The interview showed glimpses of desperation, edginess and plain frustration which speak volumes about RIM's approach to handling the drastically altered smart phone market.
Lazaridis kept using the words "singled out" - his reasoning behind it was because they were so successful. He was trying to convince that the carpet has not been pulled from below RIM's feet.
It showed that RIM doesn't really "get" it. They think the world is being unfair to them - they think that as a problem - not the facts that they couldn't get decent, modern smartphone hardware with a competent OS (for the market) out in years. They are just like Nokia - except they believe they have no problems.
Sure Blackberry has the best security architecture, it has never had security issues until they started using WebKit, lots of people still use it. There is no denying that. What is problematic is that those things do not matter in the battle that RIM is fighting against Android and iOS. No sane Joe with a dumb phone is going to find BB compelling for his smart phone upgrade. It's just not cool.
What RIM needs is a dual OS/dual hardware strategy - let the BB folks keep doing "Pro" phones like they do today with BB OS. Let a fresh hardware and software team look at producing great consumer phones with a consumer OS. The OS part of it is a big problem - I am sure RIM could put together a great phone after trying - not so sure about the OS part. They could be better off taking Android and making it better and distinct.
The issue that the interviewer was asking about has nothing to do with smartphones. It's about governments wanting more access to Blackberry's records (from what I understand.)
Yes, they haven't had a good response to iOS or Android but that's completely irrelevant to the article at hand.
It's not completely irrelevant. Having "security issues" is bad news for market share. The question wasn't asked in an isolated context - it was in the context of "bad news for market share". That's exactly why Lazaridis got emotional about it.
Mike's point was there are no security issues with the Blackberry. The issue is that there's too much security than what some governments can tolerate. The question puts the CEO right into a paradox that nobody can possibly answer, so it was fair for him to end the interview (or maybe he could say, a lot of this is under negotiation so he can discuss it).
He can't be critical of the governments demands because they are in negotiations with them. He can't say they will weaken security, because that's not what enterprises want.
Either way, you have to be proud of a company for taking a stand and developing secure products that could help protect civilians from terrible governments.
an interview is an interview, he didn't need the outburst. if he'd have skipped past it straight to the "we were singled out, we're used by..." part - I'm sure we wouldn't all be discussing it.
Oddly, Blackberry is insanely cool amoung the teen crowd in the UK (well, London anyway).
Not sure why, since they have no need for business class email. BBM seems to be the main driver, even though there are plenty of altenatives on other platforms.
>Blackberry is insanely cool amoung the teen crowd in the UK
It's definitely a London thing. They became hugely popular in the summer of 2009, rapidly making their way into the constantly shifting memepool that is the grime scene.
Believe it or not this isn't paid product placement. Hence he lists RIM's competitors in the intro. They probably still sent maxwell some units though.
EDIT: BBM was also heavily used as a way of sending shouts to pirate radio stations. You couldn't really ask for better marketing. It's very much waned now though.
It is definitely not just a London thing. I was on a flight from Seattle to Los Angeles and the guy next (mid-20s) to me was using an old iPhone to play games. His phone was a blackberry. I found it really strange, but he told me that all of his friends were using BBM and he felt like he was left out, so he went back to BlackBerry.
In Canada the Blackberry outsells Android in the teen crowd according to a report in the Globe and Mail a few weeks ago. Unfortunately, I can't find the article now.
I can say the same is in Istanbul and Baku, iPhones are used for games only, its nice to have an iPhone but its percieved as really cool to use Blackberry as a phone for daily use.
If you've not seen it, it really is an example of how deep the Blackberry runs in street culture - both back home in the UK and even here in the US (take a trip through Daly City or East Bay and check out the BB's).
There was another tune called "Blackberry Swipe" about mugging people for their mobile phones. Can't remember who did it though. The grime scene really is like a musical version of 4chan when it comes to memetics.
I have always been fascinated by BBM's popularity. Whenever somebody told me that BBM was their reason for buying a Blackberry, I always countered with text messaging is available on ALL phones. They counter with that you have to pay for text messaging and my final counter is that you already have a $60/month plan to support your Blackberry, why didn't you ask your phone company to throw in free text-messaging? They usually lower their head and buy an iPhone within three months.
People who use BB for BBM do not get $60 plans.. they get $25 plans that have unlimited bis traffic and very low normal data traffic. Not to mention you can pump media through it for free
It's not so much that BBM is cheaper than texting, but rather that BBM is the best messaging client I've used. Sure, there are alternatives, but they don't work as well. Yes, BBM is the reason I stay with blackberry, and unless my friends ditch it, I will continue to use it.
> even though there are plenty of altenatives on other platforms.
I would argue that this is a problem, not a solution. Plenty of alternatives, all incompatible, none of which are bundled with any phone, and none of which work (or work well) on Blackberry.
I've seen a similar phenomenon in Canada. My sister (who is 17 now) and many of her friends traded in their iPhones two years ago for a Blackberry and you could not pay her enough money to switch back to an iPhone. I think it's a combination of the keyboard + BBM...
I see plenty of teens in San Francisco using Blackberries. From what I understand, the Blackberry hardware keyboard and scrollwheel are popular with speed texters.
OS doesn't matter. Apps matter. Hardware - lots of successful companies have range of hardware, nothing new there.
What you are missing is the rumored ability of QNX to be able to run Android apps. RIM may already have the dual strategy in place - they might run BB on Pro phones which can run Android apps and they can run QNX on Consumer phones which can also run Android apps. For the user - it's Android, not QNX or BB.
At this level, i.e. CEO, this is pure idiocy, you should have a canned response for such questions, in fact deflating such questions is part of your job, for heaven's sake!
And they did have problems in India and Middle East, where governments wanted access to emails. Rather than bailing out like this, RIM can turn it into a PR victory, like Google did with China, saying (i) "see how secure our systems are, governments can't break in" and (ii) "we are standing up for freedom, democracy, etc."
and (ii) "we are standing up for freedom, democracy, etc."
I think that this may be why he doesn't want to talk about the issue. Because as far as I understand it, the solution reached (at least with India) was to agree to co-locate the encryption servers in country and give the governments "live access" to them. So they didn't agree to hand over the keys but basically gave unfettered access all the same.
I agree that he should have canned responses to such questions ready to fire off at anyone who asks, though I disagree with the second part of your comment.
I probably wouldn't try to tout this. I'm sure it was sensitive matter maneuvering the matter when dealing with the governments and they don't want to bang on the hornet's nest. The governments could and probably would make doing business in those countries much more difficult than it has to be. You have everything to lose and very little to gain. It's like a black hat SEO gaining success in Google rankings and making Google's engineers look stupid to the world. Making Google look bad will only hurt you. Google makes the rules for their engines. The governments make the rules for their countries.
>At this level, i.e. CEO, this is pure idiocy, you should have a canned response for such questions, in fact deflating such questions is part of your job, for heaven's sake!
Not in this day and age. IMO candor and honesty is much better nowadays.
I think you're mistaken, that job is the role of one of the other two CEOs at RIM. The company is so fucked they can't even decide who's in charge. This is why you get products that haven't launched but can run apps from other platforms.
I don't understand his reaction, especially when RIM's position is perfectly defensible.
A reasonable response: "I want to assure our customers that the BlackBerry platform is, and will remain, secure, but it is necessary for RIM to follow the laws of the jurisdictions we operate in".
Rory Cellan-Jones, the interviewer, is a former colleague from my days at the BBC. Just to give some context, he is one of the BBC's most experienced business news journalists, in addition to being a more recent technology journalist.
But in a word of sound-bites and short-quotes, I'm surprised Rory didn't consider - or at least pick up after the initial rebuttal - that if Lazaridis in any way answered the question pivoted around security that it could cause a significant PR issue and even effect the share price of RIM (given it's a core value of RIM).
I'm totally across the issue being refereed to and to be fair, it isn't a security issue to RIM. Sure, it is a security issue to its users, potentially. But it's not that RIM has a security issue with its technology, it has a privacy issue from draconian laws while operating under certain government conditions.
But my reason for mentioning Rory is an experience business journalist is that this is not a technology matter, it's a subtle business-related matter, which I'd have thought Rory of all people would be cognizant of.
I think the parent commenter is saying that it is unproductive for a journalist to ask questions that they know the CEO cannot answer because of the CEO's fiduciary responsibility to their enterprise. That isn't saying not to ask, but to pick up on cues from the interviewee that pursuing a particular line of questioning isn't going to be successful.
I'm saying that journalists can ask whatever they want - but companies, esp CEOs, are simply unlikely to answer a significant question that could be easily miss-interpreted by the media.
Thus assuming the objective isn't to "trip the CEO up" (which I don't think it was, it isn't a BBC style) then asking/rephrasing the question differently might have helped achieve the interview Rory was looking for.
In general, you don't learn a lot asking people (in positions of power) questions that they will have to respond to with an uninteresting, transparent evasion or lie.
Now, I don't think basing compensation on stock price or judging companies based exclusively on stock price is a good idea, but that is a different topic.
I strangely want to give kudos to both sides. The phrasing of 'the problems you've had in terms of security' is seriously misleading and very poorly worded. I guess I've never seen the behind the scenes legal voices jump in before, but clearly, that question is baiting (unless RIM has some security issues I'm unaware of).
On the other side, cool that the BBC posts this for all to see, rather than just hiding it away somewhere.
Though for the general public who don't know if RIM has a security flaw or not, what effect does something like this have??
"The [Ministry of Home Affairs] has asked the [Department of Telecommunication] to tell [RIM] in no uncertain terms that its emails and other data services must comply with formats that can be monitored by security and intelligence agencies."
The Indian government has threatened to cut off Blackberry services if RIM doesn't comply. I don't think calling that a security issue is off the mark.
It should be called a privacy issue or something like that. I think the CEO wanted to avoid having his platform deemed insecure as in has security holes.
I'm not too sure what the difference is here. One of the reasons that Blackberries are so common in the business and government sectors is because of the security(and privacy) that they provide. The two are basically the same thing.
The Indian government was asking for a backdoor into the system. That's more of a security issue than privacy.
It's a security issue if the Indian government, or anyone else for that matter, found a way to create a backdoor into RIM's system without RIM's knowledge and consent.
As that isn't the case, then it's a privacy issue because the Indian government demanded RIM put in a backdoor for reasons or surveillance of its population.
Does this privacy issue potentially lead to a security issue? Yes, but not for RIM, but rather for it's users that depend on the privacy of RIM's service over which they may transmit sensitive information.
Your reference is 9 months old. This is part of why it is unfair. If it was a current issue, that would make sense to bring up in the discussion. But the problem was resolved to the satisfaction of those governments, meaning that the average customer should not be concerned.
"A deadline of March 31st has been given to the BlackBerry manufacturer, Research in Motion, to hand over encryption keys which would allow the Indian government to intercept corporate emails and other data used on the secure handsets."
"The corporate BlackBerry system works in such a secure manner, that even the BlackBerry manufacturer cannot intercept messages on its systems, leading to Research in Motion being unable to offer what the Indian government wants."
Was this resolved? I can't find anything newer than the above. Maybe the BBC-interviewer couldn't either and wanted to know what's happening.
Rory asked an intentionally loaded and HuffPo-like question;
"Can I move on to the problems you've had in terms of security...and your various arguments you've had with the Indian government and a number of governments in the Middle East"
This is like asking Craigslist about their "issues with revenue" since it's free to post anything outside of jobs, and being free is one of the key features that defines Craigslist. Craigslist doesn't have issues with being free, OTHER PEOPLE (like newspapers) have issues with the fact that Craigslist is free. Same with RIM, OTHER PEOPLE have issues with the fact that RIM is very secure. The question implied that RIM has issues with their security.
Worst is BBC then tried to act like he wasn't sensationalizing with their take on the question Rory asked...
"...he asked a question for BBC Click about RIM's problems in India and the Middle East, where governments want to gain greater access to the tight security system used for Blackberry's business users."
No he did not. The above question is framed correctly, and I'm sure would have gotten a response.
I don't understand your analogy: in the Craigslist case Craigslist has no issues being free, but others have issues with it being free. Craiglist is not making changes to their free model to appease others.
In the RIM case the system is secure except when they are giving access to the system to governments - making it not secure (at least in many people's eyes).
My point was that the BBC reporter was trying to create an issue out of something that is a core principle of the company (and something they do well in fact) and is intentionally misleading. I was trying to show the ridiculousness of it and help justify why the CEO got flustered and ended the interview.
So RIM is secure, the CEO is proud of it, and the question inferred that they're not secure.
Craigslist is free, the CEO is (probably) proud of it, and a question that infers that they have a problem because they don't charge for listings would be similar.
Sounds to me like he misunderstood the question and assumed the Beeb were implying there's a serous security issue with the Blackberry device itself, when the question was actually about the "security" concerns of certain countries in which Blackberrys are sold.
At the very end of the clip, Lazaridis says in closing the interview: "this [the topic being discussed] is a national security issue". He knew exactly what was being asked; and even if the phrasing was better, he'd have given the same reaction.
You should consider the possibility that if RIM are giving this type of access to India and the Middle East, then what other countries have this type of access?
If he had answered Rory's question, would something like the one I asked above be the followup?
Indeed, using "National Security Issue" seems more like a smokescreen in this case. RIM has bent over and opened their backdoor to various governments, and this CEO is trying hard to evade going on record about the issue.
It's entirely possible I'm in the minority on this, but the following (theatrical, paraphrased, artistic-liberty-ized) conversation implies that there is a serious security issue with Blackberry devices:
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service.
RIM: Okay.
But to be fair to RIM, the conversation seems to have been more like:
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service
RIM: Sorry, that isn't technically possible
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service
RIM: Sorry, that isn't technically possible
India: Give us access to your secure messaging service or we'll cut you off
RIM: OK, we'll do everything we can
Fair enough, but the end result is still that the "security" of the system is rather different than what most people think it is. "Just your friends see BBM" versus "Just your friends, and RIM, and the government of India, and - oh hell, let's be honest - probably any other government that asks sufficiently impolitely as well, see BBM."
I thought the way the first question was worded was intentionally misleading. The interviewers second try was better, but at that point, I think they had already soured the interview.
I also think that the issue was dealt with, and the countries who had threatened to shutdown RIM, are no longer posturing, so it is kind of like bringing up old bad news for no reason, when the company is really there to promote the Playbook and show of their tech, not delve into an old issue that has been resolved, and answer questions that have been answered already.
I'd feel differently if this was an ongoing issue, but a google search shows that this was an issue last summer, and doesn't appear to really have come up since. That's just bringing back bad news which has no bearing on today.
All things considered, does RIM actually want people talking about the PlayBook? If it's positive, I'm sure they don't mind, but given that the thing doesn't actually exist yet (right?) I dont see them gaining much ground on the PlayBook PR front until they ship.
It's only retreading old ground if the resolution is public knowledge. As mentioned elsewhere in this topic, RIM has never given any info as to what the final result of all that pressure was - I do think it's legitimate to ask essentially whether blackberry usage in those countries is compromised.
No. He knew exactly what the question was about, and what it was regarding. Their was no misunderstanding there. He didn't appreciate the word choice because characterizing it as a security issue implies certain things. But no, he knew exactly what he was being asked.
Sure, the initial question was poorly worded, but he's not a stupid man.
He may not be stupid, but governments harass companies all the time and put them into situations they don't want to be. RIM is not special, and being in an interview you get asked questions you don't want to answer. He definately could've played along and answered it. But that may just be my Dutch/European directness.
I don't know how else the BBC could ask the question
RIM have never been upfront with a response to the question[1] (unlike Google, and others) and what you saw in that response from Lazaridis was more of his cool PR trained responses at work ('we are being singled out', 'we have a lot of issues'
etc. etc. blah blah balh)
[1] 'the question' is if RIM are providing backdoors to governments such as India, Russia et al to access encrypted messaging on the blackberry net
I doubt if Lazaridis response would have been any different, since he is quite defensive these days, but BBC could have framed it as a privacy issue which is a more accurate description.
I think the way the question was worded could have confused people that are not familiar with the current situation between RIM and those countries. The question was worded in a way that made it sound like the device were insecure, but it is the very opposite, they are too secure by these countries standards. Lazaridis should have handled the question better by clarifying the question and then answering. He was not his best.
This is like text-book CEO stuff, right? I think his reaction and cutting the interview short confused the issue even more. If I didn't already know the background, I would think there really must be a security issue, not that some foreign governments are threatening RIM because it's too secure. I think he could've easily batted that one away, if he hadn't taken it like a personal insult.
I found the final words of the interview the most striking:
>>This is not fair... What are you doing?... This is a national security issue.
A national security issue for who? The US? Can't journalists ask questions about national security issues anymore?
I can see why the US would be weary to have business people/officials traveling to a country where all their conversations can be monitored. But is this a CEO confirmation that the RIM india/pakistan issue has become a US national security issue now?
A gag order would be perfect cause for this rather strange interview-stopping behavior from someone I reckon has a lot of experience dealing with journalists.
Ironically for Lazaridis, this is the first I'd heard of RIM's "security problems in India and the Middle East" - anyone have a link to the original story?
Stephen Fry (also BBC) on Twitter this morning: "On way to meet Mike Lazarides of Blackberry. Excited: he was an absolute pioneer. Interested to know what's in the pipeline. Playbook etc."
I don't really understand, why would Fry tag along to someone else's interview?
Lazaridis kept using the words "singled out" - his reasoning behind it was because they were so successful. He was trying to convince that the carpet has not been pulled from below RIM's feet.
It showed that RIM doesn't really "get" it. They think the world is being unfair to them - they think that as a problem - not the facts that they couldn't get decent, modern smartphone hardware with a competent OS (for the market) out in years. They are just like Nokia - except they believe they have no problems.
Sure Blackberry has the best security architecture, it has never had security issues until they started using WebKit, lots of people still use it. There is no denying that. What is problematic is that those things do not matter in the battle that RIM is fighting against Android and iOS. No sane Joe with a dumb phone is going to find BB compelling for his smart phone upgrade. It's just not cool.
What RIM needs is a dual OS/dual hardware strategy - let the BB folks keep doing "Pro" phones like they do today with BB OS. Let a fresh hardware and software team look at producing great consumer phones with a consumer OS. The OS part of it is a big problem - I am sure RIM could put together a great phone after trying - not so sure about the OS part. They could be better off taking Android and making it better and distinct.