Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

RIM To Develop iPhone Applications?

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,913
41,341


Blackberry maker RIM is recruiting internally to form an iPhone software development team according to AppleInsider.

"As part of a newly-created team, you’ll influence the development and design of BlackBerry software," the listing reads. "This is a very confidential brand new team and a senior position within RIM so I can't provide too many details. I guess you can figure out what it might be about though."
Click to expand...

AppleInsider reports that many of the details of the position are not available even to people with knowledge of the position, however experience with several Mac-related technologies such as Cocoa, Objective C, and Sync Services is desired.

Article Link
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/30/rim-to-develop-iphone-applications/
This is an interesting one...

I wonder how RIM's revenue breaks down between handset sales and BlackBerry Enterprise Server sales? If they make a fair chunk of change from BES licences, it's quite possible they're coding a BES client for the iPhone to compete with the Apple-provided ActiveSync client.

Enterprises with an existing BES server use that as their gateway between mobile devices and Exchange. BlackBerry might not want the native ActiveSync to encroach upon BES sales. If iPhone use with Exchange via ActiveSync becomes popular – and every indication is that that's quite possible – then RIM may face not only the iPhone as a device competitor, but also ActiveSync as a viable alternative to BES.

Just maybe RIM see some value in saying to its customers, "Sure, you want iPhones... but if you don't fancy the idea of running and supporting ActiveSync for devices*, here's some software to integrate iPhones with your existing BES-based architecture!"

* as I understand things, BES has the advantage of being pretty Exchange-server version agnostic. ActiveSync (with push support) however, needs at least Exchange 2003. An upgrade of a corporation's Exchange platform is a complex and expensive (in time and money) proposition. Allowing iPhone access via BES would be a way for RIM to keep customers tied into the BES platform, and a win for corps who wish to provide iPhone support without fiddling with their Exchange platform.

[edit]: this wouldn't be a completely alien strategy for RIM, either. There's a BES client for Windows Mobile devices already
[edit2]: longofest put it waaay more succinctly :D
 
RIM actually has a pretty good strategy from what I can tell. While they sell the all-in-one solution that bundles the hardware, software, and service, they also sell software called BlackBerry Connect.

BlackBerry® Connect™ software enables mobile device manufacturers to equip their handsets with key BlackBerry® functionality that allows users to connect to BlackBerry® Internet Service and BlackBerry® Enterprise Server with their preferred devices. BlackBerry Connect software also allows organizations to standardize on the award-winning BlackBerry platform.

BlackBerry enabled devices that feature BlackBerry Connect technology are available from leading manufacturers, including ASUS, HTC, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, Inc., Samsung and Sony Ericsson, and on the Palm OS®, Symbian OS™ and Microsoft® Windows Mobile® platforms. BlackBerry Connect software works seamlessly with the built-in email and calendar applications on the device so customers can benefit from proven BlackBerry push technology while maintaining the native device experience and functionality.
Click to expand...

The development we're looking at could be to port Connect to the iPhone, so that people who wish to still use BlackBerry's Enterprise Server but want to use the iPhone as a device (with its awesomeness) can have a solution. Apple, RIM, and the consumer benefit.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

It is an interesting development. More uses for the iPhone is always a good thing.
 
My understanding is Blackberry uses a proprietary network to deliver the subscription services it offers. iPhone is network agnostic. This might be a fit, albiet a premium price one for combo Blackberry and iPhone customers. Corporations seem like a fit as well as governments with Blackberry contracts. Congress was famous for being adicted to "crackberries".

Rocketman
 
Honestly that sounds more like they're looking for someone to develop Mac syncing software or something, not the iPhone.

Having said that, it would seem to make sense. I remember reading about RIM developing a "virtual blackberry" to run on top of Windows Mobile; I think they are happy to get the blackberry functionality out there anyway. I think RIM is happy as long as you're using their platform; they'd definitely rather someone ran blackberry software on their iPhone than just used the iPhone by itself and no longer needed the blackberry service.
 
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Zadillo said:
Honestly that sounds more like they're looking for someone to develop Mac syncing software or something, not the iPhone.

Having said that, it would seem to make sense. I remember reading about RIM developing a "virtual blackberry" to run on top of Windows Mobile; I think they are happy to get the blackberry functionality out there anyway. I think RIM is happy as long as you're using their platform; they'd definitely rather someone ran blackberry software on their iPhone than just used the iPhone by itself and no longer needed the blackberry service.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on this but why be so secretive about what it entails?
 
longofest said:
RIM actually has a pretty good strategy from what I can tell. While they sell the all-in-one solution that bundles the hardware, software, and service, they also sell software called BlackBerry Connect.

The development we're looking at could be to port Connect to the iPhone, so that people who wish to still use BlackBerry's Enterprise Server but want to use the iPhone as a device (with its awesomeness) can have a solution. Apple, RIM, and the consumer benefit.
Click to expand...


I think you're right on the money, here. I was going to get the BlackBerry Connect software on my Treo when my company opened up the BlackBerry service to users who weren't approved for the corporate BlackBerry plan (long story). This looks like RIM jumping on the iPhone SDK bandwagon and developing a port or something similar to that BlackBerry Connect software to run on the iPhone, as an alternative to the native Enterprise Exchange integration that the iPhone will have. Everyone wins, I think it's a great move - probably should have already been underway and ready for when iPhone 2.0 comes out as an immediate alternative.
 
Other posibilities...

Things this could be:
* Blackberry synch software for Mac (most likely IMO)
* Blackberry connect client for iPhone (possible)
Of course, the team could be responsible for BOTH of these.

But something that hasn't been mentioned yet:
What if apple was looking to license iPhoneOS and the fingerworks chipsets developed for the iPhone to other manufacturers? This might not be such a bad idea, even if unlikely... There is no dominant provider of software for cellphones at this time, Symbian, Microsoft, Linux all have a share, but of these:
Symbian hasn't grown to handle the type of content consumers want from next generation phones.
WindowsMobile hasn't gained significant traction and is seen as buggy and sluggish
Linux is too fragmented and there is no consistency

Lets not forget that Apple is the most respected company interms of software interface design. And lets also not forget that Apple has always been "A Software Company".

We all know that Apple likes the iTunes store model, so far it does Music, Movies, TV Shows, Apps for iPod, soon it will do Apps for iPhoneOS. At the moment, the market for Apps on the iPhone is limited to the number of handsets in Circulation, what if there were more iPhoneOS handsets?

Lets not forget that the phone market is not the Mac Market, apple has previously licensed Motorola phones to work with iTunes and the ITMS in a move to create a larger market for ITMS. In licensing iPhoneOS Apple would gain royalties from manufacturers for the OS and would sell the fingerworks chips to the manufacturers as well, it would then stand to make money selling Apps and content via the iTunes store.

So why would RIM get in on the action? RIM wants a different kind of customer to Apple, it wants the business user and the Enterprise that will buy a BES or pay for a hosted BES service, Apple wants the consumer who will buy content, sure Apple would like to sell iPhones to business, but its not the core market.

Other reasons why this would be great:
* Standardisation of accessories (via Dock connector) -> More Accessories
* Larger market for developers -> More Apps -> More revenue from ITMS
* More iTunes compatible devices -> More music sales from ITMS and less issue regarding monopoly laws, especially if apple allowed branding of iTunes portals for the other manufacturers.

Also this whole business could explain the PA Semi purchase, if apple is making an embedded play it may well be looking to create more chips that help to accellerate it's software for other embedded scenarios, e.g. in car entertainment, storage products, set top boxes (AppleTV 3.0), etc.
 
kornyboy said:
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)



I agree with you on this but why be so secretive about what it entails?
Click to expand...

That is a good point; if it was simply about Mac syncing software there probably wouldn't be any reason to be so secretive about it. Then again, if it was something more major that required secrecy, it seems odd to drop enough clues to make it seem likely it is about something more significant.
 
Given my track record, I'll probably eat my words, but I don't see Blackberry programming for the iPhone. It'll be like having iTunes work with Blackberrys or Mac OS X on Dells - it'll cannibalize hardware sales for a minimum of software profit.

EDIT: Laughing at the secrecy - reminds me of movie gags with folders stamped "TOP SECRET" in big blocky red letters.
 
kornyboy said:
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)



I agree with you on this but why be so secretive about what it entails?
Click to expand...

It had to do with Apple, and so they decided they had to 1-up Apple in secrecy? :rolleyes:
 
bluebomberman said:
Given my track record, I'll probably eat my words, but I don't see Blackberry programming for the iPhone. It'll be like having iTunes work with Blackberrys or Mac OS X on Dells - it'll cannibalize hardware sales for a minimum of software profit.

EDIT: Laughing at the secrecy - reminds me of movie gags with folders stamped "TOP SECRET" in big blocky red letters.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is, how much does RIM make from selling blackberries, and how much do they make from the blackberry service/etc.?

I have always assumed that in the end, RIM cares about people using the service and staying customers. If they saw enough people moving to an iPhone/Exchange Server combo that removed the need for the blackberry service, they'd probably be concerned.

I think this is the point of Blackberry Connect, the virtual Blackberry software for Windows Mobile, etc.
 
rim apps

maybe they want to develop rim chat or some of those applications that come installed on the blackberry... just to keep up
 
They have great ideas (from what I have heard from my buddies brother) who is one of the programmers on the team.
 
Lumi said:
Things this could be:
* Blackberry synch software for Mac (most likely IMO)
* Blackberry connect client for iPhone (possible)
Of course, the team could be responsible for BOTH of these.

But something that hasn't been mentioned yet:
What if apple was looking to license iPhoneOS and the fingerworks chipsets developed for the iPhone to other manufacturers? This might not be such a bad idea, even if unlikely... There is no dominant provider of software for cellphones at this time, Symbian, Microsoft, Linux all have a share, but of these:
Symbian hasn't grown to handle the type of content consumers want from next generation phones.
WindowsMobile hasn't gained significant traction and is seen as buggy and sluggish
Linux is too fragmented and there is no consistency

Lets not forget that Apple is the most respected company interms of software interface design. And lets also not forget that Apple has always been "A Software Company".

We all know that Apple likes the iTunes store model, so far it does Music, Movies, TV Shows, Apps for iPod, soon it will do Apps for iPhoneOS. At the moment, the market for Apps on the iPhone is limited to the number of handsets in Circulation, what if there were more iPhoneOS handsets?

Lets not forget that the phone market is not the Mac Market, apple has previously licensed Motorola phones to work with iTunes and the ITMS in a move to create a larger market for ITMS. In licensing iPhoneOS Apple would gain royalties from manufacturers for the OS and would sell the fingerworks chips to the manufacturers as well, it would then stand to make money selling Apps and content via the iTunes store.

So why would RIM get in on the action? RIM wants a different kind of customer to Apple, it wants the business user and the Enterprise that will buy a BES or pay for a hosted BES service, Apple wants the consumer who will buy content, sure Apple would like to sell iPhones to business, but its not the core market.

Other reasons why this would be great:
* Standardisation of accessories (via Dock connector) -> More Accessories
* Larger market for developers -> More Apps -> More revenue from ITMS
* More iTunes compatible devices -> More music sales from ITMS and less issue regarding monopoly laws, especially if apple allowed branding of iTunes portals for the other manufacturers.

Also this whole business could explain the PA Semi purchase, if apple is making an embedded play it may well be looking to create more chips that help to accellerate it's software for other embedded scenarios, e.g. in car entertainment, storage products, set top boxes (AppleTV 3.0), etc.
Click to expand...

I dont think apple will even consider licensing. The main problem with licensing is that apple has no control over what the licensee creates, and how well the hardware works. Also having iphone clones running with different screen sizes and hardware capabilities will hurt the developer community as it stands right now, developers do not have to think about many different hardware configurations while developing the apps. Licensing the iphoneOS is just like licensing the MacOS, with all the similar caveats of licensing the OS to hardware cloners. You also say that businesses are not the core marker for the iphone, but with the 2.0 coming in June, apple is making a very big step towards businesses, if they were planning to sell the OS, they wouldnt have spent the time and money making the iphone more business-friendly.
 
Why would RIM want to shoot themselves by even giving a user a chance to buy an iPhone over BB? But even still nobody would buy BB Connect for iPhone, and take out a BIS/BES contract when they already have it integrated in their iPhone using activesync..

however what this could mean is that RIM are making BB more compatible with Mac.... this would be a good thing... i would only buy a BB again on BIS if it allowed me to have mail folders and sync up properly with an IMAP account...
 
himansk said:
I dont think apple will even consider licensing. The main problem with licensing is that apple has no control over what the licensee creates, and how well the hardware works. Also having iphone clones running with different screen sizes and hardware capabilities will hurt the developer community as it stands right now, developers do not have to think about many different hardware configurations while developing the apps. Licensing the iphoneOS is just like licensing the MacOS, with all the similar caveats of licensing the OS to hardware cloners. You also say that businesses are not the core marker for the iphone, but with the 2.0 coming in June, apple is making a very big step towards businesses, if they were planning to sell the OS, they wouldnt have spent the time and money making the iphone more business-friendly.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true, if you look at the Windows Mobile World, MS specifies what hardware must exist in a handset that runs windows mobile, it's why they are all similar in form factor, if you look at the generations of Windows Mobile software (and PocketPC in fact), Microsoft dictated the interface requirements, what buttons must exist, what procesor architecture the devices must use and alot of other things.

Apple could exert the same kind of control with the iPhoneOS. Apple need only supply a list of supported hardware components. Apple wouldn't have to provide them with the source code, just an SDK to do things like Manufacturer specific logo's and a way to put their own applications into the firmware image, possibly a driver development kit if it was feeling frugal. Apple does do this kind of thing, lets not forget the HP branded blue iPods they did a few years back, albeit, HP didn't do them very long as HP bought Compaq, which had it's own line of music players at the time.

The point is, you cant always expect Apple to do the expected in a new market, they like to experiment with new revenue models, if they can see a way of making money, they will try something.
 
a bad for a conclusion

The surprise with this story is how bad one can make a conclusion with a thin information like this one.
Letting this kind of article float around is bad for MacRumors' reputation.

It's so obvious that RIM looks for Mac developers, not iPhone developers...

I guess that's the difference between real journalism and blog-grade information sites...


Forgive my bad english.
 
zzal said:
The surprise with this story is how bad one can make a conclusion with a thin information like this one.
Letting this kind of article float around is bad for MacRumors' reputation.

It's so obvious that RIM looks for Mac developers, not iPhone developers...

I guess that's the difference between real journalism and blog-grade information sites...


Forgive my bad english.
Click to expand...

Give me a break - the site is called MacRUMORS..... they cover rumors. The article headline has a question mark in it. They didn't originate it or confirm it, simply posted an article about this rumor.

And also, as this discussion has pointed out, it isn't so obvious that RIM is looking for Mac developers and not iPhone developers. The big question mark is why the secrecy in the listing (if it was simply just for Mac developers, it would not be that shocking).

There's enough to be a question there.

-Zadillo
 
Lumi said:
Not necessarily true, if you look at the Windows Mobile World, MS specifies what hardware must exist in a handset that runs windows mobile, it's why they are all similar in form factor, if you look at the generations of Windows Mobile software (and PocketPC in fact), Microsoft dictated the interface requirements, what buttons must exist, what procesor architecture the devices must use and alot of other things.

Apple could exert the same kind of control with the iPhoneOS. Apple need only supply a list of supported hardware components. Apple wouldn't have to provide them with the source code, just an SDK to do things like Manufacturer specific logo's and a way to put their own applications into the firmware image, possibly a driver development kit if it was feeling frugal. Apple does do this kind of thing, lets not forget the HP branded blue iPods they did a few years back, albeit, HP didn't do them very long as HP bought Compaq, which had it's own line of music players at the time.

The point is, you cant always expect Apple to do the expected in a new market, they like to experiment with new revenue models, if they can see a way of making money, they will try something.
Click to expand...
Apple would never do this. Steve Jobs hates clones (and I doubt we'll see them licence Mac clones again since the disaster of the mid 90s).

Windows Mobile follows the same model as Windows (PC) - i.e. Microsoft sells the software and other vendors sell the hardware, which must conform to certain loose hardware requirements (e.g. x86 processor of certain speed, etc). Apple goes for the all-in-one solution with both iPhone and Mac and has always touted the fact it means a more seamless experience.

The HP iPod was an experiment and not quite comparable, as I believe it was the same device that simply had different asthetics.

It would be so "not Apple" to allow iPhone clones.
 
johnnyjibbs said:
Apple would never do this. Steve Jobs hates clones (and I doubt we'll see them licence Mac clones again since the disaster of the mid 90s).

Windows Mobile follows the same model as Windows (PC) - i.e. Microsoft sells the software and other vendors sell the hardware, which must conform to certain loose hardware requirements (e.g. x86 processor of certain speed, etc). Apple goes for the all-in-one solution with both iPhone and Mac and has always touted the fact it means a more seamless experience.

The HP iPod was an experiment and not quite comparable, as I believe it was the same device that simply had different asthetics.

It would be so "not Apple" to allow iPhone clones.
Click to expand...

The HP iPod didn't even have different aesthetics; it was just an iPod. The only thing that made it "unique" was that HP tried to also sell labels you could print custom designs on and stick to your iPod to personalize it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back