[jibi]

Originally Posted by chrjohns

I don't get what the problem is with a company adding features to a product. If they can add a camera or expandable memory and sell more phones what's the downside of that. I find it highly unlikely they will stop making products that do not include these features if that's what their core clients demand. Why would a public company limit it's market by not including features that people outside of their core base desire.

When RIM released the BlackBerry, it was marketed to corporations, government agencies, and government contractors. This sector is their largest customer NOT the consumer market. With the introduction of the 7100, along with the celebrity-laden fad/hype of BlackBerry, their consumer market has grown EXPONENTIALLY in the last 2 years alone. Prior to that point in time, there was NO consumer demand behind the BlackBerry. As the popularity has grown, RIM has likely started looking into more avenues that would appeal to consumers. However, the product is built on security and their largest customers still are the agencies within the U.S. Government - most of which do not allow things such as camera phones into their doors - so you may just have to deal with that knowledge when deciding on a purchase.

[NJBlackBerry]

Typical BB snob argument.

Oh wait, guess I'm a BB snob too.

The carriers help dictate what features are in the devices. Not consumers or technology hobbyists...

[strobate]

Until recently very few consumers would be willing to pay $45 for data. Now it's not that uncommon. Of course, much of what makes a BB a BB is BES, which can run another $20 a month for hosting (for a consumer).

I'd like to see some media stuff on my BB. A camera I don't care much about.

Being a gadget freak I've left the 7520 many times to more consumer-centric devices and have always returned. BB just works. Ultimately that's what matters to me.

[Zro]

To add my $0.02CDN to strobate's comments...for those that are clamboring for this feature or that feature or whatever, switch over to a device that has this feature for a while and see if it works for you. 9 times out of 10 you will come back to the BlackBerry because like strobate said "BB just works."

Now, if email is not as important to you, then you'll be one of the people who stay away from the BB.

Whether or not consumers are buying/using the BB does not mean that it's intended for the consumer market and therefore consumers should not expect consumer features.

If you go out and buy an industrial oven that's meant to be used in a restaurant, do you expect that it will have all the bells and whistles that your home oven has?

Zro

[chrjohns]

I just have a couple of comments. The intention is not to attack or defend merely for discussion:




The first financial objective of a corporation is to maximaze shareholder value. The first operational objective of any company is to perform their core competency. In RIMs case serving the security concerns there core customers demmand.

How would the addition of products with additional features not serve these two goals?

I crossed the line throwing out the word "snob" as it added no value to my comments. I tried to use it to emphasize my point and instead only took away from it. I apologize in that regard.

Aside from providing the best coverage, which is a goal all carriers struggle with in some way, a carrier is successful when it serves the consumer, so to say the carriers help dictate what features are offered would not be congruous with the statement that consumers do not. This is usually typical in an industry with any real competition. Factoring in the extreme lack of loyalty in this particular industry, added weight would be placed on what the market demands.

The point of my post was not to say I prefer additional features over what the BB already provides. Most all BB users would agree that it provides the most value in one package than most other devices on the market.

My point was, why is it when someone voices a desire for RIM to offer more features on the phones they make, they are told to find another device if they want those features. Why be so negative?

I'm not to keen on the oven metaphor but how about this one. The Humvee was not designed to be driven on the road, but consumers liked them and did. The result was the company designing and marketing a new product to the consumer market. I haven't heard of any complaints from the US Military, have you?

[Zro]

How many people here would like to see an updated 950? Probably a lot of people would, but the problem with that is that it's a data only device. So the wireless provider wouldn't be able to sell their voice package also, so they would put up a front to having a device like this be developed.

I can't argue at all with the Hummer argument. But there's also a bit more going on with that...like the company being sold to GM who is all about doing commercial vehicles. But I digress.

The reason most people here seem to pounce on people who want other gadgets on their BlackBerry is because most people here have used other PDA's and smart phones....they've seen how trying to pack too much into one device can spread it too thin. Instead of doing one thing really well, they now do many things decently. And no one wants to see that happen with a BlackBerry.

Camera phones, Expandable memory, MP3 players etc are just neich segments of the wireless handheld industry. Admittedly, so is email on a wireless device. Catering to government wishes and keeping the device as minimalistic as they have, RIM has created a solid name for security and quality. There are companies that look at the various government certifications that they have and decide to buy a BlackBerry based on that.

Zro

[jibi]

Originally Posted by chrjohns

The Humvee was not designed to be driven on the road, but consumers liked them and did. The result was the company designing and marketing a new product to the consumer market. I haven't heard of any complaints from the US Military, have you?

The US Military is going to be retiring the use of AM General's Humvee within the next 5 years, most likely (atleast within the next 10 years). Perhaps the comparison would have made more sense if you went that direction rather than comparing apples and oranges in terms of commercializing a product/brand. As Zro stated, the commercialization of the Humvee did not happen until GM purchased the Hummer brand name in 1999 and later produced the H2 in 2003. To futher refute the commercialization time frame, the Hummer H1 had been produced for 11 years prior to the H2, but roughly 11,000 exist in the market - that compared to roughly 80,000 H2 vehicles in existence.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, and as I mentioned before, as the consumer market keeps growing, then the influence of the government contracts will lessen, most likely... but until the potential of gain far outweighs the potential of loss, then RIM is doing the right thing, in my opinion.

[TheRFGuy]

Several government agencies and large corps such as Boeing has assisted the design of the BB and they have been very specific not to have a camara on the devices. Any changes to that can cause a huge migration of corporate customers to use other devices - that is exactly what Microsoft is hoping to see.

I have several wireless PDAs and frankly Blackberry is still the best email device out there - even comparing PDA with WM5 on a Exchange Server 2003.

[chrjohns]

I think it's pretty obvious at this point RIM is moving in two different directions with the BBs. There appears to be the belief that these two paths are mutually exclusive. I don't understand this. I can only say what direction I'd like to see them go with the consumer product, and I fairly confident in the next few years we will see the bells and whistles. I can also be fairly certain the agencies, contractors and other corporations that use the BB exclusively will not give up on a good product because the company has decided to try their hand in the consumer market. As long as RIMs is meeting their needs and requirements then why leave. In addition if they have such a vested interest in the BBs developement, then would it be fiscally responsible to start all over with another company?

I don't agree with the arguments of why it's a bad idea for the bells and whistles to be on RIMs radar. The only possible reason would be resources being siphoned away from their core product line. To this I say, possible, but unlikely, since I can only assume RIMs management is competent and shouldn't or wouldn't allow a disruption with serving the needs of thier big clients. I guess I agree to disagree. Maybe we can revisit this thread in 18 months and see what happens.

Without elaborating on the obvious flaws in the Humvee comparison, how can you all let that comment on the oven slide without a mention. I'm pretty sure the only thing people expect from an oven is for it to cook food and bake cakes. I never in my life have expected anything else from my oven, and am pretty sure that is what a chef/cook in a restaurant would expect from theirs. if comparing Humvees to BBs is like comparing apples to oranges then comparing ovens to BBs is like comparing pinnapples to oranges. Go figure.

I just want to say. I really enjoy banging around in these forums. They are by far the most comprehensive BB resource on the internet.

[Zro]

common...that oven comparison was great. Yes the basic functionality is to just cook food, but there's also other things like timers, self cleaning, and colour matching that come on todays home ovens. Industrial ovens come in steel gray, don't have timers, and don't have self cleaning features.

To you, the timer, colour matching, and self cleaning aspects may not be a huge deal, but to others, they may not purchase one without one of these things. If your kitchen is all white, and the store you go to only sells brown ovens, then you're going to go somewhere else.

Most people don't consider the colour of an oven to be a feature, because it's so common place. Just like phones with cameras are becoming so common place that people have just started expecting that any mobile device they buy will have one.

I personally would love to buy a phone like my old Ericsson T18z...sure it had VAD, but other than that, there really wasn't many bells and whistles....but the consumer market has dictated that all cell phones now have colour screens, speakerphones, ability to play games and surf the web, etc. So now I can't get one of those more simple phones.

Heck, I'd like to use a 950 on a GSM network so that I can just get my email...no phone at all....but market has dictated that a BB without a phone is not going to happen. I think I recall others on this forum stating the same thing, and even tho it would still stick within any security guidelines, people bantering on an internet forum is not going to sway RIM to go back to one of those models.

</rant>

Zro

[jibi]

Originally Posted by chrjohns

I can also be fairly certain the agencies, contractors and other corporations that use the BB exclusively will not give up on a good product because the company has decided to try their hand in the consumer market. As long as RIMs is meeting their needs and requirements then why leave. In addition if they have such a vested interest in the BBs developement, then would it be fiscally responsible to start all over with another company?

Have you ever dealt with a large corporation (such as the largest bank in the world or the largest computer manufacturer in the world, etc) - government agency or private sector? Just curious. It just really doesn't appear you do (but perhaps you do). With government regulations and compliancies within the public and private sectors of commerce, information security has become one of, if not THE top expense for IT departments... this isn't going away - ever. As long as the corporate and government customer remains RIM's majority percentage revenue intake (which it still is by a long shot, if I'm not mistaken), then don't expect too many feathers to be ruffled.

[chrjohns]

Originally Posted by jibi

Have you ever dealt with a large corporation (such as the largest bank in the world or the largest computer manufacturer in the world, etc) - government agency or private sector? Just curious. It just really doesn't appear you do (but perhaps you do). With government regulations and compliancies within the public and private sectors of commerce, information security has become one of, if not THE top expense for IT departments... this isn't going away - ever. As long as the corporate and government customer remains RIM's majority percentage revenue intake (which it still is by a long shot, if I'm not mistaken), then don't expect too many feathers to be ruffled.

So what you are saying if RIM provides these agencies with what they demmand and expect, but also develop other products, they will no longer be able to use RIMs products that are in compliance? I just don't agree with the all or nothing argument, it just doesn't make much sense. But if you do have the experience dealing with government agencies and these large corporations and you see this as the reaction then I'll have to believe you. If they have guidlines that force them to cease relationships with a reliable vendor, becuase those vendors choose to pursue opportunities in other markets then so be it. I just don't know, and haven't read or heard any evidence to support that argument. So I'll believe what makes sense for now.

[chrjohns]

Originally Posted by Zro

To you, the timer, colour matching, and self cleaning aspects may not be a huge deal, but to others, they may not purchase one without one of these things. If your kitchen is all white, and the store you go to only sells brown ovens, then you're going to go somewhere else.
</rant>

Zro

Are you saying if a company were to offer industrial ovens in different colors, with timers and self cleaning options, the restaurant industry would refuse the buy the other ovens they make that exclude these options? I completely understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's relevant.

[Zro]

Originally Posted by chrjohns

Are you saying if a company were to offer industrial ovens in different colors, with timers and self cleaning options, the restaurant industry would refuse the buy the other ovens they make that exclude these options? I completely understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's relevant.

I'm not saying they would refuse to buy them, I was more bringing up that sure some people would buy them, but not many people would. Their market is the restaurant industry, that is their large target market, why spin off so that a small percentage of another market would be happy?

As for the point about companies not using a BB if they do a spin off, yes there are a lot of companies that would change their policies on BlackBerry's if there were a consumer and a corporate version. Why do so many places just blanketly ban cell phones? Because it's easier to do that then have every cell phone checked to see if it has a camera, extra storage, etc. Companies know that BlackBerry does not have any of these, so you show them your BlackBerry and it get's passed.

If there were some BlackBerry's that had cameras and some that didn't, then it's easier for a business/company/government building/whatever to just say "no more BlackBerry" instead of having each and every one inspected each time it comes into the building.

They may not complain about it, it's the people who want their BlackBerry as a tool and not a toy (most heavy users here) that don't want the extra stuff and complain about it. We want it to do email. We know that's what it does. We don't want a camera. We have our 6MP camera for that. We don't want an MP3 player...we have our iPod for that...and we don't need extra memory becasue we don't have the camera and MP3 player.

Now, another point is that RIM wants people to buy the newest BlackBerry when it's released (obviously) but how many of the people who want a camera or mp3 player would buy a new $400 phone every year? So you get a one time sale (maybe, because it's still more expensive than a regular Nokia that has the same things except for the email). Why expand into a one time purchase market?

Larger corporations have a lifespan on devices and therefore are recurring purchasers. And those larger corporations don't want anything other than what they have been given...a great email device.

Zro

[chrjohns]

You are implying there is no demmand for these features. To that I agree to disagree.

You are making the assumption RIMs core customers would leave because of these new products. There is no way to prove or disprove this. If RIM does begin to add these features, then we'll easily be able to see who leaves and who stays. If they don't add these features, then that would give weight to your argument, since that very reason could be why the RIM execs do not choose to go that route. Again I agree that we disagree.

Here is the question: Would I prefer a BB device that had more features? That's a question I can only answer for myself. My answer is. If it still does what my BB now does in addition to these new features, then absolutely. Would I find a blackberry with a camera more useful than one without? If it doesn't affect my ability to send and recieve emails instantly, then yes.

According to RIMs 2005 financial report, they see the retail sale of their devices to what they have called (prosumers) as a significant contribution to their future growth. See page 7 section entitled "Retail Market".

If security has sufficient training to identify the various blackberry models apart from other cell phones, then they should easily be able to determine if one model has a camera and another doesn't. If a company or agency has developed such a relationship with RIMs in that they will not allow any other companys devices into their building, then mild policy changes to accomodate something as simple as this should not be a stretch. The risk of someone slipping through with a BBcameraphone would not be any greater than security personnel not identifying a phone as non RIM. It's their job to get it right, give them some credit, not to mention the personal risks they assume by not performing their function. Don't discount the relationship that RIM has with these customers, as well as the lack of a viable alternative.

My last phone played music, and during that time the iPod was neatly tucked away in a drawer collecting dust. Why? Becuase I preferred not to have it take up valuable pocket real estate. On the other end of the spectrum, my digital camera and former camera phone were not comparable. I didn't carry my digital camera around because I don't take pictures all day. I did however capture things on my camera phone that were both informational or just amusing.

One time purchase? C'mon buddy. If this was the case Nokia would have gone out of business years ago. For you to suggest there is no money to be made in the consumer market from repeat purchases is completely baseless and unfounded. This may sound arrogant but I dare you to back that up. Offer up some evidence. Anything.

Corporations demand innovation not just more of the same. Any R&D done on the consumer side that could be transferred without interferring with the compliance issues could only help. Why would they purchase new devices if the all they wanted was more of the same.

[Zro]

First, I doubt its some relationship with RIM that makes it so that companies will allow a BlackBerry and not a Nokia cell phone. Using your logic, then they should allow any phone that does not have a camera be used within companies and the security people could then weed out which ones do and which ones don't have cameras. The reality is that quite a few places that have these policies in place just say "No cellular phones, but a BlackBerry is ok". Point blank.

There is a difference between a prosumer and a consumer. A prosumer is a small business owner, or self employed person. A consumer is someone who just wants the gadget. It's not a tool for their business like it is for a prosumer. So, the prosumer market is still somewhat inside the corporate market, it's just a fringe set of it.

And yes, most people would see it as a one time purchase when it has a $400 price tag. How does Nokia do it? They offer lower price phones. And those are the phones that get bought over and over. Yes there are some phones that have a higher pricetag (Moto v3 comes to mind) but a lot of people who bought them are not going to go out and buy the v3i now that it's out, or the v4 when it comes out. How many of the Treo 600 users ran out right away and got 650s? Wait, the 650 is more popular, so how many of those 650 users are going to get a 700? How many people still use an old Nokia phone? There is a HUGE segment of the total number of cell phone users that are NOT repeat buyers. If I didn't have someone sell me a SE T310 for next to nothing, I would probably still be using my T18z. I'm a consumer. And I'm proof of not being repeat business. If I walk around the office, I do see a couple of Moto v3's, but the majority of people around here have 2 or 3 year old cell phones.

I am not making any assumption as to if the core business would or would not leave just because they have a camera phone. I am saying that their core business does not (in a majority way) want or need a camera phone. I'm also saying that companies would change their policies on what is allowed in and what is not. Assuming a BlackBerry had a camera in it, companies would then say "here's your BlackBerry for use when you're out of the office, but you can't bring it inside the office" This still allows them to be mobile and accessable, but inconvenienced between the doors to their desk. Which now means that anyone visiting from another office is cut off while they are in that office.

You seem to be making the assumption that EVERYONE wants this, when it's quite obvious by reading this forum that it's a smaller percentage of the users that do want it.

Originally Posted by chrjohns

Corporations demand innovation not just more of the same. Any R&D done on the consumer side that could be transferred without interferring with the compliance issues could only help. Why would they purchase new devices if the all they wanted was more of the same.

You said it yourself, "without interferring with the compliance issues".

Keeping a camera out ensures that there is no compliance issue.

I'm not saying there is no demand for these features to be added, heck, you yourself are proof that if I said that I would be wrong. What I am saying is that it's not a substantial demand within their core target. And the segment of the market that wants the toys or fashion statements is a small market.

Now, if you REALLY want a phone with a camera/SD/MP3/Email, get something with BlackBerry connect on it. And no, I don't mean you personally, just in general for people complaining.

Zro

[Boy Genius]

I don't understand the issue here, a camera and MP3 player and possibly video will 100% be added to RIM's product line. No question about it, to say they will lose out on Enterprise business is not correct in any aspect. I want a damn camera in the blackberry yeah MMS is great when fun when you have to send a picture to ur self from another camera phone or computer and then MMS it to someone. RIM is incredibly smart and the policies on a BES are nothing short of amazing. Oh you have a camera blackberry and we don't allow camera phones either get a blackberry without camera or our BES Policy will disable it. Simple as that. This is not a huge deal by any means, anyone who thinks the blackberry will not incorporate added functionality in terms of multimedia in the future are crazy. Zro lets have a wager, I bet you $1000 that by end of this year, RIM will release a camera blackberry, lets make this bet official. Make it happen.

[chrjohns]

Zro just a couple of points:

A "prosumer" as described in RIMs financial report is a professional consumer. This person does not necessarily have to be self employed or a small business owner. The term simply refers to an professional individual customer as opposed to an institutional customer.

RIM obviously does not percieve this market segment as "fringe". From their 2005 Annual Report

Pg 5 "...retail distribution will contribute a large portion of our growth this year, across all geographical markets."
Pg 7 "We expect the retail channe to contribute to our growth in the coming year."

There doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's quite simple.If the company doesn't allow camera phones then they will not purchase them. RIM will not, and cannot discontinue these models. Doing so would be corporate suicide.

Where you and I disagree, is that there is significant enough demand in the consumer market for RIM to provide phones with these features and make a profit. As I said before there is only one way to find out who is right. Let's wait and see.

You call it complaining, I call it an opinion. It's wrong to bash people on these forums who have the opinion that a blackberry with additional features would better suit their lifestyle.

[Zro]

If they do put a camera in a BlackBerry, I can bet that there are going to be places that extend their cell ban to include all BlackBerrys because they don't want to retrain the security staff.

And I don't see how you can say by the end of the year, that's a little quick, even for RIM. Unless you have info that no one else seems to have on these forums.

Zro

[Zro]

I still don't see it happening. The BlackBerry is a business tool, yes it is getting picked up by consumers, that is not the intent (as least how I perceve it).

And people do complain that it does not have these features...they constantly complain in the forums. Like I said, I understand that you are not complaining that it does not have these features because it currently does what you expect it to, but would like to have these features. "my Treo can do it, why can't my BlackBerry?" "I find it rediculous that I can't transfer files to my BlackBerry" "when will they smarten up and come out with a camera in the BlackBerry". That is complaining.

The BlackBerry is not for everyone. If you want a camera phone that will play your music and allow you to get email, there are BBConnect devices as well as things like the Treo that will pull your email (NA doesn't have Connect for Treo yet).

It just seems that some people expect that because one company develops a product with a feature that every other company will follow suit. I would rather see a company stick to it's own views and not try to "keep up" with all the other companies by adding this and that.

The great thing about this discussion is that we are both on complete opposite ends of the consumer market...you would like to see more toys and features (granted, as long as it doesn't degrade email performance) and I would like to see them go back to an email only device

I can't say if RIM will or will not do something, apparantly BoyGenius seems to have a better scoop as to what's coming up than I, but in all their past conferences and whatnot they have always stated that they are a corporate tool (yes I do understand that companies can change) and that they would not do some of the consumer type features.

So, we can agree to disagree for a lot of these points, and to answer your original question "why do people on the forum jump all over people who want additional features" my response is still "because I don't want to see it be a common toy for the masses and become like the Treo and doing lots of different things kinda good, but not really".

Zro