> What? How do you figure? They'd have a huge drop in operating expenses because they'd be supporting a much narrower field of business lines.
I'm not sure they'd see a significant drop in operating expenses. Their development expenses in particular wouldn't change, unless they're going to completely give up on actually delivering a competitive product. When your company is built on delivering a device, selling fewer of the devices just means your profit margin goes down. It doesn't actually make the devices cheaper to design, implement, or manufacture.
> Maybe if you only look at the history you choose to. I'd venture that 80% of all successful business is focusing on a niche. It's easier to do one thing well than it is to do everything half ass, and that will always create opportunity.
That's only true if the niche is one that has demands a mainstream product cannot fill. When a mainstream product meets the needs of the niche, the niche evaporates. For example, you see that corporations have niche systems for land-lines, because there is no mainstream demand for complex call systems. No one needs 1000 lines in their home and so Avaya and Cisco don't try to sell PBX systems to the public. On the other hand, there are no niche desktop systems in corporations. They use the same Dell or HP systems as home users. There's no value in a niche product, so the niche product no longer exists.
Smart phones are an example of where the corporate niche is evaporating. There's no requirement for a company to use Blackberry devices. At this point, it's basically just a legacy concern. If an Android phone can do the same job, then what's the value in standardizing on Blackberry, especially if Blackberry becomes a niche -- and therefore more expensive -- option?
> Um, no, they aren't. I'd love this to be so, but it isn't. Apple and Android are focusing on the consumer. You need to consider the fact that at a certain level, the needs of consumers and corporations are divergent. It's extremely difficult to focus on two groups with opposing interests and serve both well. This is essentially my argument.
Except this isn't true. Corporate needs and personal phone needs are very nearly the same. They both need voice service, email, maybe SMS. Corporations might need VPN, but that's built into the "consumer" phones as well.
Please tell me what it is you think corporations need that they can't get from a RIM competitor? And especially please clarify how corporate users and consumers have opposing interests.
> You seem to be making a case that employees will not carry two devices, while at the same time forgetting that one doesn't cost them anything.... As a person that would love an iPhone but who has a corporate issued blackberry, the fact that I have a free device is more than enough to comfort my lack of app selection and better UX.
So what you're saying is that all of your needs are actually met by your Blackberry? Doesn't that mean that your claims about personal vs corporate needs being different/conflicting are incorrect?
But to answer you, no, I didn't forget that. I'm saying that some people choose to pay for an iPhone rather than carry a free Blackberry. This may not be the case for you, but I've seen it at my company. I've also seen people who carry two phones.