RIM's PlayBook: Four Key Vulnerabilities

Research in Motion (RIM), creators of the popular BlackBerry family of mobile devices and services, is expected to launch formally its long-awaited PlayBook tablet computer tomorrow. Here are four reasons why I think RIM's new tablet may be hard to swallow for business users.

PlayBook Vulnerability #1: its proprietary operating system. In business servers, there are two largely dominant operating environments: Microsoft Windows and the converged Linux/UNIX ecosystem. In mobile networked devices for business users, it's largely Apple's iOS and Google's Android -- and RIM, at least in some segments. (Sorry, Symbian and Microsoft, unless Nokia's decision to replace Symbian's software with Windows Phone spurs growth for that platform.) In PCs for business, it's largely Windows and Linux, plus Mac/iOS in some segments. The point is, few if any segments demonstrate much if any need or demand for an operating system other than those that dominate the segment in question.

But the PlayBook will run a proprietary operating system. A marketing challenge at best and a support and integration non-starter at worst.

To users, value is all about available apps. And application developers have limited resources, which means many can't afford to develop and support versions for more than one or two operating systems. Which does not augur well for original apps written for RIM's operating system. While the BlackBerry faithful may be satisfied by a unique set of available apps, others will wonder if there aren't PlayBook versions of apps already popular on the dominant mobile operating systems.

This makes support for Android apps even more potentially important to the PlayBook's success. But so far, all RIM is offering in emulator software to run (at least some) Android apps. In this light, any perceived or actual performance degradations or incompatibilities could present as many opportunities for criticism and frustration as the iPad's lack of Flash support. And business technology decision makers and their teams are looking for fewer interoperability challenges, not more.

PlayBook Vulnerability #2: its form factor. RIM is touting the PlayBook's ability to run games and other multimedia, something about which even business users increasingly care. The PlayBook's 7-inch form factor, like Samsung's Galaxy Tab and other tablets, means current BlackBerry users can likely continue to type with their thumbs on the PlayBook. But the device isn't as comfortable for two-handed typists, or for gamers, movie watchers or Web surfers who prefer more visual real estate. And the riotous popularity of the iPad amply demonstrates that more visual real estate makes even a larger device worth carrying around to a lot of business users.

PlayBook Vulnerability #3: its connectivity limitations. While the PlayBook seems likely to support high-speed networks from AT&T, Verizon and others at some point, it's being shipped initially with support only for Wi-Fi. (A version for Sprint's WiMAX network is expected within, say, 60 days of the official PlayBook launch.) Which means only users of both PlayBooks and BlackBerry devices with corporate network connections can see real-time updates to their calendars, contacts or e-mail. At least until and unless RIM and/or its developer partners and/or savvy users begin to create and propagate effective tethering arrangements that support other mobile phones and carrier networks.

Also, AT&T and Verizon are increasingly dominating the mobile networking market in the U.S. and elsewhere. For the PlayBook not to support either carrier from Day One will be a deal-breaker for technology decision makers and mobile users at many companies. It's a situation likely to turn off users who don't already use BlackBerry devices as well.

PlayBook Vulnerability #4: it's too little, too late. Had RIM announced and delivered the PlayBook a few months earlier, the dynamics of the discussion would likely be different. However, with the iPad 2 and numerous Android tablets already available and more coming soon, RIM will have a difficult time reaching beyond BlackBerry loyalists with the PlayBook.

I'd love to be wrong about any or all of this, but I don't think I am. Whether or not you believe in signs or portents, it is interesting to note that published reports have said that the PlayBook was delayed in part because of the catastrophe in Japan and in part because challenged manufacturers had previous iPad 2 commitments. It's also not helpful to RIM's prospects that its CEO abruptly ended a recently attempted BBC interview when questions strayed beyond the PlayBook and into possible network security concerns. Not great pre-launch PR.

RIM could be in trouble long-term if the PlayBook isn't successful. At the very least, anything that smacks of lackluster adoption will cement perceptions of RIM as an also-ran in the evolving market for tablet computers and other mobile networked devices.

The BlackBerry ecosystem risks becoming the mainframe of mobile devices. That is to say, venerable and respected, and remaining in use long after being superseded, but relegated to the status of "coulda been a contender." Who'd have thought?

The Cloud? You Ain't READY for the CLOUD! (Or ARE You??)

Maybe you are and maybe you aren't. I mean, I have no way of knowing, really. But I've been hearing...things that are making me...nervous.

I mean, it's not like I'm a conspiracy theorist or anything. (I lean more toward Harry Shearer's thinking on conspiracies, which he has publicly deemed unlikely, given the difficulty of getting people to work together in simple, small teams.) But still, I've been hearing...things...

Things like that there are companies out there for which cloud-based solutions would make a lot of sense, if those companies had processes in place for accurate, fair and balanced evaluation and comparison of such solutions, with one another and with their premise-based alternatives. Or if those companies had IT solution acquisition policies and processes designed with only premise-based solutions in mind.

Now, it's not as if the business IT solutions vendors are making any of this easy. Microsoft representatives have said publicly and repeatedly that delivering purchase and support agreements that gracefully embrace premise- and cloud-based solutions is very much still a work in progress. And Microsoft isn't the only vendor that needs to address this problem rapidly and effectively.

But I can't help but think that IT people who really, really want every dollar of company money they spend to deliver business value would be pushing their companies to become more able to assess, acquire and deploy cloud-based solutions. Unless those IT people had...reasons to complicate or make impossible the assessment and adoption of cloud-based solutions at their companies.

What might those reasons be? Well, I'd hate to speculate. But I remember when minicomputers, PCs, client-server computing, the Internet and the Web were all poo-poohed by IT decision-makers who saw these new technologies as irrelevant to "real" business computing at best and threats to the comfortable status quo at worst. ("Why should I be forced to learn to manage new technologies or vendor relationships when I already understand the ones we have?" I'm just sayin'...)

So is it a conspiracy? Are IT people, individually or collectively, secretively taking arms against a sea of cloud-based threats, hoping by opposing them to end them? (That's generations of Shakespeare fans moaning in the background.) I sincerely doubt it...but I keep hearing these...things...

Anyway, enough of my semi-paranoid, only-partly-tongue-in-cheek ramblings. What do you think about all this? There's a discussion going on right now at Focus.com and another on LinkedIn in the IT Focus Expert Group. Or feel free to leave a comment here, or to drop me a line at medortch@dortchonit.com.

Oracle + Sun = More SaaS Options (Especially for SMBs)?

As I discussed with my learned and respected industry colleague Frederic Paul of bMighty.com earlier today, Oracle's acquisition of Sun Microsystems could result in nifty new software as a service (SaaS) offerings for SMBs and larger enterprises as well. Here's how.

1. Oracle's Fusion Middleware platform is built entirely upon Java, for which Sun is the principal commercial shepherd. Java's a great solution for building and delivering new applications, SaaS-enabled and otherwise. Greater integration among Java, Fusion Middleware, and applications and databases could and should make SaaS-enabled solutions easier and faster to build and deliver.

2. Sun is fairly experienced at delivering SaaS and cloud computing solutions, especially to large customers and in concert with partners.

3. Both Sun and Oracle understand what larger companies want and need to make SaaS and cloud computing solutions "enterprise-ready." At the same time, each has had some success at packaging and delivering solutions for smaller enterprises, often scaled down from those enterprise solutions. And each has partners good at supporting SMBs.

3. Despite public pronouncements to the contrary, Oracle leadership understands that SaaS and cloud computing are going to be significant alternatives to traditional "bits on disks" and premises-based servers. (Oracle still holds a big stake in Salesforce.com, as I understand it.)

4. The combination of Java, Fusion Middleware, Oracle applications and databases, and Sun servers and services means that Oracle could offer a range of premises-based, SaaS, and cloud computing solutions through its significant partner ecosystem. Many of these solutions could be scaled down, integrated, and pre-configured into SMB-ready offerings, much as IBM does now with its "Express" portfolio. But the ability to deliver software and services AS services bodes well for Oracle plus Sun, and perhaps for users seeking alternatives to expensive and difficult-to-manage premises-based IT infrastructures.

As we analysts love to say, "stay tuned..."

Are Your SaaS Vendors in Trouble? And If So, What Can/Should You Do?

So what do green energy, software as a service (SaaS), radio frequency identification (RFID), and their offshoots and affiliates all have in common as industries or markets?

Two things, for the purposes of this particular rant.

Thing the First is that they were all predicted as recently as the end of 2008 to be some of the few areas that were likely to weather what was (apparently) seen by many (but not everyone) then as a looming but temporary economic...unpleasantness.

Thing the Second is that given the significantly more robust and sustained nature of said...unpleasantness, all three of arenas are facing significant, sustained challenges. In many cases, these challenges are life-threatening to at least some companies – and unspoken of by almost all of them, especially those not publicly traded and therefore compelled to make at least some financial disclosures.

Now, it's not lost on me that among SaaS companies, Salesforce.com is not only a market leader and publicly traded. According to its most recently disclosed financial information, while challenged, it is not in any real, imminent danger. (As I expected during the recent media mini-furor over whether or not SaaS was going to make it, or something like that.) I worry far more about the ecosystem of smaller and emerging SaaS and SaaS-related suppliers, including some of Salesforce.com's partners.

I especially worry when I see no recent announcements of major customer wins, or even significant pilots. I also worry when I see no announcements of strategic alliances – or see what are touted as such, but that include no laudatory statement from any senior executives from the supposed “strategic partner.”

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

Green energy is not one of my core strengths, so I'll leave that to others more expert and focused than I. (I would But where SaaS and RFID are concerned, well, I'm concerned. And I'll have more to say about both Real Soon Now. Meanwhile, though, if you don't have them in place yet, craft, execute, and enforce some effective, protective, and business-driven service level agreements (SLAs) with every SaaS or RFID vendor or reseller critical to your business. And keep close tabs on the financial health of those vendors. To the extent that such tabs are possible, at least.