RIM Goes the Way of DEC?

We have all seen the announcement and critique of the new Research In Motion (RIM) PlayBook Tablet computer.  There are several major elements of this situation that caught my eye:

• The PlayBook operates around a bundled concept with other RIM products.  Right now, you can not get your email or calendar on a PlayBook that is not “tethered” to a Blackberry.
• The PlayBook operates the way that RIM wants it to work, and not the way that customers want to use it.  RIM believes that they hold the only approach for email that meets corporate security requirements.  Or, all email has to go through Canada.
• The CEOs (there are two for heaven’s sake) do not seem to understand that the two items above are catastrophic.  Or, just give us time while the iPad, iPhone and Andriod Tablets and Phone make RIM obsolete.

To people that have a little more experience (that is their first use of a computer may have through an ASR-33 and paper tape), this situation may seem eerily familiar.  Another company that set the early “personal” computer pace, I contend, had each of the above elements that contributed to its marginalization and eventual failure and sale.

At one time, Digital Equipment Corporation, or DEC to its customers, set the pace on moving computers from behind the glass of the shrine of the mainframe priestly elite and into the hands of programmers and engineers.  DEC created machines that could be used to meet the imagination of its customers.  An ecosystem of software developers and user groups provided support for what at one time was the fastest growing computer company in the world, and a company that set its sights on IBM.

Much has been written about the demise of DEC (or Digital as it was officially known before it was sold to Compaq).  A great compendium of what killed DEC is “DEC Is Dead, Long Live DEC: The lasting legacy of Digital Equipment Corporation”.  From this source, and my personal experience, the analogy goes something like this:

• DEC products works with DEC products.  DECnet was at one time the best networking environment in the world connecting millions of terminals.  However, DEC did not support TCP/IP directly (you had to by the software from a company in Australia) for many years on their VAX computer line.
• DEC came out with three different Personal Computer concepts.  One around the PDP-8 architecture which was already more than a dozen years old.  Another was very close to being IBM PC compatible (it had an 8086 processor, etc.) but would not run the vast majority of the already available software.
• The CEO that made the meteoric rise and just as thunderous fall was Ken Olsen.  Ken believed that only DEC could do things right, that they were not in the business to copy the emerging standard, and that the market would see just how wonderful DEC’s product genius is and flock to a machine that locks-in customer investment.

The bottom line is that RIM is in for trouble, just as DEC experienced.  The dominant designs are out and there are 10 million Andriod activations each month, and I am sure that Apple is right there as well.  RIM has tried two marketing efforts to stave off becoming the third player, and eventually a very distant one at that.  First, they tried to make the Blackberry “cool” by hiring U2 for promotion ads for the Blackberry Torch.  Sorry, but Apple products are Cool – everyone else plays catch-up.  Second, they are trying to differentiate their “apps” market as having Super Apps.  Let me see, so I am an application writer so I am going to forgo the several hundred million Apple and Andriod device market just so I can say that my Super App only runs in a Blackberry.  Not too darn likely.

So, the bottom line is that RIM better figure out what their customers really want, and not rely on the fact that they essentially created the set of wireless PDAs and then smartphone that became the benchmark for others to reach.  Unfortunately, it may have been reached and exceeded by so much that RIM will be the subject of a new book: RIM is Dead, Long Live RIM…

The Other Countdown is Back!

In my previous post, http://kaplowtech.blogspot.com/2011/02/other-countdownthe-consumer-usage-bomb.html, I took at look at the bandwidth utilization trend in my house.  It was clear then that I was on a track to being an “excessive use” customer, and it is even clearer now.  My previous estimate, based on a linear fit to the data was that by December 2011 I would hit the cap.  The usage collected over the last two months, even with a dip in February, confirms the trend.

The question is: What drove the utilization jump in March?  It is quite simple, March was Spring Break month and my oldest son decided to catch-up on his favorite TV program, Burn Notice, as well as a large assortment of other TV shows and movies.

You could ask the question of whether the trend will continue as how many movies and TV episodes a typical family can watch month after month on-line.   My answer is yes, as the types of content and the devices use to access that content are increasing steadily.

For example, I am not watching the Masters Golf Tournament on my TV, but on my computer as I write this message.  With two monitors, my office laptop provides a great platform to enjoy some video at the same time as I get some work done.  This is not restricted to laptops and desktops, as other devices are here and more are emerging every day.

The same capability now exists in pads, game consoles, TVs, and BlueRay players.  This opens-up a whole new arena for using Internet-based media.  No longer relegated to the computer or laptop format, Internet video now comes directly into the living room.  Without any hard statistics, I would estimate that much less than one percent of all TVs are connected to the Internet.  This will certainly increase during the next several years as WiFi enabled TVs with Netflix and other streaming services built-in are available now.  At some point, these capabilities will become standard and then there will be millions of additional devices, with a set of user friendly controls that will make finding and watching streaming content as easy as the channel guides that are a part of cable and satellite TV today. 

More content yes, but more importantly more devices that fit not only computer-based viewing, but devices that fit the traditional TV-type viewing environment.

So, the countdown to bandwidth caps ticks away - how will this change the industry money model?

Early adopters don’t always win…or why can’t Sprint catch a break?

Sprint is the third player in the three major player mobile voice and data service market.  The majority of the company has focused on wireless services, especially after the acquisition several years ago of NexTel.  Sprint has a long legacy of leveraging technology, in practice and in marketing, to differentiate its services.  This included the “all-fiber-optic network pin-drop” and an early move with Sprint PCS (going to GSM while much of the rest of the industry milked AMPS technology).  Certainly, buying NexTel and its highly customer “sticky” push-to-talk (PTT) feature was in-line with Sprint’s overall approach.   How Sprint squandered NexTel might be the focus of a future article, but not here.

Continuing on the technology theme, specifically for wireless, Sprint apparently chose to attack the market with major two angles:

1. Stay on the leading-edge of handset technology.  Make deals to get the best smarthphones, etc.
2. Stay on the leading “G”.  That is, keep upgrading their wireless network for better performance.

For the first, they probably succeeded until the advent of the Apple iPhone.  Verizon Wireless had the best network and clunky phone, AT&T had marketing and iPhone, and T-Mobile had great pricing.

Keeping the network up-to-technology-par (not considering overall coverage, of which Sprint certainly trails at least Verizon Wireless) and without addressing the iDEN (PTT) mess, Sprint moved from GSM to the newer CDMA technology.  This probably provided better voice quality (debatable) but also 1xRTT data, helping to enable the Blackberry driven email and then Web-on-the-go.  Continuing this trend, Sprint upgraded, along with Verizon Wireless, to “3G” CDMA EDVO Rev. A.  With download speeds of 1Mbps+ and uploads 500Kbps+ this helped lead us into the mobile Web we have today, and helped drive AT&T and T-mobile to upgrade their networks to keep pace (competition is a wonderful thing).

Keeping with the technology differentiator angle, Sprint made a deal to roll-out 4G services using WiMAX technology in close association with ClearWire.  My experience with WiMAX involved my previous employer’s real-world tests using WiMAX technology.  Although the installations worked, the system performance was not exceptional, both in range and bandwidth delivered.

So, with the phone differentiator gone with Android and iPhone, Sprint went in head-first into unlimited data plans and its WiMAX-based 4G service.  All seemed to be well, until others jumped into the 4G ocean T-mobile with the “I’m gonna call HSPA+ 4G” and Verizon Wireless with LTE.

The problem is that, as my previous but albeit limited experience showed, WiMAX (or at least Sprint/ClearWire’s implementation) may not be up to the challenge.  The following link shows Sprint’s 4G performance in Austin, Texas.  With a max speed of 4Mbps down and 500Kbps up, it certainly did not wow: http://gigaom.com/2010/02/05/my-austin-wimax-experience-was-good-but-not-good-enough/

Another set of tests in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are consistent: http://www.intomobile.com/2010/06/04/data-speed-showdown-sprint-4g-vs-t-mobile-hspa/.  However, what’s important to note is that T-Mobile HSPA+ was just as fast as Sprint’s WiMAX offering.

ClearWire and Sprint have invested billions in WiMAX and they are going to get creamed if the results of performance test like these and the next link continue to be representative of real-world WiMAX performance: http://venturebeat.com/2011/04/01/sprint-4g-wimax/.  In this set of tests, Verizon’s LTE creamed WiMAX in New York, New York with LTE achieving consistently 8+Mbps down and 4+Mbps up and WiMAX providing only 1+Mbps up and down.

Here is another set of data, which is consistent with the previous reports:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9207642/4G_shootout_Verizon_LTE_vs._Sprint_WiMax?taxonomyId=79&pageNumber=3.  Of particular note is that upload speeds could be as low as 41Kbps (that’s Kilo, man) compared to LTE’s 5Mbps+.

It is amazing how Sprint has tried to stay on the cutting edge with phones and WiMAX, but can’t seem to get a break.  They have already gone to cheap unlimited plans to help raise their subscriber numbers, but I don’t think that they are really making any headway.

With the potential of the lost investment in WiMAX equipment and the fact that they now have hundreds of millions of dollars tied-up with customer devices, what is Sprint to do now?  How does this affect ClearWire?