It is hard to pick up any Canadian newspaper or listen to any Canadian television news program without getting the latest update on the fortunes of Research in Motion (or RIM as it is affectionately known). The two founders who said they would never step down, did in fact do so. Their replacement is an internal corporate type who does not seem to engender the kind of pizzaz that seems to drive technology companies.
I have read (and reread) the current book on Steve Jobs. Setting aside his persona (which at best was bizarre and at worst was inhumane) I consider the book to be one of the finest business books written in recent years. It is a textbook on how to get creative people to work together, how attention to detail trumps "the big picture" and how looking at products from the customer's perspective "changes everything". When asked if he worked with focus groups on the iPod, Jobs shot back: "Did Bell work with focus groups when he invented the telephone?". Make it well and they will come. The most fascinating aspect of the book was what his co-workers called Job's "altered reality". Jobs believed that if he said it enough times, asked for it enough times, insisted upon it enough times (the "it" being any objective that others said couldn't be done) it would eventually get done Jobs' way. Most business is about making compromises. Job's approach to business is that if the product was good enough it would engage his customer.
When Scully took over the company after Job ran it into the ground, he, in turn, ran the company into the ground. When Jobs returned to the company some years later his first job was to review every product that the company made and focus on the "core products" that the company made well. Employees who did not subscribe to Job's view found themselves out of work. I had always wondered where Jobs thought that he could take over the music business when Sony had invented the Walkman. The similarities between the iPod and the iMac is that they are a consistently integrated business. The iMac was a completely close ended system that encapsulated both hardware and software. The iPod was a completely close ended system that encapsulated both hardware and music content. The iPhone was less a telephone and more a computer and web surfer in the pocket of the owner. The iPad was fully integrated to the iMac and iPHone. Outside developers' applications (apps) drove the demand for the phone and the tablet: utterly brilliant.
RIM had a brilliant idea too: integrate a telephone with a device that had access to a close ended email system. As other "smartphones" began to use webmail email accounts the singularity of the close ended email system began to fade. Sure, Blackberrys ran on dedicated servers but not everyone needed high ended security.
Also, there were disturbing demands from countries that wanted the right to peek into email accounts that email security had to, in some small way, be breached. The close ended email system was not so close ended. However, where RIM seemed out of touch was that the phone and even the email service was a small part of the consumer satisfaction as it related to the phones. People wanted to surf the web and see webpages as they saw them on their computer. They wanted to play games. They wanted apps that were business friendly. Little or none of this could be done on the Blackberry. When RIM decided to offer its web-ready phone it was too late for the North American markets. Blackberrys sell well in emerging markets where web-ready phones are less popular but that will end soon. The Arab Spring was fuelled on
Facebook and Twitter--both web based applications. So, it appears, that RIM is selling into a dwindling market. Web based phones are now carrying apps developed by their employers where job related tasks are now being done on their iPhones and iPads.
RIM is not the only company that is suffering. Smart phone companies worldwide are hurting. The phone itself has become a commodity. It's what else they do that counts. So Microsoft has developed an operating system that's pretty good. Google has done the same. But these operating systems have a ways to catch up to Apple. Notwithstanding Jobs' decease, Apple users form a formidable cult. A recent survey indicated that while general computing systems in large corporations are PC based most of the bosses and senior managers sport Apple gear.
RIM's next mistake was to follow Apple into the tablet market. Aside from producing a clunker it failed to realize that it was not in the same business as Apple. The iPad was mainly entertainment--really a large iTouch. RIM was not. It should have stayed out of the market and let the others blow their brains out. Tablet sales, other than iPads, are dismal. Apple apps numbered in the hundreds of thousands; RIM developers quickly deserted the company.
Where does RIM go from here? It has enough money to withstand the onslaught for some time. It should not be dismembered a la Nortel. It has an admirable R&D facility. However, it should stop following and start leading. It has gone through stage I of the Apple saga--that of near ruin. It now has to go through stage II--that of renewal and reinvention. It's biggest asset is its innovation and its entrepreneurship. All it has to do is to use these assets on the "next big thing". Apple was rescued from bankruptcy by Jobs' altered reality. RIM has to do the same thing.
Bernie
Thursday 26 January 2012
Thursday 12 January 2012
On Being Jew-ish
I have always found it curious that Jews are described as being Jewish. I have no accounts of Catholics being called Catholicish or Protestants being called Protestantish. I could on. Being "ish" connotes being "somewhat like". Being "foolish" for example is being somewhat a food. Reddish is being somewhat red.The only example I could find that is innocuous is British. What's the point, you say?
I have always held that being Jewish is nine parts tribal and one part religious. We have all the attributes of being a tribe: we mutilate our young through circumcision, we have elaborate celebrations of boys and girls who gain adulthood, marriages are performed as a public (tribal) display of bonding, etc. Being part of the tribe is traced through matrilineal lines because patrilineal lines are uncertain. We almost always know who the mother is. If the mother is Jewish then the child is Jewish: no questions asked. Until recently.
The state of Israel was founded by Theodore Herzl who wanted a home for the Jews. Not necessarily religious Jews but all Jews. Herzl was, himself, quite assimilated and, at first religious Jews were not overjoyed by the identification of Israel as the home for the Jews. They had religious qualms having to do with the messiah. The first Jews of the state of Israel were anything but religious. They identified with being Jewish (somewhat Jews) but drew the line at religious observance. No one wore are kippah (small head covering) and certainly the girls were anything but modest. The army was a great leveller and Israeli Jews (and other non-Jewish) citizens benefited from their army contacts. There was a small Jewish settlement in Jerusalem by religious Jews who, notwithstanding the fact that they lived there, refused to recognize Israel on religious grounds. Everyone was happy with that arrangements.
In the early 1970s things changed radically (pun intended). Ex-Israeli religious Jews began to take an avid interest in Israel as a place where non religious Jews could be "converted". They made their mark in politics where they funded political parties who had strong religious beliefs. The fragmented voting system in Israel did the rest. Soon, religious Jewish parties were able to form a government. The price for this kind of aid was that religious people did not have to serve in the army (though many serve in the medical corps), rabbis were institutionalized as quasi-civil servants and religious Jews were allowed to settle in the "occupied" territories. The latter was fuelled by religious American Jews who asserted that Jews were promised all of Israel--including the West Bank or Samaria. The rest, as they say, is history.
From my reading it is only a small number of Israeli Jews that are at all religious. However, religious Jews have become the tail that is wagging the dog. They have mandated "who is a Jew" in challenging religious conversions by rabbis who are not "Jewish enough". Because rabbis are quasi-functionaries, those citizens who are not "Jewish enough" are forced to go to Cyprus to marry. There has been some discussion about who is "Jewish enough" to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Until recently the religious faction has been seem by ordinary Israelis as a quaint wrinkle in the general fabric of society. That is until recently. Religious Jews have now been given to striking out against those who are deemed to be dressed immodestly (spitting at young girls by religious extremists is now in vogue), or who desecrate the Sabbath by driving or going to the beach. While Israel is a free society where one can express his or her opinions freely (two Jews, three opinions) there are many who are calling for some definition of where religious rights impinge on the freedom of others. The recent spitting incident and a further incident where a young women was strongly urged to go to the back of the bus as a sign of "respect" for religious men on the bus. Both incidents made international news.
I have always been a strong proponent of litigation as a means of settling the rights and obligations of various factions in society. I declare my bias as a lawyer. When corrupt legislatures refused to deal with the tobacco industry civil litigation brought the industry to heel whereupon legislatures jump in, both feet. If Israel is not to become Iran (G-d forbid) there has to be some demarcation between the synagogue and the state. The recent incident is a good place to start. In the one case, spitting, the remedy is for assault; in other bus case, the remedy is for another kind of assault: harassment. In both cases, religious Jews should pay a hefty fine as punitive damages--some indication by the courts that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. In the case of rabbis who proclaim who is and who is not Jewish a constitutional challenge is in order. There will come a time when the West Bank settlers will have to have their legal rights defined as it is related to living on land that is clearly, legally, not theirs. The alternative to these legal definitions is anarchy.
To sum up, being Jewish embraces those who are religious and those who are somewhat (the "ish") religious and those who are not at all religious but are clearly identifiable (by themselves or others) as Jews. The problem is mainly Israeli because there is enough civil and religious pressure in the West to allow all forms of Jewish expression to stand side by side. But the Israeli problem has a strong effect on non Israeli Jews. If Israel is a place where all Jews can return, circumscribing these rights affects everyone. If I have a "right of return" I believe that I have that right unconditionally. A right that can't be taken away from a rabbi-functionary.
What has this to do with my many friends who are not Jewish? The imposition of one's religious will on another is not limited to Israel. Witness the latest crowd running on the Republican ticket who want to be President. No one is "Christian" enough. What happens if one of these candidates is (God forbid) elected. The whole national will have to genuflect a la Tim Tebow. Only a glance of most of the Muslim countries discloses practices that are biblical (don't get caught stealing if you want your right hand). The Israeli problem is a small one compared to some of the others. However, if you have a free country (such as Israel) you need to make sure that the law protects religious diversity. It's a slippery slope if it does not.
Bernie.
I have always held that being Jewish is nine parts tribal and one part religious. We have all the attributes of being a tribe: we mutilate our young through circumcision, we have elaborate celebrations of boys and girls who gain adulthood, marriages are performed as a public (tribal) display of bonding, etc. Being part of the tribe is traced through matrilineal lines because patrilineal lines are uncertain. We almost always know who the mother is. If the mother is Jewish then the child is Jewish: no questions asked. Until recently.
The state of Israel was founded by Theodore Herzl who wanted a home for the Jews. Not necessarily religious Jews but all Jews. Herzl was, himself, quite assimilated and, at first religious Jews were not overjoyed by the identification of Israel as the home for the Jews. They had religious qualms having to do with the messiah. The first Jews of the state of Israel were anything but religious. They identified with being Jewish (somewhat Jews) but drew the line at religious observance. No one wore are kippah (small head covering) and certainly the girls were anything but modest. The army was a great leveller and Israeli Jews (and other non-Jewish) citizens benefited from their army contacts. There was a small Jewish settlement in Jerusalem by religious Jews who, notwithstanding the fact that they lived there, refused to recognize Israel on religious grounds. Everyone was happy with that arrangements.
In the early 1970s things changed radically (pun intended). Ex-Israeli religious Jews began to take an avid interest in Israel as a place where non religious Jews could be "converted". They made their mark in politics where they funded political parties who had strong religious beliefs. The fragmented voting system in Israel did the rest. Soon, religious Jewish parties were able to form a government. The price for this kind of aid was that religious people did not have to serve in the army (though many serve in the medical corps), rabbis were institutionalized as quasi-civil servants and religious Jews were allowed to settle in the "occupied" territories. The latter was fuelled by religious American Jews who asserted that Jews were promised all of Israel--including the West Bank or Samaria. The rest, as they say, is history.
From my reading it is only a small number of Israeli Jews that are at all religious. However, religious Jews have become the tail that is wagging the dog. They have mandated "who is a Jew" in challenging religious conversions by rabbis who are not "Jewish enough". Because rabbis are quasi-functionaries, those citizens who are not "Jewish enough" are forced to go to Cyprus to marry. There has been some discussion about who is "Jewish enough" to be buried in a Jewish cemetery. Until recently the religious faction has been seem by ordinary Israelis as a quaint wrinkle in the general fabric of society. That is until recently. Religious Jews have now been given to striking out against those who are deemed to be dressed immodestly (spitting at young girls by religious extremists is now in vogue), or who desecrate the Sabbath by driving or going to the beach. While Israel is a free society where one can express his or her opinions freely (two Jews, three opinions) there are many who are calling for some definition of where religious rights impinge on the freedom of others. The recent spitting incident and a further incident where a young women was strongly urged to go to the back of the bus as a sign of "respect" for religious men on the bus. Both incidents made international news.
I have always been a strong proponent of litigation as a means of settling the rights and obligations of various factions in society. I declare my bias as a lawyer. When corrupt legislatures refused to deal with the tobacco industry civil litigation brought the industry to heel whereupon legislatures jump in, both feet. If Israel is not to become Iran (G-d forbid) there has to be some demarcation between the synagogue and the state. The recent incident is a good place to start. In the one case, spitting, the remedy is for assault; in other bus case, the remedy is for another kind of assault: harassment. In both cases, religious Jews should pay a hefty fine as punitive damages--some indication by the courts that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable. In the case of rabbis who proclaim who is and who is not Jewish a constitutional challenge is in order. There will come a time when the West Bank settlers will have to have their legal rights defined as it is related to living on land that is clearly, legally, not theirs. The alternative to these legal definitions is anarchy.
To sum up, being Jewish embraces those who are religious and those who are somewhat (the "ish") religious and those who are not at all religious but are clearly identifiable (by themselves or others) as Jews. The problem is mainly Israeli because there is enough civil and religious pressure in the West to allow all forms of Jewish expression to stand side by side. But the Israeli problem has a strong effect on non Israeli Jews. If Israel is a place where all Jews can return, circumscribing these rights affects everyone. If I have a "right of return" I believe that I have that right unconditionally. A right that can't be taken away from a rabbi-functionary.
What has this to do with my many friends who are not Jewish? The imposition of one's religious will on another is not limited to Israel. Witness the latest crowd running on the Republican ticket who want to be President. No one is "Christian" enough. What happens if one of these candidates is (God forbid) elected. The whole national will have to genuflect a la Tim Tebow. Only a glance of most of the Muslim countries discloses practices that are biblical (don't get caught stealing if you want your right hand). The Israeli problem is a small one compared to some of the others. However, if you have a free country (such as Israel) you need to make sure that the law protects religious diversity. It's a slippery slope if it does not.
Bernie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)