The following chart details RIM’s share price performance over the last few months:

Consumer adoption of BlackBerry devices continue to plummet.

Any Twitter trend comparison of consumer sentiment  will reveal that overall, consumers aren’t waiting for the next round of BlackBerry phones…they’re all waiting for the next Android and iPhone 5.

Over the next few weeks, I’m going to try to wrap my head around this developing story and try to deduce some lessons from it. In the meanwhile, share your thoughts on why you think BlackBerry is seemingly on its way out.

The camera cuts to Gordon-Levitt’s disbelief-stricken face. He arrives at the harsh realization that his love is a moving force grating up against the immovable object that is her incalculable & unpredictabile nature; he is powerless against her will.

A similar scene must’ve played out in the corporate offices of consumer-electronics multinational Cisco in the last few weeks. Imagine CEO John Chambers (who recently wrote a regretful ‘mea culpa’ note highlighting that the company had disappointed investors and lost credibility) begrudgingly flipping through a report reiterating the fact that the Flip division is no longer a viable business unit…

Opinions change. Paradigms shift. Markets fluctuate. Even a skin designed by the ghost of Van Gogh himself can’t enchant consumers enough to purchase the dud of a product that is the Flip. Don’t take my word for it, read Guy Kawasaki’s latest book.

And so, Cisco issued a release stating that it was “Restructuring Its Consumer Business”, which as you know, is weasel for “we messed up”. As part of its plan, Cisco revealed that it was going to close down its Flip business.

Let’s rewind a few years ago when the Flip’s value proposition was sound – a portable video camera that was cost-effective, sleek, quick, YouTube-ready, USB-enabled. wireless-friendly, etc. and did one thing really well: record videos and share them with friends. It was a great idea in 2006, when DSLR prices were out of range for casual users and the first generation iPhone could only take low-resolution photographs…

But from day one, the window of opportunity was closing for the Flip.

Forward to present day: we’re in the age of Face-Time; DSLR’s are inexpensive; mobile phones feature video cameras so powerful that entire feature films are shot on them. Heck, even introductory phones have video cameras that could put your the family camcorder to shame.

There’s simply no need for the Flip to exist. It’s both humorous and unfortunate that Cisco took so long to step back and realize that no matter how emotionally attached they might’ve been to the project, they had to let it go.

Gordon-Levitt, in dismay, says to Deschanel: “You know what sucks? – Realizing that everything you believe in is complete and utter bullshit…it sucks.”

Here’s to hoping that at the end of it all, Flip still proved to be a profitable venture for Cisco. If not…well…that sucks.

Seamless in-game purchases.

Users can pay $4.99 to buy 50 berries, $11.99 to buy 150 berries and a whopping $59.99 to buy a wheelbarrow of 1,000 berries. The game is clearly targeted towards a child demographic, and as Pocket Gamer speculates, one of the reasons why the game has achieved such financial success is because children are making unwanted purchases through the app. Apparently, the Apple iOS keeps you logged in to your App Store account for 15 minutes after you have inputted your password.

Quick and subtle transactions.

Complicating this scenario is the increasingly blurred concept of actual vs. virtual economies; there’s the concept that you can’t physically “feel” your money depleting as you would in a cash transaction. Fueling that fire, there’s a disproportionate exchange rate between the real and virtual world, often in favour of the latter (ie. $20 = 4000 XBOX Live points).

As a gamer, I invest myself into virtual realities; time that I would’ve used to interface with the “real” world is substituted by time invested into the game’s world. Game dynamics constantly encourage me to upgrade, unlock, and outperform. Such outputs presuppose inputs: time, effort and nowadays, actual money.

The demand for in-game purchases clearly exists. All that is needed is a seamless interface.

Now I’m certainly not in favor of taking advantage of children the way Capcom has (deliberately or inadvertently) with Smurfs’ Village. I am in favour, however, of developers taking full advantage of platform functions which enable them to create seamless in-game purchasing mechanisms for gamers.

Developers need to get into the psyche of gamers and find ways to subtly take their money without drawing too much attention to it. Or atleast mitigate the preceeding doubt or resulting guilt. As a gamer, two ideas that I think would work just fine are:

1) Bundling Credits – Users purchase a set number of credits from a tiered bundle
2) In-Game Vendors – Avatar can buy clothes, weapons, equipment, etc. from non-playable characters or other online players

Now imagine the potential of seamless in-game purchase mechanisms for brands and advertisers…

It’s one of the most common questions heard. It’s often asked as a kind of a reflex.

We find ourselves asking that “What are we doing in mobile?” question just because “it’s the thing to do.”

Mobile is hot.

Everyone has a mobile device.

We have to be in mobile.

What are we going to do in mobile?

But stop and ask yourself, why do you want to be on mobile?

11 questions to ask yourself before you choose to develop a mobile app

How will someone enjoy your service better or differently in mobile? – Is there something about the mobile experience that can heighten the value of your application? When going from the desktop to mobile, the mobile version is often a crippled version because both input and output are limited. Is that sufficient for your application? Would people want/need to have access to your/their content through your app if they were out and about?

Do you just want to be in mobile because it’s the flavor of the day? – I know others have hammered you with the question, “What are you doing in mobile?” and the peer pressure is getting to you. You just have to have something in mobile. Is that the real reason you want a mobile app?

Do you just want to be in mobile to extend the reach of your brand? – It’s understandable that you would want to be in mobile to extend the reach of your brand. How awesome would it be if people had your application on them wherever they went. You could continue the relationship with the customer when they’re away from the desktop. That would be phenomenal marketing and it would keep your customers. Once they’ve installed the application, there’s no additional cost to get them to come to your site/application. Of course you want to build a mobile app, until you start asking yourself these other questions.

Would people really want to put your app on their phone? – According to IPG Labs, average heavy mobile app users only have about ten apps installed on their phone. While people may go to an unlimited number of websites, the reality of mobile app use is actually very limited. Your app is vying for a spot on the user’s phone. Are you creating a compelling reason for the user to download, install, and use your app?

Can your brand withstand a half-assed mobile app? – Oh I know you think your mobile app is going to be awesome. But chances are version 1.0 of your mobile app is going to suck just like version 1.0 of your website sucked. You remember that pile of garbage? For most of us, the first version of our website was crappy (remember “brochureware?”), and the same has been true with mobile apps which often just look like an advertisement for the company’s website or desktop application.

At the early stages of development, when you’re making mistakes, a website is more beneficial than a highly personal and intrusive mobile application that a user elects to install and keep on their phone. If you do create a half-assed mobile app (likely at the beginning), even if it’s a short term experiment, it can do long term damage to your brand. Is it worth it?

Does your opinion of other applications decrease when they don’t have a mobile version? – While a crappy mobile app can do damage to your brand, the lack of one will probably not affect your brand at all, unless it’s critical to your application that you have a mobile component.

Do you need a mobile app or just a mobile-optimized website? – If what you’re trying to do is create a mobile app for your content site, wouldn’t it be better just to create a mobile-optimized website rather than a whole new mobile app?

Do you have access to great developer talent in mobile? – This is a critical issue. If you don’t have the access to talent you’re going to either have to hire a recruiter, spend time looking through tech job boards, cull through resumes, and conduct interviews.

Do you know how to gauge a mobile developer’s talent? – If you’ve never built a mobile app before, or haven’t spent time in that world, your ability to judge talent will be suspect and that unfortunately is going to hurt you down the line.

Are you ready to find the talent and spend the time and money to develop across multiple mobile platforms: iPhone, Android, BlackBerry, and Windows Phone? – The advantage of a web app or desktop app is you don’t have to build across multiple platforms. Even if you’re developing a desktop application, a single PC application will reach 90 percent of your audience. Not the case with mobile. If you want that kind of reach you’ll have to develop across three different application environments. And unfortunately, “build once, run everywhere” was only the promise of Java. It doesn’t work across multiple platforms and it doesn’t work even within Android with its multiple versions across multiple handsets with different functionality and different screen sizes.

Watch my interview with Lino Tadros, CEO of Falafel Software talking about developing across multiple platforms.

Are you willing to spend the money to reach the audience you want? - You need to develop across all these different platforms to get the effective reach you want, plus you’ll have to spend money marketing your application and convincing people to install it on their device.

Before you ask the “What are we doing in mobile?” question, make sure you’ve answered all these above questions first. Mobile is not just the flavor of the day, it’s a major business decision that has new costs and risks associated with it just like anything else.

Creative Commons photo attributions to Kevin Lim (inju), Robert Occhialini (bump), Judy Breck, marcopako.

Are we living in a topsy turvy world? Carriers are willingly allowing applications go after their core revenue model (phone minutes) or eat up their bandwidth (streaming video). For years, in the age of the “anybody can do anything” Internet, carriers have done an excellent job controlling their network: what goes on it, how people use it, and how they charge for it. With the proliferation of smart phones with direct Internet access that can use VoIP services, access to calling plans that undermines the carriers’ pricing (even free) is just an application download away.

In an app-enabled mobile world how long can carriers hold onto their old pricing mechanism for consumers? They can only block Google Voice and Skype for so long. You remember the old adage, the customer is always right? Well, in this new mobile world, the customer is calling the shots. And if you want to keep them, you better revise your revenue model.

Who doesn’t love FREE?

While the cost of making phone calls has dropped dramatically, the wonderment of FREE phone calls still holds true. There are so many services that offer cheap-to-free calls, yet every time another one is announced it’s big news. And with BlackBerry it’s still big news because they’ve got the largest penetration of smartphone users. Much higher than the iPhone.

Free phone calls, even for a short period of time, makes an impact. When I was in Paris, Skype gave us Traveling Geeks a month of international Skype-to-phone calling for free. That was absolutely huge, and it was timed perfectly as I called my wife and parents every night from Paris. What was so powerful about that short promotion (free international calls for one month) is they gave me something that affected me personally. How often can a brand do that? Provide something ongoing or even as a promotion that attaches their brand to a personal intimate experience. Skype did it, and as a result I’m a customer for life. More importantly, I’m telling everyone about it. I’m blogging about it.

Free phone calls are powerful. What can you offer for free, continuously or for just a brief time, that could deliver that impact?

Creative Commons attribution to VoipMAN and re-ality / CC BY 2.0

Layar, which has been the ‘poster child’ for augmented reality smartphone apps, just launched a brand new app in the iPhone’s App Store.  If you’re still at a loss as to the significance of augmented reality, Layar’s own explanation from inside the app explains it well:

“Layar is a tool to browse the world. It enables exploration, more informed decisions, serendipity and fun. [...] While looking through the phone’s camera lens, a user can see houses for sale, popular bars and shops, tourist information of the area, play a live game, etc.”

How it all works

The app retrieves information from third-party developers who contribute their “layers” to the Layar platform. For example, there’s a layer called iMetro, and when it’s selected and you’re standing outside, Layar will display digital overlays of nearby bus stops and the time the next bus is arriving.

Layers are similar to plug-ins that customizes desktop browsers. There are also layers for Yellow Pages, Las Vegas casinos, and Wikipedia. The layers are free, as is the Layar app. However, Layar told Wired.com that after the platform generates enough interest, it might begin charging users for premium layers.

Some marketers have experimented with augmented reality (AR) to promote products through interactive and web-based applications, but AR is still in its infancy stage despite the huge potential it has to make our virtual experience very close to our real world.

Check out this great example from GE:

There’s been endless debate on the subject. Read Mashable’s article on the issue and then their follow up piece on AMP’s apology. Here’s my summary of what PepsiCo/AMP did right and what they did wrong.

What did the PepsiCo/AMP brand do right?

1. They created a controversial application that got people talking.
2. They created an application specifically targeted towards their demographic, young men.
3. When the online anger took off, they immediately responded and apologized if some saw it in bad taste, but that their intention was humorous. Here’s the tweeted apology.
4. They invited feedback.
5. They saw that the discussion was trending on the hashtag #pepsifail and tagged their tweeted apology with it. This first and foremost guaranteed that their apology would be seen, but they also accepted the community decision that this was how this story would be classified.

What did the PepsiCo/AMP brand do wrong?

1. The application’s content was not unique, it just played off of tired stereotypes.
2. It could have been funnier. AXE’s commercials and content are funnier because they create a completely over-the-top male fantasy. And AXE’s content really pokes fun at the male fantasy. This one didn’t really poke fun at male behavior, even though that was AMP’s tweeted intention. Rather it stereotyped women in an often unflattering way.

Having done standup comedy myself I know that offending people is an unfortunate part of the business. It’s hard to get away from it. There are very few comedians that don’t offend anyone. Even Jay Leno who is about as squeaky clean as you get actually has a mean streak as he makes fun of people for their ignorance in his “Jaywalking” segments.

Ultimately, was this application, the community response, and AMP’s response successful? I think it was successful for the following reasons.

1. I didn’t even know what AMP energy drink was before this happened. I’ve now “discovered” AMP.
2. Nobody died and they had an open and honest dialogue with the community about the application, and their intention. They didn’t cave to pressure and pull the application down (the usual response). Rather they engaged in a very open conversation. We’ve seen true social media failures where the communications department runs in around in circles trying to hide their mistake. Those epic failures live on as what not to do in social media. This will not live as one of those examples. Instead this case will live on as an example of how to spin a mistake into a win in social media.
3. They got TRAFFIC! As of Friday last week all of 150 people had download the program. Today, Wednesday, they have over 17,000 downloads, according to an AMP spokesperson I talked with. UPDATE: I talked with the AMP spokesman again, and it turns out those numbers are very dated. As of Thursday morning they had nearly 77,000 downloads of which 75,854 came AFTER the story broke on Mashable. They’re now the #2 free entertainment application, and #12 overall in free applications.

What do you think? Can you argue with success like that? Do you think the PepsiCo/AMP iPhone application was a success or a failure?

Let me show you some examples:

BlackBerry app more expensive than iPhone app

iPhone/iPod

BlackBerry

iPhone app more expensive that BlackBerry app

iPhone/iPod

BlackBerry

iPhone and BlackBerry app priced exactly the same

iPhone/iPod

BlackBerry

While both BlackBerry and iTunes have many free apps, only iTunes seems to have inventory of $.99 apps. With BlackBerry, after free, the applications cost $2.99 and up. Most wouldn’t think much between $1 and $3, but that is THREE TIMES AS MUCH.

A few top selling $.99 iPhone applications

In this sample I only looked at games, not productivity applications. When you get into that space the price varies even more widely, especially when you start comparing Windows Mobile applications which back in the day could cost hundreds of dollars on Handango. Now productivity applications have come down to a more reasonable arena of about $29, but it’s still violently more expensive than other applications. I’m just confused as to why the pricing of the mobile applications have no rhyme or reason to them. I don’t track the gaming market that closely, but I can say that when a game is released on the three major platforms (XBOX 360, PS3, Wii) it’s priced the same. So why isn’t it the same for mobile platforms?

Possible explanations for the complete inconsistency in mobile application pricing:

• Who cares? It’s usually less than $5.
• Nobody is deciding between an iPhone or a BlackBerry app. They’re deciding whether they’re going to get the app at all, so they never compare prices on other platforms.
• The cost of applications is never a deciding factor when purchasing a mobile device.
• Pricing for mobile applications is far from settled. We’re all still in a “figuring it out phase.”

Got some other explanation? Let me know.