Repeat After Me: The Rival to the Blackberry is NOT the iPhone

RIM has just posted its quarterly results a few hours ago. I am seeing a lot of totally clueless analysts and pundits and yes so-called 'experts' claiming that Blackberry's market performance is somehow affected by the performance of the Apple iPhone (and/or Google Android smartphones).

That is simply not possible. The iPhone does not compete directly for that part of the market where the Blackberry exists. It is as dumb as claiming that the main rival to a Ferrari is the Hummer. Yes, both are expensive 'luxury' cars, but the rival to Ferrari is Porsche, and the rival to Hummer is the Range Rover. So repeat after me: the rival to the Blackberry is not the iPhone. What is Blackberry's primary rival? It is the E-Series of business-oriented full QWERTY phones made by the world's biggest smartphone maker, Nokia. Of Blackberry's rivals, its second biggest rival is not the iPhone and any Google Android phones, its second biggest rival is business-oriented smartphones usually also with QWERTY keypads on the Windows Mobile platform.

Similarly, the iPhone is not competing directly against the Blackberry. The touch-screen iPhone does indeed see a new challenger coming from touch-screen Google Android handsets, but they are not iPhone's primary rival either. The iPhone's primary rival currently is the N-Series of smartphones from Nokia, mostly touch-screen based as well.

I am sick and tired of all those who call themselves 'experts' and get themselves onto various business oriented US based publications, who state that Blackberry's market performance was influenced by the iPhone or Google Android. I will name and shame all such clueless so-called experts in this news cycle who make such idiotic statements. I will list them all here as I find them, and I will individually shame them also on Twitter. You are all warned. I have had enough of this.

FIRST THERE WAS NOKIA

So here, the reasons why Blackberry's rival is not iPhone (or Android). The world smartphone market is not run by, or dominated by, or controlled by, or measured by the app downloads of, or the internet page impressions as reported by Admob, of the iPhone and not by Google Android. The world's biggest smartphone maker, the company that invented the smartphone, has for every single year since the inception, of the smartphone been Nokia. Measured by the only relevant number - unit sales - like we measure cars by how many car 'units' are sold not by how many pages of maps some drivers may read. The unit sales market share is openly reported on a quarterly basis by the three global independent analyst houses that report on such things for a wide range of IT industries and their numbers are within the margin of error when compared to each other. The three are Gartner, IDC and Canalys. This is the only way to measure market share and thus market success. The numbers are reported globally. Any 'expert' who claims to know smarpthones, should know these numbers and these three sources. It is idiotic to quote some Admob stats for smartphone market shars, when Admob itself says clearly in its reports that they do not measure global market share of smartphone installed base. They measure advertising imprints and only for their own regional coverage which is not global. There are three globally trusted independent sources reporting on actual market shares of smartphone sales, and these three are not in disagreement. Who then brings up Admob for any market share discussion?

Nokia today sells four out of every ten smartphones. Nokia sells more than all Blackberries, all iPhones, all Google Android devices and all Windows Mobile devices - counted together. Thats how big Nokia is in smartphones. Nokia is so big in smartphones, it has three separate smartphone divisions - one does enterprise/business oriented email optimized QWERTY smartphones (like the Blackberry), called the E-Series. Another does consumer oriented premium/luxury 'media' touch screen smartphones (like the iPhone) called the N-Series. And Nokia also sells more budget-oriented smartphones in particular suited for the Emerging World markets and for those with prepaid phone subscriptions (75% of the mobile phone owners on the planet).

Oh, and in round terms, the Nokia E-Series sells in similar quantities globally as Blackberry, and N-Series sells in similar quantities as the iPhone. Is this surprising?

A BLACKBERRY CUSTOMER

So, what is Blackberry's primary customer. It is not the consumer. Blackberry's primary customer is the enterprise/corporate business customer, where giant conglomerates select one smartphone platform, that is approved by their IT department, in decisions considered perhaps once per decade, and all smartphones bought by that giant corporation - tens of thousands per year - are on that one platform. Blackberry owns this segment. It has 74% of the large enterprise/corporate customers in America for example (said Changewave). And enterprise IT managers refuse to carry more smartphone platforms, no matter what propaganda you hear about how many companies have agreed to accept the iPhone. Just yesterday a survey by nCircle revealed that of all IT managers in America, when polled, they felt the iPhone was most prone to security breaches. Meanwhile Blackberry has the highest security clearing of any smartphone, up to NATO security level and in enhanced mode, even accepted for President Obama's text messaging AND voice call use. iPhones are from Venus, Blackberries are from Mars. Separate planets. No overlap. That is why according to Apple's own numbers, their total customer base that is from enterprise/corporate clients accounts for about one percent of Apple's total iPhone user base. Yes, some ad agencies do use iPhones and some execs at media companies. That is not the majority of the corporate/enterprise and government users of the world.

The world's most popular smartphone in enterprise/corporate use is the Blackberry. The second most popular smartphone in enterprise/corporate use worldwide is the Nokia E-Series. The third most popular smartphones in the business client space are those on Windows Mobile, and this market is particularly in SME clients, and strongly skewed to US businesses, not globally. iPhone is nowhere to be seen, and Google Android is even more invisible in this segment. It is ludicrous to suggest that for Blackberry's primary market segment - enterprise/business customers - that the iPhone or Google Android have had any impact to Blackberry's performance. It is fair to say Nokia has had an impact or Windows Mobile. Any talk of 'Admob stats' in this context is idiotic - enterprise/business oriented smartphones are often forbidden to use open internet pages, and their apps will be business apps and their internet service use will be typically business apps, intranets and of course enterprise email. Admob does not measure any of that use. To quote Admob stats relating to Blackberry is like looking at a train timetable to consider when your jet airplane will take off.

I am sick and tired of the moronic statements about this industry. I will be naming and shaming those pundits how peddle silly platitudes. I am sooooo angry about this now. But lets get back to the story.

AN APPLE CUSTOMER

Where Blackberry was the iconoic business-optimized smartphone, Apple's iPhone is as far from it as is possible, while still technically fitting the definition of being a smartphone. The total opposite. When Blackberry introduced its iconic device, they went and added MORE keys than a normal phone - more than twice the number of keys versus T9 based phones that were common in 2001. The iPhone, an equally iconic device, went the exact opposite - it has NO keypad. This is as dramatic as looking at a standard car, a sedan, which has four doors and seats five, and has a trunk. Then along comes Blackberry and decides to make a differentiated motor vehicle and makes a van, wich has a huge storage space - far far bigger than the trunk in the normal sedan. Then along comes Apple, and it looks at the trunk and says, no we don't need it at all, and makes a 2 seat sports car with folding roof - that has no trunk space at all. You could not find two smartphones more different from each other than the Blackberry and the iPhone.

The Blackberry has often closed web access only to business web use. The iPhone has the most open internet of any. The Blackberry is messaging optimimized. The iPhone was so unsuited for messaging, it was not even supporting the world's second most popular messaging platform, MMS, for two years since its launch. These are not rivals. These two are an exercise in opposites! The Blackberry was designed as a business-oriented phone, not intended for mass markets, and suited only for some special mass market segments (among youth who want to do a lot of messaging). The iPhone was designed as a consumer phone, not intended for business use, with only some special business market segments (in media and advertising). The Blackberry comes standard with a separate secure communication plattorm (an IT tech solution in the network). The iPhone is the most hacker-prone insecure device on the planet. The phones are as different as a helicopter is from a jet airliner. Yes, both are aircraft but they serve non-overlapping air travel needs.

So the typical Apple iPhone customer is an affluent internet or media oriented consumer. It is very strongly skewed to older users - grandparents fall in love with the iPhone because it is so easy to use (grandparents hate the Blackberry tiny keys). The iPhone is terrribly flawed as a 'pure' smartphone or luxury phone reflective of its price. Ewan MacLeod wrote that the iPhone is so simplistic it should be called the 'Fisher Price' smartphone, as it fails even at such basic tasks as multitasking. As regular followers of the mobile industry know, the original iPhone was faulted for not even fitting the definition of 'smartphone' because users could not install applications to it (until Apple released its App Store). But that being said, it is by far the easiest smartphone to use, speaking volumes for its rapid market success and the passion by which so many of its users cling to the iconic sexy slim devices, no matter how much some other smartphones may have more features or abilities or megapixels or memory card slots or replacable batteries etc.

AMERICAN MARKET

The Blackberry is made by RIM out of Canada. Apple is from the USA. It is understandable that for both phones, the US is their biggest market and in the US market, the two phones have their best market shares. It is, after all, their 'home market'. That does not make them rivals. Ferrari sells in America as does Range Rover. Hummer competes with Range Rover in America and the rest of the world, not with Ferrari, not in America, not in the rest of the world.

Nokia, which is the biggest rival globally for both Blackberry (with E-Series, which outsells Blackberry's second biggest rival ie all Windows Mobile phones by 3 to 1) and for the iPhone (with N-Series which outsells iPhones second biggest rival ie all Google Android phones by 4 to 1) - has its poorest continental market succes in North America. By far its poorest. So both Blackberry and iPhone are relatively 'unmolested' by the elephant in the room, back in their little home pond. Please remember, American consumers count only for 8% of the mobile phone owners on the planet, so obviously Nokia and Samsung and LG and ZTE etc the big boys - they focus on the world market, not the little peculiar US pond with its peculiar CDMA standards and anti-consumer 'carriers' with their silly obsolete ideas etc.

But this means that in America only, those who examine the domestic market, will not see Nokia in any meaningful degree. Not in normal mobile phones and not in smartphones. It can lead to myopic views and projecting American market peculiarities for smartphones will lead to global catastrophy. Like we saw specifically with both RIM and Apple. Blackberry was very successful in America since it launched in 2001. But it failed spectacularly in its attempts to bring the first concept of the Blackberry to the rest of the world. Until Blackberry adjusted and produced models more suited for the global market, for example adding the camera feature, something American business/enterprise clients were not requesting at the time. Apple, same story. The original iPhone (2G) was hailed as the most amazing phone in America when launched in 2007 and that model totally flopped globally. It was literally obsolete when offered to the Japanese for example (Japan had just announced they are discontinuing the whole 2G network and any phones, to be turned off this year 2010). But like RIM, Apple learned and adjusted, and after two iterations and major changes to conform more to what global customers wanted - from 3G to yes, MMS, the 3GS model has become a world success including very strong sales in Japan.

So when we look at the US market for smartphones, we see such archaic brands as Palm, still bleeding after all those years, in unprofitable quarter after unprofitable quarter, losing market share and for some strange reason, stays alive. Or Motorola, another dinosaur once great and proud, now desperately trying to reinvent itself as an Android smartphone maker, to miserable, mostly US only results. And Windows Mobile, on life-support trying hard to extend Microsoft's brand image in an ever more skeptical SME business environment. What have you done for me lately, Microsoft. Another promise, Windows Phone 7?

But the point is that Nokia's market share for smartphones sold in North America was only 4%. In the 3 times larger rest-of-the-world, Nokia has 52% of the smartphone market. Blackberry and Apple can pretend to be the big players in their home market. However they know that they need the rest of the world. Apple sells over half of all iPhones outside of North America. RIM makes half of its total revenues outside of North America.

REST OF WORLD

So where is RIM's main market abroad? It is perhaps surprisingly in several emerging world markets, such as India, Brazil, China, Indonesia and Venezuela. RIM has about 11% of the installed base of all mobile phone subscribers in wealthy USA where its the best-selling smartphone by a wide margin. How about the far less affluent Venezuela? Telefonica of Venezuela reports that 10% of its subscribers use a Blackberry! In Indonesia - another emeging world country Blackberry has over 1.3 million users and in that market is infested with over 2 miliion 'Chinaberry' pirated Blackberry copies. Blackberry has major market successes in countries like Botswana in Africa.

Now, what of our 'rival' the far more expensive iPhone? It has good market success affluent European markets like in France and the UK, and in affluent Japan. How much is this an overlap? Apple's success in those markets where Blackberry is strong, is laughable. The Jakarta Times reported that Blackberry outsells the iPhone in Indonesia by a ratio of 25 to 1. Apple had two major flaws to its global ambitions. It initially wanted an exclusive deal - like with AT&T - which included a requirement to get revenue-share out of traffic revenues. This meant that for the economics to work, the phone had to be sold on long term contracts with very high monthly usage rates (like on AT&T). That could be copied to some degree in markets where monthly phone bills were high and handset subsidies common - like in Japan and the UK for example - but completely unfeasible in markets like Indonesia, Venezuela, India, Brazil, Botswana etc. That meant also, that the iPhone went head-to-head against the other luxury high-end consumer oriented smartphone, Nokia's N-Series.

The other fatal flaw is the one luxury price model strategy. Americans and some Afflient Europeans and Asians can afford an iPhone 3GS which has a real cost of about 600 dollars (hidden in the monthly fees, but openly stated by Apple). Blackberry has models selling for far less than half that. Price is relevant to all markets, but the less affluent the market is, the more price becomes a critical issue. Blackberry understood this to gain global market, Apple has not yet learned this lesson.

RIM analyzed the global market and saw that a big growth was in the Emerging World markets, and made deliberate efforts to succced in those. It meant reducing its price - introducing cheaper smartphones and even setting up factories in the Emerging World markets like they now announced for Brazil. RIM is so successful in this strategy, that in all of Latin America RIM has achieved 37% market share in smartphones (said IDC) - a continent with all countries part of the Emerging World. In other words, poor or 'less affluent' customers. Yet RIM is a few percentage points shy of market leader Nokia in Latin America. Apple iPhones are nowhere to be found except in hands of media and advertising execs and some very wealthy Apple fanatics of the continent. And do keep in mind, USA and Canada have 320 million mobile phone subscribes. Latin America has 500 million mobile phone subscribers. While they are not as affluent, for the future just going South of the border gives Blackberry a bigger market potential than it has at home.

Yes, Blackberry sells well in the UK too, and yes iPhone sells also in China etc. But for two smartphones out of North America, aiming to reach the world market, you could not find a more divergent pair. Apple's CFO Oppenheimer even admitted, the iPhone tends to perform best in those markets with high subsidies and long contracts, it performs very poorly in markets where consumers pay the full price on purchase and markets have prepaid accounts. You say tomato, I say Apple. This is not semantics or spelling. These are as different as two market rivals can possibly be. Totally different.

YOUTH MARKET

Both phone brands sell to the youth segment. But again, we find a clear divergence. The iPhone tends to appeal to most age groups, from the very young to the very elderly - with one exception - the 16 to 24 age group. The old teens and young adults. Have a guess how Blackberry sells. It seems not to find strong attraction in most consumer segments but in the 16 to 24 age bracket it is the must-have phone. Why is this? It comes back to the issue: "To QWERTY or not to QWERTY, that is the question." What do the 16-24 year group obsess about? Their social networking and instant messaging and flirting, dating, and yes, most of all SMS text messaging. Give them a Blackberry and you won't be able to pry it off their hands. A global phenomenon, RIM said in its quarterly results that they find their growth market is this youth segment. It is documented all over the world. The iPhone is appealing for specifically those youth who are not (yet) into the dating scene, younger kids, or then older middle-aged adults past the frenetic 100 messages-per-day phase of their lives. The Blackberry Messaging solution is the crack cocaine for this 16-24 age group, the icing on the cake. Not only is it QWERTY messaging with all the IM benefits, but when messaging to another Blackberry user, the messages are free. No wonder texting youth will love the device.

BLACKBERRY RIVALS ARE

So, in America, Blackberry is the dominant smartphone for enterprise/corporate/government use. That has given it 50% of the total installed base of smartphones in America. Yes, RIM is also shifting to consumers now, but when it goes to consumers in America, those are the heavily-texting SMS users who will not take a pure touch screen phone, because you can't type messages blindly on a phone (half of British and 40% of American youth are able to text blindly, something that is impossible on a pure touch screen phone). Globally there is only one major smartphone maker that sells to enterprise/corporate/government customers in roughly similar numbers to Blackberry, globally, and that is Nokia with its E-Series. And would you know it, Nokia E-Series second largest market segment is the 16-24 year heavily texting youth segment. The genuine rival to Blackberry is Nokia E-Series. Like Porsche is a rival to Ferrari. After Nokia E-series we have various Windows Mobile devices from HTC, Samsung etc. And a few new Android "business-oriented" smartphones from say Motorola - that tend to have QWERTY keypads. The iPhone is the LAST thing to rival a Blackberry. In most countries where the Blackberry is sold, it is sold by most if not all operators and the iPhone only by one of the carriers. You can't even BUY an iPhone from your current provider in most cases if you use a Blackberry!

iPHONE RIVALS ARE

So then iPhone. It is a touch screen LARGE screen smartphone. The Blackberry has too small a screen to be viable as a photo viewing, video viewing, internet surfing phone, as well as the iPhone does it, because (most of its models) have a QWERTY keyboard that cuts into the total available surface area, giving Blackberry space to only put a 2.5 inch screen to its device where Apple has a 3.5 inch screen. As screen size is measured diagonally, it means that Apple's screen is twice as big as Blackberry's. A total no contest if big screen is what you want. Apple iPhone faces rivals of roughly similar performance, specs, and large touch screens selling in roughly similar scale globally from only one rival, Nokia with mainly its N-Series but also several cheaper touch-screen Nokia smartphones. Next, after Nokia comes a distant distant second, the Android smartphones, led by HTC, but also the Google Nexus One, the Motorola Droid, and many more Android devices by Samsung, LG, ZTE, SonyEricsson, Dell, Huawei etc. A Blackberry is as far removed as is physically possible, to the iPhone. So much so, that with many operators/carriers, Blackberries are sold by different departments and different sales people in the stores - iPhones at consumer desk in the front of the store, and Blackberries at the business user desk at the back of the store (often bewildering teenagers). You can't get more different than that.

APP STORE

So then the buzz and hype about the apps stores and application downloads. Who cares? Again the primary focus is totally different. RIM was selling apps years before the iPhone even existed. But RIM apps are naturally business-oriented. Customer Relationship Management systems, Enterprise Resource Planning systems etc. Integration with SAP and so forth. Sold in licenses like, say 5,000 users at t time, that kind of apps. Serious computer IT integration stuff, sales cycles measured in months, with full ROI calculations, sold with VAR's (Value Add Resellers). The worldwide business apps market for mobile is worth about 4 Billion dollars globally (not all Blackberry obviously).

Then we have the glorious App Store by Apple (and rivals by Nokia Ovi, Google Android etc). What does Apple's iPhone App Store sell? Games. Totally consumer stuff, not business apps. Apple's so supremely successful App Store sold less than 1 billion dollars worth of apps last year, when it had all those phenonmenal billions of downloads. Yes, there are games for Blackberry and yes there are some basic SME business apps on the iPhone. But for their applications, on a continuum at one extreme is the Apple iPhone App Store with its free downloads and games. Most paid content is sold at 99 cents. Then there are dozens of app stores along the way, from the Ovi's and Android's and Windows Mobile's and Palms etc to the very opposite end of the continuum, with Blackberry applications, very few free apps, few games, but tons of business apps, including applicaitons that do cost thousands of dollars. Yes, by definition for your phone to be a smartphone, it has to accept applications. But you cannot find a more divergent pair of smarpthones if you examine their total offering of applications, as the Blackberry is from the iPhone.

AND THE BIG NEWS?

And now we have various annoucements and launches and gossip. What of the iPad? What of iAd? What of a CDMA iPhone? What of the June release of the iPhone HD (or whatever the next iPhone will be called). Isn't it fair to say the two are now facing a clash, destined to meet? No. Not by any of these current stories. The iPad is not a phone. It will expand the iPhone OS and gaming market perhaps, and it will challenge netbooks and the Kindle and other tablet style devices. Not smarpthones. You can't fit it in your pocket. No rival whatsoever to a Blackberry. iAd? An advertising platform from Apple? How would that suddenly bring business-oriented phone maker Blackberry into more contest with iPhone? It would make Apple more a rival to Nokia with its ad platform and Google who bought Admob, but not Blackberry. CDMA iPhone is still an iPhone, touch screen consumer device without a QWERTY keyboard. And the next iPhone (HD) - who knows, but rumors are not suggesting a QWERTY on the new edition, and until that happens, Blackberry will be seen as a very differnet animal. Understand, that when Porsche introduced its Cayenne model, it did kind of invade the SUV market, where Hummer and Range Rover exist. Then you could say that the Cayenne model does compete in some way with Hummer and Range Rover. Only when Apple does a QWERTY keypad (I have been urging them to do it as a slider) can it start to compete with the Blackberry. Until then the two are very isolated.

SO THERE

Blackberry primary market is enteprise/corporate customers where phones sell in the thousands. Apple primary market is consumer space where phones sold individually. Blackberry expansion market is the youth niche. Apple's only viable business customer expansion is in advertising and media which has so far given it about 1% of all enterprise/corporate customers. Blackberry is loved by corporate IT departments, which decide which smartphones are accepted into the enterprise as company paid employee phones. The iPhone is hated by the IT departments of corporations. Blackberry design is QWERTY. Apple's design is touch screen with no QWERTY. Blackberry exels as a phone for texiing blindly. The iPhone cannot be used in texting blindly. The Blackberry has an average size screen for a smarpthone. The iPhone has one of the largest screens for a smartphone. Blackberries are mid-priced smartphones. Apple's iPhone is one of the world's most expensive smartphones. RIM sells with all operators/carriers and has aggressively seeked to have all markets covered. Apple often sells through exclusive networks and has been slow to expand globally. RIM has expanded abroad with a particular focus on Latin America and the Emerging World. Apple has expanded abroad with a particular focus on Western Europe and Japan. Blackberry is the most secure smartphone. The iPhone is the least secure smartphone. Blackberry apps are business-oriented. Apple apps are free or games for consumers. Blackberry succeeds in markets of prepaid accounts where customers pay full price for the phone. Apple's worst markets are those with prepaid accounts where customers pay full price for the phone. Blackberry appeals in the consumer space primarily to the 16-24 age bracket. The iPhone appeals almost universally across all age groups from age 6 to age 106, except the 16-24 age bracket.

You really don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that when it comes to smartphones there are no two more opposite phone brands as Apple is from RIM. Both are smartphones, but Blackberries are from Mars and iPhones are from Venus. If you drew a VENN diagram, there is almost no overlap. Its ludicrous to suggest, that somehow Blackberry's market performance is related to how Apple (or Google Android) has been doing recently. Its like looking at the market share of women's shoes, and thinking that has a significant impact to the sales of men's jeans. Come on, both are garments, but they look different, are designed to be different, are bought and used by different customers, even sold by different deparments, by often different carriers/operators, and often in different countries even.

None of the points I make in this article are secrets, somehow insider info, or very difficult to find. Any 'expert' in smartphones has to know that the world's bestselling smartphone brand is Nokia, as big as Blackberry, iPhone and all Google Android phones counted together. Its as obvious as for anyone working in the airplanes and air travel industry to know that Boeing and Airbus are the two giants of the airline industry. You wouldn't come and say Tupolev and Embraer are the big airliner makers, while ignoring Boeing! And all the facts I mention have been covered before in articles, blogs, reports, commentary about the mobile industry.

There is nothing wrong with a journalist reporting the facts in a misguided way. They can't know. I am not faulting them. But the journalists are experts at finding facts. So they go and ask the experts. And I will be watching. Any 'experts' who will be quoted in any major press about RIM vs Apple, if they don't mention Nokia, they are wrong. If they suggest that Apple (and/or Google Android) had any cause to Blackberry's market performance, they will be called on it, as frauds. As incompetents. I will not put up with this anymore. Names to follow on this blog in reverse chronological order of when their view was quoted. The more recent the comment, the greater the level of incompetence, obviously. Stay tuned.

INCOMPETENT ANALYSTS PEDDLING USELESS VIEWS IN SMARTPHONE SPACE

Jim Suva of Citigroup is incompetent in smartphones for suggesting iPhone is direct rival to Blackbery saying "We simply don't want to be owners of RIM shares when Verizon gets the iPhone" (quoted in Wall Street Journal Market Watch) 

Nick Agostino of Mackie Research is incompetent in smartphones for suggesting RIM's price being too high vs the far more expensive Phone "the average selling price of $311 could suggest that Apple's iPhone is cutting into RIM's North American business' (quoted in Associated Press).

Ed Snyder of Charter Equity Research is incompetent in smartphones for suggesting Blackberry sales "appeared to be hurt by competition by rivals such as Apple's iPhone and Motorola's Droid" (quoted in Reuters)

There were over a dozen news articles where the journalist said that RIM was affected by Apple and/or Google, but where the journalist did not name the expert, saying 'analysts are saying' or something like that. I will obviously not shame any journalists, they can't know. The experts need to know. And where an expert is not directly attributed with such a view, I won't fault the expert. There are dozens of totally competent analysts and experts quoted correctly about the industry. But I will monitor the press for more stories for this news cycle, and if I find any more, they will be added to this list of shame. These analysts need to stop commenting on the mobile phone space, they are incompetent. Shame!

Comments

[Josh Grey]

Great post! I saw this link RT'd on Twitter and I knew I had to read the whole thing.

[Simon Frank]

While I accept your evidence, especially about corporate IT and I also agree with a good degree of your sentiment, your statement is incorrect. iPhone and Blackberry compete for business and therefore are rivals/competitors.

There are points where blackberry and iPhone clash in business. This may not impact most enterprise customers where IT are completely in control or in finance, but in SMB exchange users there are more and more iPhone's appearing and debate between exchange connected users is always blackberry vs. iPhone. So in the scenario where IT issue phones then Blackberry wins, but where companies allow users with their own phones to connect to exchange the iphone is a credible functional competitor (I'm an ex BB user and glad to have my iPhone so your QWERTY arguument isn't 100%).

Whether any of this actually makes any difference in Market share stats is another matter. Blackberry are also pushing hard for consumer business where they will compete with iPhone. The youth market is where there is competition, Blackberry sell well in that market but so do iPhone as youth also care about music, video, internet etc..

Last point: apps are not just free/cheap toys. Compare the salesforce app for iPhone and the one for Blackberry the Blackberry one is unusable and the iPhone one is superb and a real productivity booster.

[Hoferman]

Good post, but I do not agree!

I work in advisory and in close cooperation with many law firms. I would say two corporate groups with a large penetration of Blackberry users. Not only within my firm, but also with the lawyers I see a tendency to move to touchscreen smartphones like Iphone and Android.

Maybe the ferrari and hummer comparison is still feasible, but only as a way of saying that not all people working at one company want to drive the same car. And thus they don't. So not all people will use the same phone. Now diff. technology doesn't matter and integration is not a big issue anymore, people will choose themselves.

And thus I would still say that touchscreen smartphones are a threat to Blackberry, only because they deliver more and better functionality.

[Julien]

There's a mistake in the numbers: RIM's revenues outside North America only account for 33%. UK+USA+Canada accounted indeed for 75% of the calendar 2009 revenue, that's why we are cautious about growth prospects. It's all publicly available in their quarterlies.

[Antoine RJ Wright]

I have to agree with @Simon Frank in that BBs and iPhones are competitors in the enterprise space simply because of their prosumer approaches. They do attend similar audiences from different perspectives, and unfortunately, many of those IT persons making the decisions on these devices don't so much want to break the boat by supporting platforms (such as Exchange) which can support multiple devices (and device platform) - even though the support overhead would be a lot easier if they simply trained folks.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed this piece... the ending part was most notable. Mental note to not write rubbish in my pieces.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Josh, Simon, Hoferman, Julien and Antoine

Thank you all for commenting. I will respond to each individually, but please read this general comment first.

I was maybe not clear enough. They are both 'smartphones' and are both relatively 'expensive' ie luxury bracket gadgets when it comes to mobile phone handsets. Like in automobilees, Hummer and Porsche are both expensive cars. But my point - if any 'analyst' or 'expert' singles out 'iPhone' (or Android) as 'THE' reason - not one of the reasons - but the reason - why Blackberry did something (or not) in the market share race - that is completely utterly ridiculous. ANY and ALL smartphones of other brands and systems - Windows Mobile, Symbian, Palm, Linux Mobile etc are MORE similar to a Blackberry than an iPhone.

So to extend my analogy, if the iPhone is a Hummer and Blackberry is a Porsche, then perhaps some Porsche clients were selecting a Hummer instead, yes, but its more likely if a Porsche owner doesn't want that car, he'll buy a Ferrari (very similar) or a BMW (sporty luxury performance sedan) or even an Audi (sporty sedan) long before they'd go all the way from Porsche to Hummer.

My gripe is not with any analyst who mentions Nokia (E-Series) or Windows Mobile in the comment that said iPhone/Android took market share. My gripe is only with those who said that it was 'only' iPhone (and/or Android) that did this. I think I have proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that globally, in every market including US, the closest two rivals, competing for same clients, sold by same operators/carriers, in the same ways - to the Blackberry are Nokia E-Series (outside of USA) and Windows Mobile in USA.

Now will go to individual replies...

Josh - thanks!

Simon - you make good points, very clearly. So lets take SMB (SME) business customers first. The small and medium sized businesses or enterprises. You said that the argument is currently BB vs iPhone (and here I guess you are referring to mainly the US market). But you then admit that mostly BB wins. So, lets take the point - there is a 'desire' to have iPhones in small businesses, and in some cases some do get to use them there, but Blackberry tends to win here (currently, even in the USA). Yes, then if we examine the stats, we find that Windows Mobile phones are used in SMB/SME environments in America as the second largest handset type after Blackberry. The 'real' rival is WinMo, not iPhone, even as many individual employees may request iPhones. Its a 'theoretical' rival, not a practical one. Certainly not a viable candidate to eat into BB's market share, when compared to WinMo in US or E-Series abroad.

On the youth market, you'll find if you dig into the stats, that its very clear distinction, the under 15 year segment is not very interested in BB, but love the iPhone in the kind of 'universal' way as most potential consumers like it. Then there is a sudden dramatic change of opinion - no, I want the BB. That happens at somewhat a younger age point in the most advanced texting markets - under 10 year olds have Blackberries in Indonesia haha and in Scandinavia there are young teens who want QWERTY phones, but generally its that age of adolescence where it starts, or soon thereafter. Then its most of teenagers, not all obviously. Some still love their gaming or music like you say, etc, but most teens want to hang out together, and be 'social' to an enormous degree and yes, the stats don't lie, half of British and 40% of American teens say they can text blindly. That is impossible on an iPhone or any phone with only a touch screen. This is the reason why Nokia is rolling out QWERTY keypads to non-smartphones, cheaper feature phones, aimed at heavily texting teens.

But its not absolute, there will be of course many who like both, want both, perhaps can convince their parents to buy them both haha.. Or have a Blackberry and an iPod Touch (the Touch ownership is heavily skewed to younger demographic than iPhone)

Apps - again valid point, yes there will be good apps also on iPhone, bound to be with over 150,000 apps on their store. But the typical app is free, or a game and costs a dollar. The typical app on Blackerry is paid and for business use, and sold with a 'license' form for large user numbers, hundreds, thousands of users at one shot. There is bound to be overlap, but it is certain, that there is far more overlap between WinMo apps and Blackberry apps, than between iPhone apps and Blackberry apps, don't you agree? If any phone took market share (or not) from Blackberry clients, its phones that are similar serving similar needs sold to similar customers in similar ways with similar features (as such phones do exist) than those that are most dissimilar.

Hoferman - haha, thanks yes. Very good point, the legal profession is one that has traditionally been very open-minded about what tools it allows to its users and also traditionally exceptionally receptive to Apple products. I remember when I worked for OCSNY, an Apple authorized reselleer in Manhattan early in my career and we sold computers and networks to small and medium businesses on Manhattan - the law firms would typically have a hodgepodge mixture of tech within their offices, each lawyer a 'strong' personality with peculiar wants and thus a should I say 'relatively weak' IT department to fight them haha. And yes, plenty of Macs even back then.. But you'll give me the argument that most employed people even in America are not attorneys, at least not yet haha? If we add 'legal' to the media and advertising industries that are very warm to the iPhone, we're still at only about a couple of percentage points of all employed people, and even in those companies, many use Blackberries.

Julien - thanks, the number I was referring to was yesterday's announcement by RIM which talked of their fourth quarter. For the full year its less than half that comes from outside America, yes, but the trend has already shifted, currently (ie March 2010) half comes from outside..

Antoine - I hear you, and yes, Apple is trying very hard to make it so, that one day the iPhone is not only desirable, but actually also successful in the business customer space. It isn't today. And WinMo and E-Series are. So while yes, there may be 'interest' in it, today no facts support the position that Blackberry's market share is being lost 'to iPhone' in the business customer space. It is so small, Apple itself says one percent of their total sold devices go to enterprise clients. Meaningless. But meanwhile WinMo and E-Series are there, and they DO compete with Blackberry. So if any expert is fair to the truth, and mentions WinMo or E-Series and then speculates on other smartphones, then yes, thats fair. But if they just babble nonsense, I will call them out, by name, and will shame them haha.

And ARJ, don't you worry at all. I love your writing, you are one that I follow all the time, you know this industry far too well for me ever to lecture you, don't worry.. :-)

Thank you all for writing. I will now go read up on some RIM analysis stories to see if anyone else needs to join this club of shame..

Please do come back and continue the dialog.

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Tim Bray]

First, I'm not sure the "smartphone" category is all that useful a label. To start with, it includes Bberry and Apple/Android, and Nokia, which as you point out are very different beasts. I think the "Internet phone" category is very interesting, which correctly puts Apple/Android (and a small bit of Nokia) in their own bucket. Right at the moment measurements suggest that almost all mobile-device-sourced Web traffic is coming from Apple or Android. I think this category (which can and will be done with a good QWERTY, and can and will be done more cheaply) is probably more interesting than you're currently allowing for. Also, Nokia hasn't yet proved they can compete in it. But let's wait a year and see what the numbers say.

Second, be careful of basing predictions on what IT groups like and don't like. I'm old enough to remember them fighting back against PCs and Email and even the Web, and losing; history shows that at the end of the day, the desires of productivity workers trump what IT wants. At the moment in North America, the productivity people are splitting between RIM - because of its command of business communication - and Apple/Android - because of their command of the Net. Clearly, RIM will get better at the Web, and Apple/Android are already getting better at email and corporate citizenship. I'd be inclined to bet against RIM simply because the device programmability is awkward and slow compared to the competition. As for Nokia, I'm not remotely smart enough to predict where they'll succeed/fail.

Anyhow, your core point is correct for today, but I'm pretty sure that in the near future, RIM and Nokia and Apple and Android will end up competing much more directly.

[Fabio Sisinni]

I think you are missing an important point.It is not longer about selling pieces. If Nokia does not come up with new exciting devices with great web and app experiences it will be losing more and more. Nokia smartphones are not used as such. Only 5% is unlimited data plan penetration is EU based on Comscore vs. 20% in the US. This is just a snapshot. In the mobile web future the picture is going to be different and given the new accelerated replacement cycle the future will happen very soon

[James Pearce]

I think you say that to figure out who the smartphone market is "run by, or dominated by, or controlled by", you should use the "only relevant number - unit sales".

I disagree.

This post (and similar pieces of yours) tend to award victory to comfortable incumbency on such a basis alone. But to me, this is starting with myopic axioms.

Firstly the battle is never done. Secondly, disruption is a powerful force, which consumers are quick to detect. Thirdly, the boundaries of such a fast, aggressive, global market will never be as black and white as you suppose.

(To make am effort to follow your analogy, Porsche & Audi seemed to have no trouble moving into, and disrupting, the SUV market for example.)

I should hope the executives at RIM go to bed every night thinking about how best to deal with these (and other) emerging threats. I should hope those at Nokia don't sit around, comfortable with their gargantuan unit sales, cutting back on innovation and research and ways with which they can re-compete. And I find it highly unlikely, as you imply, that there aren't large numbers of users who did indeed consider buying a Blackberry device only to have then eventually chosen an iPhone or Android handset instead.

Another way to retitle your post might have been "Who cares about rising stars when you own a cash cow?" ... something that no self-respecting, paranoid executive would ever dare subscribe to.

Or was it just analyst-bashing link-bait on April Fool's day? Maybe I missed the joke, ha ha ;-)

[Peter Kropf]

"So repeat after me: the rival to the Blackberry is not the iPhone."

1st time on your blog. Don't know whether you're normally this arrogant with apparently cogent, well reasoned argument, but, OOPS, there's an outlier here...

"Meanwhile, almost four-in-ten Blackberry users selected iPhone, and about one-third selected Android, as the brand they would definitely/probably purchase tomorrow".

Actually w/ n=159, 39% would move to the iPhone, and 33% to Android TOMORROW.

This is from the 4th slide of http://storage.pardot.com/1742/19507/Android_Study.pdf

Can you explain how your argument still holds?

[Mark]

Peter, surveys like that are largely meaningless - for example, Changewave's surveys on potential Mac buyers overstate actual purchases by a factor of two to three. As Tomi mentions there is only one thing that matters - unit sales and if you were to look at the actual data rather than wasting your time reading opinion pieces you would see that RIM are doing very well in terms of growth.

Thanks for the read, Tomi. It is frustrating reading some of the drivel that journalists and bloggers come out with on these matters.

[Tomi T Ahonen]

Hi Tim, Fabio, James and Peter

Thank you all for the comments. I will respond to each individually

Tim - lets start with mobile web traffic. You say that stats today say most traffic comes from Apple or Android. I know from your statement which stats you refer to, that is Admob measurements. You might not know that Admob is one of more than a dozen major ad networks, four of which report regular ad impression stats globally, and report dramatically different findings. for example Buzz City gives Nokia an overwhelming lead - but their focus is strongly Asia focused where Admob is US focused.

Secondly on Admobs own findings - did you note that they make it quite clear that the majority of actual devices that have mobile web traffic is still dumbphones but of the traffic the users generate, obviously iPhone and Android generate the lion's share of the traffic. In other words - many users have dumbphones, on expensive data plans, put modest traffic on their phones - but use the mobile web regularly - and then there are the data hogs, iPhone and Android users who are on unlimited plans and cripple networks with their traffic loads. If I recall, Admob measures WiFi use of iPhone but am not now sure (as I said, there are 4 major ad netwoks that report regularly). That would hardly be a fair comparison, to compare WiFi use vs cellular 3G use haha..

But your main point was that the smartphone category is becoming blurred or perhaps meaningless. That may be so, it is still the only globally recognized sub-categorization of mobile phone handsets by anything else than network generation (1G, 2G, 3G). You may wish an internet phone category, I would put it to you, that is even more difficult to define than smartphones. And it would be years before we had any measurements for it. I am left to analyze what I can measure, smartphones is what we have.. sorry.

On those IT departments in the USA, I too am old enough to remember, I sold to them in my earlier career when living on Manhattan when I was employed by New York's first ISP. And I was then working for the 'enterprise' telecoms services division of one of Finland's biggest operators when I was employed there, again dealing directly with the telecoms purchasing and the hostility of the IT department. I have immense respect for it and still have plenty of consulting needs that address that delicate meeting-point where corporate IT decides yes/no on mobile related issues. I can tell you for a fact today, that in major companies, their need is to DIMINISH the number of platforms they support, not add to them - because out of IT corporate budgets, as much as 80% goes not to new hardware and software, but to maintenance of existing and legacy systems and their interconnectivity headaches.. No, if Blackberry is in, the IT departments of large corporations will not accept a new platform. They can of course make an exception for some 'VIP' execs, like the VP of Marketing who is so close to the CEO, and then they do some work-arounds for his iPhone. Thats one iPhone at that company. Yes, Apple can say they have now another company using the iPhone but 99.9% of the smartphones in that corporations are, and continue to be - Blackberries. And DEFINITELY any company phone bought by the company for employees will continue to be a Blackberry.

But we agree, yes, today this is reality. It may well change in the future. And I will be the first to celebrate that here - I am very loyal to Apple, I was an authorized Apple trainer and love all things Apple. The subtitle of my latest book is cellphone, cameraphone, iPhone, smartphone. I was the person attributed with calling the iPhone the 'Jesusphone' before it was launched (I never said so, was incorrectly quoted) and I said it was the industry's only transformational phone - this before it had even launched. I love Apple haha..

Fabio - you said if Nokia doesn't do better web and apps, it will 'be losing more and more'. Are you aware of how Nokia has been doing in the mobile space and the smartphone space? I doubt there has ever been any tech brand that has so utterly dominated an industry for so long as Nokia has done. For the past ten years, every single year, it has been biggest. At least 50% bigger than its nearest rival. At least as big as both of its 2 biggest rivals put together, often as big as 3 of its biggest rivals. For every single year of this past decade. Not only that, Nokia is the only handset maker to post 40 consecutive profitbale quarters in mobile phones this past decade. All of its 4 biggest rivals have posted unprofitable quarters, usually at least 2 do so, and at times all 4 of its rivals have been unprofitable.

And of smartphones, same stats, for the whole decade. Except that for the whole decade, every single year, Nokia's market share in smartphones has been better than in dumbphones. The best phone selling giant has done EVEN better in smartphones.

So with that, you say they are losing? Losing where? Please don't go to those Admob stats (see above). In real sales, in the real world - this past quarter, Apple sales did not gain one market share point. RIM sales did not gain one market share point. How did Nokia do? Its market share went up 3 percentage points! You are very very mistaken.

Of the unlimited data plans. Fine, in US 20% use them. Did you know who launched unlimited data plans to mobile in the world's most advaanced mobile market? Willcom in Japan. They just went bankrupt. The US carriers are screaming bloody murder about it, and both AT&T and Verizon have spoken very loudly that the era of all-you-can-eat mobile data will end. Don't count on that trend, please.

James - I think we do agree totally. But to be clear. I think we agree both that RIM and Nokia must evolve and react to how the market evolves. They can't stand still. I never suggested they should or that they are. And on the measurement of who is winning and who isn't I would assume James that you agree, the only viable global fair and unbiased measure is to measure smartphone sales by units. That is how cars are measured, that is how airplanes are measured. That is how pop music hit records are measured. It is how just about any industry with actual tangible 'goods' is measured. To find out whose market share is biggest in smartphones, we count who sold more of them. In units.

but that does not mean we don't have new industries developing. From the PC industry we suddenly got the worlwide web and the internet (a services) industry. how to measure 'market share' in the internet services is not as easy as to count how many PCs were sold by Dell or HP or Toshiba etc. That is also happening in mobile, a new services industry is growing and also a new apps market evolving. Nokia, Apple, RIM all have interests in those markets. But to measure smartphones for their market shares, I do think you agree it has to be unit count as reported by Gartner, IDC etc.

Peter - welcome to the blog and yes I am always arrogant but perhaps not always as abrasive as this time haha. I try also to be very engaging and as honest, brutally honest, as I can possibly be. So welcome. And you have a good point.

Yeah, I saw those slides by Crowd Science. Note that there are two stongly skewing factors to the study. First, the majority of Blackberry phones are in busienss use, mostly as employee phones. That means, that the employer selected the phone. Most iPhones and Androids are sold to individual consumers, it the consumer selected the phone. We are of course going to have far more loyalty to a brand and device we selected than one that was forced upon us.

Secondly, the average replacement cycle in America is about 24 months. The first-time iPhone 2G owners are now coming to the end of their contract, on average. Most of the iPhones in use - all iPhone 3G and iPhone 3GS devices are still 'new'. Even more for Android, all Android devices are less than 1 year old. Meanwhile the Blackberry user population includes those family members with 'hand-me-down' second hand BB's that can be 4 years old. There is the greater appeal to the new than the old.

With those caveats, its a fair study and yes, no doubt there are consumers who are fed up with their old phone and want a new one. And if the user is not 'addicted' to the Blackberry (the kind of user that is called a 'crackberry' user) ie one who can text blindly, then yes, they're easily interted in any new hot sexy better phone that is 2 years newer..

But this is US and consumer survey. It totally ignores the enterprise customers - there the individual user does not get to make the decision, the phones are bought in bulk, often thousands at a time. And its US centric, and half of the iPhoen market is already abroad, and RIM is on the brink of its market shiting abroad right now.

Thank you all for writing

Tomi Ahonen :-)

[Dean Bubley]

Tomi

I think you might be over-stating the enterprise bias for BlackBerry. I believe that there are now more BIS (BlackBerry Internet Service) subscribers than BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) accounts.

BIS is generally used by consumers and small businesses which don't have MS Exchange servers.

I also think you may be overlooking the fact that financial analysts (rightly) focus on the difference between outcome and *expectations*. ie relative performance is important for share price movement, not absolute - the baseline expectations are already "priced in".

There are also some other competitive dynamics in play:
- The US operators are able to "shift the needle" by individual decisions, eg Verizon putting extra marketing and subsidy budgets behind the Moto Droid. That's a big deal given RIM's geographic bias - as is the risk of a future CDMA iPhone.
- Some enterprises now reimburse employees that "bring their own" smartphone, rather than get a company-issued device. In that sense, a consumer-bought iPhone competes as a "business" product with am IT-issued BlackBerry.
- In some markets (I definitely notice it in the UK) there is growing evidence that PIN/BlackBerry Messenger is a clear differentiator vs. Nokia E-series. Among some groups there is now a "network effect" in play, where social groups *have* to get BlackBerries. (WinMob has essentially disappeared from that group)
- The problem with Nokia / Symbian has always been splitting out the part of the shipment numbers which are actual conscious "smartphone sales", rather than "featurephones which have a smartphone OS"
- Anecdotally, some consumers definitely flip-flop before deciding on buying smartphones both between "branded" iPhone and BlackBerry routes, and more generic-seeming Android or Symbian products. While some come from a "must have a QWERTY" standpoint, others have other criteria like "must have a good browser", "must have apps", "must have a decent camera" and so forth. In many purchasing decisions, seemingly different device classes may be considered in parallel. This is pretty different from the car market, where few people go to a dealer wanting a Range Rover and actually drive off with a Lambo.

As another anecdote - I am *staggered* by the numbers of BlackBerries I see toted by 18-30 year olds in London. I see debates among non-industry friends on Facebook "Noooo don't get an iPhone, get a BB!". Yes it's a microcosm that's not representative of the market as a whole, but there's definitely an interesting dynamic that's not widely recognised.

Lastly, unit shipments are an interesting metric but far from the only important figure. Particularly for the audience you are criticising (financial analysts), profit is far more important. Nokia's ASPs are far below Apple's or RIM's, and it's not clear that the Nokia smartphone business (if carved out, and especially if added to a part of Ovi as a platform play) is anywhere near as profitable.

[Geoff Schaadt]

Whew - thanks for your analysis. I'm very glad to know that RIM, and especially Nokia, are going to control the future of the mobile communications marketplace worldwide due to the size of their current sales advantage and their entrenched relationship with corporate IT departments.

I'll now go back to coding my COBOL in-house inventory control program on my DEC box.

Remember - share price is a reflection of the value of *future* revenues. Just because iPhone/android <> RIM/Nokia today does not mean that it won't in the future. Clearly the market perceives the future of the incumbents to be threatened by the increasing success of the newcomers, and isn't the slide in RIM's share values what started this little fracas?

[MMorgan]

While i agree with your analyses of the smartphone market and players, i would ask you this.....

Should we consider a financial analyst an expert? If so, then why bother having industry analysts?

[Richard Law]

Tomi... Interesting post as always. :) I would suggest a different alignment of brands: Apple = Ferrari, Nokia N Series = Porsche, Blackberry = Hummer, Nokia E-Series = Range Rover.

[kevin]

In reporting 4Q09, that is Mar 2009, RIMM said half of its subscribers were consumers. Since then, RIMM has reported more consumer than enterprise consumers in each of 4 quarters. So I think you over-estimate the enterprise aspect of Blackberry.

Also, Blackberries are most similar to Nokia E-series in terms of function. But at least in the US, BBs are the same as iPhones and Androids in that all three usually require a data plan (usually about $30/mo) that costs the same. Again, in the US, many BB consumer users I know are switching to what Google labeled "superphones" - iPhones (at AT&T) or Androids (at the other 3 carriers) - not because they think email/texting is unimportant, but because they think adding a solid web browser and fun/useful apps is equally important. Comparing the US to other countries, iPhone and Android were much more in the news and much more heavily advertised by vendors and the US carriers in the last half of 2009.

Also, RIMM's ASP is falling because it's selling more of its cheaper Curves (largely free or buy one, get one free). BB Curves keep looking like a great entry point for those buying their first smartphone, especially those who want to text or email.

Nokia E-series smartphones would've been perfect in helping to provide more evidence for or against this switching theory in the US, but alas, Nokia barely sells any in the US.

[abraxas]

answer is very simple:
if there is no iphone, will customers buy more blackB?
or
If you get only ferrari in town what car will you buy?
now if you get ten brands in town do you think ferrari will sell less?
by the way, comparing phone and then giving an analogy with ferrari is a nice manipulation.
BlackB looks like a dino comparing to new phones.
flush it.

[Drew Freyman]

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!

It is so frustrating hearing American analysts spout off about the smartphone market without taking into account the almost 10 years of history of the smartphone BEFORE Apple entered the market. All they can see is Apple and the North American market.

Also, you deftly point out these analysts ignorance regarding the North American market too. One thing they seldom bring up when trying to interweave the RIM and Apple stories is the importance of RIM's real-time, secure messaging platform to some business users. In addition to the QWERTY keyboard differentiator you pointed out, this feature really does carve out a large group of customers that Apple cannot effectively serve. Even if one doesn't believe there is a functionality gap there is a credibility gap. This is significant when security is of concern and when having a piece of info a few seconds ahead of rivals can translate into BIG bucks to an investment banker, lawyer, etc..

[WickedEast]

@abraxas:

If there were no landline phones, would customers buy more Blackberries?

("BlackB looks like a dino comparing to new phones." Apple fanatics do care a lot about looks.)