data while on a phone call. However, there are a lot of iPhone users complaining about their inability to access AT&T's network at all.

This is a problem for Apple and AT&T because potential customers are buying into Verizon's ads. They see these ads and it resonates with all the complaints that they've heard about AT&T's service. So far the iPhone is still the best smartphone you can buy on any network and it's not as if Apple is having a hard time selling them. However, both Apple and AT&T need to step up their response to Verizon's attacks to show that they still have the best, most revolutionary smartphone on the market.

I miss Apple Keynotes

I'm watching the 2006 Macworld address with the introduction of the first MacBook Pro. This was when Steve was at his best. I wonder if we'll ever get this back?

Been a long time since I've posted but after spending another afternoon at Caribou and filling my Facebook wall with links and videos I realized that Twitter and Facebook should be getting people here. So I am renewing my commitment to the blogging format. So in the words of the Joker in the Dark Knight: Here, we, go