Here’s a column I posted at globeandmail.com about RIM’s stock falling on its latest results:
“Research in Motion co-chief executive officer Jim Balsillie often gives the impression he’s frustrated by the lack of respect the Waterloo-based company gets, and it’s easy to sympathize. After all, RIM just reported blockbuster sales growth, a huge number of new subscribers and new deals with tech industry leaders such as Intel and Nokia. And what did the stock do? It went south. Not only that, but all anyone can talk about is how Microsoft and Nokia and little upstarts like Good Technology and Seven are going to eat Jim’s lunch.
So what does a company like RIM have to do to get the kind of recognition it deserves as a technology leader?
RIM’s problems actually have very little to do with its technology. Almost everyone agrees the BlackBerry is a great device, and that the kind of end-to-end email solution it provides for companies is second to none. The company continues to sign up telecom partners around the world, and it has new devices either on the market or coming soon that will help bridge the gap between the type of handheld PDA that primarily does email, and newer “smart phones” that do voice, email and other things. Better still, the BlackBerry name has tremendous brand recognition in the marketplace, which is hard to duplicate. Continue reading
Here’s a column I posted at globeandmail.com about Palm’s deal with Microsoft:
“Chalk another one up for Microsoft. With MondayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s widely-expected announcement involving handheld-maker Palm Inc., the software colossus has added to the long list of victories it has won over lesser mortals — a list that includes Netscape Communications, which also pioneered a market only to see it eventually taken over by Microsoft. For Palm, agreeing to use Windows Pocket PC as the operating system on its devices is like Ford agreeing to put General Motors engines in its trucks, and many Palm devotees clearly see it as dancing with the devil. The company may have saved part of its business (although even that is open to debate) but it has likely lost its soul. The next target in MicrosoftÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sights, of course, is CanadaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Research in Motion.
Rumours about a deal between Palm and Microsoft have been flying for the past few months, and according to several reports — including one from a programmer who works at the software giant — the two companies have been working on blending their products for 18 months. In other words, even as a survey last year was showing Palm as the leader in the handheld industry, with 33 per cent of all PDAs shipped in the second quarter of 2004, the company was already in discussions with Microsoft about using its software. Why? Because the PDA company had already seen the writing on the wall, and it spelled out three words: Ã¢â‚¬Å“shrinking market share.” By the second quarter of this year, Palm had just 18 per cent of the market for handhelds. Continue reading
This is a story I posted on globetechnology.com about “Google-bombing” — in particular, the fact that typing “miserable failure” gets you a link to George Bush’s bio:
“It’s a tribute to the omnipresence of Google that the company’s name is used for a phenomenon that isn’t even specific to Google, but affects almost every search engine company, including Yahoo, MSN and Ask Jeeves. It’s called “google-bombing,” and you can get a glimpse of what it involves if you type the phrase “miserable failure” into Google’s search box, or even just the single word “failure.” The first result that comes up is a link to President George Bush’s biography at www.whitehouse.gov.
This is not a political comment by Google, but a result of the way the search engine operates, which involves ranking webpages based on how many other sites link to them using a specific term (a process Google calls PageRank). If a lot of websites use the word “failure” to link to George Bush’s biography, then Google’s automated engine concludes that his bio is the most relevant result for that term.
Here’s a column I posted at globeandmail.com about Google’s Web plans:
“First eBay, and now Google. The on-line auction network dropped a bomb on the tech sector last week by announcing its takeover of voice-over-Internet provider Skype for somewhere between $2.6-billion and $4.1-billion (U.S.), and now there are rumblings that Google is not only about to roll out a wireless service of some kind, but is also putting together its own optical fibre network Ã¢â‚¬â€ something Web commentators have dubbed GoogleNet.
Is Google planning to become a virtual phone company, combining all the Ã¢â‚¬Å“dark” or unused fibre itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s buying with its new Google Talk service? Does it want to roll out Wi-Fi access across the U.S. — or even around the world — to make it the de facto Internet provider for mobile surfers? Or does it just want to control as much of the Internet as it can, so it can monitor all your web traffic and serve up ads wherever you are? Perhaps all of the above.
One thing is certain: Google has big plans, and they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just involve search. And not only is its market value closing in on $90-billion — which puts it ahead of Hewlett-Packard and Nokia (not to mention SBC Communications, the largest telco in the U.S.) and just behind Time Warner and wireless telco Verizon — but it also has $4-billion in cash it just raised from a stock offering. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more than enough money to finance some interesting investments. Continue reading
Here’s a column I posted at globeandmail.com about number portability:
“ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a simple enough request, at least from a consumerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s point of view. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re planning to switch from using Rogers as a cellphone service provider to Bell, or from Bell to Telus, and naturally you would like to keep your phone number, so that all your friends and co-workers will know where to reach you. It would be easier if there was a national telephone directory for cellphone numbers, but there isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t (thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a story for another day). So you ask to keep your number. And what is the phone companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reply? Oh, we canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do that, sir. Why not, you ask? After all, they do it in lots of other countries, including the U.S. and Europe, donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t they? Maybe so Ã¢â‚¬â€ but we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t.
After years of watching other jurisdictions get wireless number portability, the federal government stepped forward earlier this year and said that it wanted the broadcast regulator to Ã¢â‚¬Å“move expeditiously” to implement the feature. Last week, the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association released a position paper prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers, grandly titled Implementation of Wireless Number Portability: Setting a New World-Class Standard, in which the wireless companies said that they would be ready to start offering portability just as soon as they could. And when might that be? In 2007. Continue reading