& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Innovation remains the key to success

Syed Mansur Hashim
SOMEWHERE along the line, Research in Motion (RIM), manufacturer of Blackberry, forgot the name of the game, viz. innovation. Consider the facts: the 'father' of smart phones Blackberry was sold to Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. for an estimated $4.7 billion, with share prices hovering around $9. That is a far cry from its
glory days in 2008, when RIM stock peaked at nearly $148 per share on the NASDAQ. Having suffered nearly $lbillion loss in the last quarter and having to cut nearly 4,500 workers, RIM went downhill thanks to a series of bad management calls.
For years, Blackberry had set the standards. Not only for secure, encrypted communication that was demanded by government and corporate bodies but also by professionals the world over. The various incarnations of the phone stood for a perfect blending of technology and branding, all in all, RIM almost single-handedly created the smart phone category. Yet, as we have seen in the recent past, there is no such thing as immortality of a particular standard or product when it comes to technology. The advent of the "reinvented" Apple under the stewardship of Steve Jobs took mobile communication by storm with the unveiling of the 'iPhone' in 2007 that challenged everyone's perception of how phones of the future would be like. The 'touch screen' had arrived and it revolutionised the way we use our phones to communicate.
After years of brilliant design culminating in the Blackberry 'Pearl,' came the 'Storm.' Many attribute the eventual fall of RIM to this model. As pointed out by Marcul Wholsen in the Wired magazine: "The beginning of the end, though, was not a flawed economy but a flawed design. Specifically, the Blackberry Storm. Billed as RIM’s touch screen answer to the iPhone, the Storm's confusing interface relied on a 'clickable' screen that registered different commands depending on whether you tapped lightly or pressed down hard." Hardly the sort of technology demonstrator to go up against the iPhone; though RIM came out with a more successful model - the 'Curve,' the damage had been done and it was simply unable to compete with the new industry standard set by Apple. The bad news unfortunately did not end there.
Blackberry had lost the initiative against iPhone in terms of its interface. It was still touting old technology in the face of iPhones touch screen which introduced users to a whole different way to interact with their phones. On top of all this, the vast array of applications Apple was able to offer prospective users (that stood around 100,000), RIM was trailing at a measly 2,000. All these factors would not have spelled disaster for the iconic Blackberry. But then came the backlash of several governments around the globe in 2010. Their intelligence and law enforcement agencies were having a tough time cracking Blackberry communication; the cornerstone of RIM's strong encryption technology -one that allowed corporate customers to keep their communication, whether email or messages strictly private.
Given that RIM had built its reputation on providing its user base with near-blanket security on the privacy of communication, any compromise in that key area could only spell disaster for the company and its army of loyal users. The very fact that RIM was in negotiation with several countries including India, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, did little to reassure clients of Blackberry's tamper-proof services.
Ultimately, RIM did not eventually capitulate to threats; but the decline that had set in 2007 could not be averted. And the so-called "innovative" products since the Pearl merely hastened its downfall. In its desperation to keep up with a rapidly evolving communication device market, RIM went on to produce one disappointment after another. But more importantly, RIM as a company failed to apprehend that Apple's success was not so much in bringing out a phone that did things differently, but rather its success revolved around its ability to get application manufacturers to get on board. The other area where RIM was floundering was its steady stride into oblivion when it came to providing solid support to users, in particular, failure to provide email services across continents.
By 2010, the company was beset by other competitors besides Apple. Google had just launched its Android phone. With its open architecture, Google has since then managed to corner Blackberry's ouster, the iPhone, which itself is facing the same problems Blackberry had faced in its lonely march to oblivion. Today, Apple is struggling to keep the hounds (more specifically, Android-enabled phones) at bay by trying to introduce something new to keep users interested. At the end of the day, the mantra remains innovation, especially in the technology category. RIM lost the game by putting too much faith in its own success. But we live in an age where there are no set parameters for success, especially in technology. Microsoft proved that many years ago when it invented "Windows" and broke once-and-for-all Mac's hold on the personal computer market.
The writer is Assistant Editor, The Daily Star.