10 Reasons why Google will buy RIM

[roadbloc]

You value the User Experience.

It just so happens to be much better when the company who makes the OS also takes more responsibility for how the hardware and software are supposed to work together.

And yet the post you quoted pretty much proved that is not nearly always the case. I felt Windows 98 provided a good user experience (in fact, if it was still supported today, I'd still be using it). And yet the hardware was made by a totally different company from the software.

In other words, it's a load of rubbish. Yes, if the software doesn't suit the hardware then the user experience tends to be rubbish. However, long gone are the days of missing drivers that result in faulty software and weird bugs. Especially in mobile phones.

 

[KnightWRX]

And yet the post you quoted pretty much proved that is not nearly always the case. I felt Windows 98 provided a good user experience (in fact, if it was still supported today, I'd still be using it). And yet the hardware was made by a totally different company from the software.

In other words, it's a load of rubbish. Yes, if the software doesn't suit the hardware then the user experience tends to be rubbish. However, long gone are the days of missing drivers that result in faulty software and weird bugs. Especially in mobile phones.

Windows 98 provided a good user experience if you had no value for computer security at all.

You'd still be using Windows 98 today only if you had no value for computer security at all.

The Windows 9x line-up was a complete joke, a relic of the 80s' architecture for consumer operating systems. It was good for gaming and that's only because game developers had a fancy for running code that wasn't properly written for multi-user systems with proper process memory space separation and hadn't yet discovered that using vendor provided APIs for hardware access was a blessing, not a problem.

 

[rhett7660]

And yet the post you quoted pretty much proved that is not nearly always the case. I felt Windows 98 provided a good user experience (in fact, if it was still supported today, I'd still be using it). And yet the hardware was made by a totally different company from the software.

In other words, it's a load of rubbish. Yes, if the software doesn't suit the hardware then the user experience tends to be rubbish. However, long gone are the days of missing drivers that result in faulty software and weird bugs. Especially in mobile phones.

And also, isn't this your opinion? How many IRQ conflicts did you run into during your Win9X days. To many for me to count. Please, again, this is more of an opinion, which can be construed as rubbish.

 

[KnightWRX]

And also, isn't this your opinion? How many IRQ conflicts did you run into during your Win9X days. To many for me to count.

To be fair, IRQ conflicts is not a Win9x fault in and of itself, it was mostly an issue with how early PC architectures worked (the ISA bus). PCI introduced IRQ sharing which mostly solved this issue.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

And also, isn't this your opinion? How many IRQ conflicts did you run into during your Win9X days. To many for me to count. Please, again, this is more of an opinion, which can be construed as rubbish.

well lets be fair and look at Apple OS from those days. It was a running joke at how often they crashed and lock up at I know my Jr high and High School. These were the days before OSX.

I remember the labs every time a class was in there at least one but often time multiple computers would crash. The PC lab for the CS students would go days with out a single crash and I know we did a lot more no no on those PC lab.

Simple fact is computer back then had issues no matter what OS. Things changed for Apple when they moved to the Unix core and MS things got better when they moved to the NT core.

Hell the Blue screen of death is a joke from the 9.x days.

 

[rhett7660]

To be fair, IRQ conflicts is not a Win9x fault in and of itself, it was mostly an issue with how early PC architectures worked (the ISA bus). PCI introduced IRQ sharing which mostly solved this issue.

However if you look at what I was responding too, this falls into place.

well lets be fair and look at Apple OS from those days. It was a running joke at how often they crashed and lock up at I know my Jr high and High School. These were the days before OSX.

I remember the labs every time a class was in there at least one but often time multiple computers would crash. The PC lab for the CS students would go days with out a single crash and I know we did a lot more no no on those PC lab.

Simple fact is computer back then had issues no matter what OS. Things changed for Apple when they moved to the Unix core and MS things got better when they moved to the NT core.

Hell the Blue screen of death is a joke from the 9.x days.

I never mentioned anything about the Mac OS 9 days. I wasn't on it then so I have not history to comment on. But for some reason I knew you would comment about it.

 

[KnightWRX]

However if you look at what I was responding too, this falls into place.

Well, not so much. He was talking about Windows 98. Around 1998 is when I finally upgraded my last vestige from the ISA days (A Sound Blaster AWE64, swapped it for a Sound Blaster Live!) and ran a PCI only system. I wasn't using the COM ports, so I had 0 IRQ issues possible with my system basically.

So again, let's not fault Windows 9x for things it's not responsible with. It was horrible on so many levels, no need to bring up things that weren't its fault.

 

[roadbloc]

Please, again, this is more of an opinion, which can be construed as rubbish.

That was exactly my point. User Experience is user centric and is not a thing that can be set in stone.

 

[rhett7660]

Well, not so much. He was talking about Windows 98. Around 1998 is when I finally upgraded my last vestige from the ISA days (A Sound Blaster AWE64, swapped it for a Sound Blaster Live!) and ran a PCI only system. I wasn't using the COM ports, so I had 0 IRQ issues possible with my system basically.

So again, let's not fault Windows 9x for things it's not responsible with. It was horrible on so many levels, no need to bring up things that weren't its fault.

The line of discussion was going along, if the company owns the hardware and software their are less problems and the user experience is good.

However the poster was commenting that he/she was having a good experience with Windows 95/98 even thou they didn't own the pipe line of software and hardware. Again, a personnal opinion and user experience.

Actually you can blame Windows for some of this problem as this was the begining of plug and play etc.

But I see where you are going and I respect this line of reasoning and thought.

That was exactly my point. User Experience is user centric and is not a thing that can be set in stone.

Sorry, came in after I just posted... yes I agree with this. Maybe I was reading what you wrote and didn't see it that way. But yes I agree with this.

 

[KnightWRX]

Sorry, came in after I just posted... yes I agree with this. Maybe I was reading what you wrote and didn't see it that way. But yes I agree with this.

We can all agree to that I think. I was overhearing the mainframe guys bitch about Unix today. They were dissing VI of all things, complaining it should be as userfriendly as whatever TSO ships with. All the while, they weren't realising that VI and the TSO text editor are quite similar (things like Y, D, etc are the same shortcuts and both editors work on a line basis).

Then came the inevitable "can you imagine having to use things like grep ?". Hey, whatever man, I'm not all up to watching a console all day or have netview filters try to sticky messages on the consoles, I'd rather grep the log file. (of course, on MVS with TSO, you can always force a log write and then use the TSO text editor to search a certain area of this log... but I hate TSO).

Frankly, those guys were all over the MVS/TSO "user experience". I'd rather stick to awk, sed, grep and vi myself and yet some people just can't do anything without nice purty pictures and a cursor.

 

[Liquorpuki]

You value the User Experience.

It just so happens to be much better when the company who makes the OS also takes more responsibility for how the hardware and software are supposed to work together.

RIM did this with Blackberry OS, Nokia did this with Symbian. But they're both out the door. Proof the company leadership matters as much as the model.

And I was hoping HP would do it with WebOS as well but looks like they're gonna go the fragmented licensing route

 

[vvswarup]

Buying RIM is a complete waste of Google's cash. There is very little that RIM has that is of value to Google. Google already has a strong phone business. And Google doesn't do hardware. It's financial suicide for Google to try to build their own devices while licensing Android to others. Other manufacturers will squeeze Google's profit margins. There's BlackBerry Enterprise Server (BBES), but even that is of limited value since a lot of companies have moved away from the BlackBerry. Google has very little to gain from RIM.

 

[AAPLaday]

You value the User Experience.

It just so happens to be much better when the company who makes the OS also takes more responsibility for how the hardware and software are supposed to work together.

As far as Android is concerned the reason i want updates fast is because of the thread of malware. Plus once a new update comes out it would drive me crazy having to wait months to get my hands on it. If the SGS2 got updates as fast as the Nexus then i would have gone for that. The software is essentially the same, but the SGS2 has touchwiz over it

 

[Tiggs]

RIMM is the new dead man walking ala Palm.

 

[benzslrpee]

the problem with tech bloggers is that most of them don't have an engineering or a business/finance/accounting background. hence so many of "company X should buy Y" appear over and over again.

just look at RIM's financials:

1. despite what bloggers say about RIM, it still a hardware company that's cranking out ~25% operating margins on their cellphones and service. want to know LG, Moto and SE are getting? negative margins*. Acer/Asus hovers between 3%-5%**.

2. despite declining sales, RIM current assets is 2x their total liabilities. they are not in any type of cash problem where they need Google to buy them out. in fact, if Google (or any company) tries to buy them out they'd probably lever up on debt making it a hugely expensive transaction. which leads to 3...

3. let's say RIM takes on a $5B credit facility, their current market cap is ~$14B, this is a nearly $20B buyout if done at market price. why the hell would Google (or any company) spend $15-$20B*** to buy RIM for their ...uh... patents and enterprise contracts?!

4. writing a check for $20B isn't going to help Google's cash position against further conflicts with Apple and Microsoft. in case this was lost on people, Google isn't making a whole lot of partners out there... look at who joined with whom.

you can go on and on about how this doesn't make financial sense without even going into the strategical aspect. the only time i've seen a tech company trying to buy another mature tech company was when Ballmer attempted a $45B takeover at Yahool!. i don't know which consulting firm (if any) was doing the strategy advising or which bank was hired for the acquisition role but i wonder how they convinced Microsoft's board that $45B was reasonable valuation. Bing was done with ~$11B dollars over 5 years and apparently eating away at Yahoo! slowly but steadily.



notes:
* pulled from their annual reports
** pulled from their annual reports
*** assuming paid above market price due to institutional shareholders calling for executive management change and not potential acquirers during shareholder meetings

 

[*LTD*]

That was exactly my point. User Experience is user centric and is not a thing that can be set in stone.

It absolutely can.

It doesn't simply vary from user to user. Apple is known for creating user-centric experiences. Everyone else is known for creating the opposite, or rather not to the level Apple does. Reputations don't happened by accident. Something gets reproduced consistently in the User Experience.

Vertical business model vs. horizontal business model. One model is ideal for a user-centric experience consistently, while the other makes it far more difficult to achieve consistently.

Put the pieces of the Apple puzzle together. Look at what's behind their success. It will be things the other players tend to lack.

This doesn't have to be difficult. The whole "it varies from person to person" is a nice and diplomatic thing to say, but it completely ignores basic social psychology. Apple's success with user-centric design is the most reproducible from user to user in the industry. It's why they're known for it.

 

[Melrose]

IMO, Nexus One was a good product. The problem was poor execution. For example, the device could only be bought on Google's website. Customers could not buy it at T-mobile stores or any other brick-and-mortar retail shops.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dissing the Nexus One; I'm very picky about the way I like things to look, and I even thought it looked very sharp. My only point was that they don't have the basis for distributing it successfully.



I really wish RIM would make a go of it.

 

[roadbloc]

It absolutely can.

I think the comment I made about me loving Windows 98 just sorta proved it can't. I loved 98, and still do. I think it's the best OS Microsoft have ever done. I had the best ever user experience with it.

As you can see, people disagreed. Because user experience is all down to opinion. Yeah, apple can try and make their products as simple as possible, however, that can often alienate features which some users need.

A few years ago I felt the apple had attained the right balance between simplicity and features. Today however, I feel apple are dumbing things down a little too much. However this is simply an opinion about my user experience with apple and some people will undoubtedly disagree with me.