The Playbook is critical to the development of the new Blackberry platform. Even if it sells poorly (as it has) RIM has to support it and develop it to provide a base for new products.

It is very trendy these days to knock Research in Motion and its still ubiquitous Blackberry brand, but I think many of the critics have it wrong. My reasoning is fairly long and involved, so bear with me.

The standard analysis goes something like this:

Not too long ago RIM realized it was falling behind in the smartphone wars and that it was too dependent upon its business customers. So the guys who run RIM decided it was time to go after the much larger consumer market, which meant taking on Apple and Android (Google). But since Apple and Android are much larger and have much greater resources, this was a battle which RIM could not possibly win or even have much of a chance of competing in. So it is not surprising that they have not been able to pull themselves out of the tail spin they’ve been in for the last 12 months.

This is the kind of analysis we generally hear from tech writers whose insight goes back all of two or three years, or from investment advisors who know very little about technology or product development, and whose attention is fixed only on the direction share prices are likely to go in the next 6 months.

The Apple Example

The background story, of course, is the success of Apple. Fans of Apple are as fervent now as they have ever been, and are quite a bit more numerous than they were 10 or 15 years ago. Steve Jobs, we are told, was a visionary who changed the way we view the world. Apple products don’t just look nice and work well, but they redefine what it means to be a human living in the early part of the 21st century.

But there is another, more realistic, and more instructive way to look at the success of Apple. Yes, there is the design thing, but I suspect that is not nearly as profound an aspect of the success of Apple as the iFans make it out to be.

Apple has always tried to convince the world of its superior design, and by extension the superior intelligence and taste of its customers. But for many years Apple products – in spite of their presumed superiority and beautiful design – have been niche products. Apple computers have never owned more than about 15% of the worldwide desktop computer market, and depending on whose stats you believe that number still hovers at between 10% and 15%.

In fact, for those who don’t know their history, in spite of the alleged genius of Jobs and his superior products, Apple was in fairly deep trouble in the late 1990s. So much so, that in 1997 they signed a pact with the devil himself – Bill Gates. As a result, Microsoft bought 150 million shares of Apple in exchange for an agreement that, among other things, new Mac computers would be loaded with Microsoft Internet Explorer.

The Success of Apple

But that was then, and this is now, and in the interim, Apple must have done a few thing right to make themselves the company they are today.

To make a long story short, what Apple did in the very early 2000s was redefine an already existing product concept, uncover a previously untapped market, and gradually use that initial product concept as the basis – the “platform” – for an entire line of successful and highly profitable products.

Ironically, this very successful platform was not the Mac. It was the iPod. With the iPod Jobs took a relatively boring product – the personal music player – and used it as the basis for a line of products that has revolutionized the music and telecommunications industries, and to some degree at least, the entertainment business.

Because when you think of it, virtually all of Apple’s successful products since the early 2000′s have just been spinoffs from that original iPod – including the iPhone and iPad. They have taken the same basic concept and developed it upward into more complex products like the iPhone and iPad, downward into more simple products like the iPod Nano, and laterally into the highly profitable iTunes service. In so doing Apple has been able to expand and exploit a market niche that previously was poorly defined but, in retrospect, exploding with potential.

It’s about the platform

What I take from this little historical overview is that Apple has been successful because they developed a successful platform. The “platform” was “successful” because, first, it worked; second, it found a fruitful niche; third, it was appealing to that niche; and fourth it was expandable into other closely related products that appealed to that same niche, while expanding the niche upwards, downwards, and sideways.

It is this last point that makes it a “platform” and not just a “product” – the ability to take that initial product and create other similar but different products without having to reinvent the wheel.

Can RIM pull off a similar remaking of themselves?

The big questions is whether RIM has the kind of platform that can be relatively easily expanded into profitable niche products? They certainly did a few years ago. They virtually invented mobile messaging, and in a very Apple-like way they kept the most important components in-house – especially the secure push technology that is still at the heart of its appeal to business, governments, and other large organizations.

The problem is, RIM has not done much with their “platform” since those early days. They have not used it to develop successful spinoff products that bring new and exciting capabilities to their millions and millions of customers.

Yes, it’s true they have a wide range of phones with various levels of functionality, but they still remain essentially messaging devices. Their most aggressive improvements to their phones have been essentially copycat features – trying to catch up to the competition with touch screens and better web browsing. But they continue to fall short because the BB OS is outdated, has very few apps like those available for their competitors.

They also have virtually no chance of catching those competitors with these updated phones (the new Bold and Torch) because the current OS is a dead end and cannot attract developers because of that. Even RIM essentially has admitted so much because they have made it clear that their new generation of phones will have a brand new OS.

RIM’s new platform

This is why the Playbook is so important to the development of RIM’s new platform. And why they cannot afford to ditch the product even if its sales are disappointingly meager. They can’t ditch it because it is the “field of dreams” for their new platform.

The Playbook already uses the new QNX operating system that is RIM’s future, Even if they eventually do scuttle the Playbook in its current form it will have served one of its purposes. Not to be a profit centre in itself (although that would have been nice for RIM), but to be a developmental platform where the new OS can be given real world exposure. Where it can be tested, and upgraded, and where independent developers can target their app-building efforts.

This is why it has been a smart move by RIM to slash the price of their existing inventory of Playbooks. One way or another they are going to have to pay for development costs. One way or another they are going to have to build a user base for their new product line. One way or another they are going to have to provide an incentive to app developers. And seeding the market with Playbooks is actually a pretty good way of doing all these things.

So whatever you want to say about RIM’s beleaguered leadership, you have to give them credit for this. They recognized the need for an updated platform. They went out and bought one in early 2010. And less than 12 months after that they released a brand new product (the Playbook) sporting that OS.

Yes, the Playbook has been disappointing in some ways, but even after almost a year of trial and error marketing, poor sales, and slashed prices, the developmental facts remain the same. RIM needs a new platform and the Playbook is their prototype for all the products that will be developed in the future. This is why the Playbook is for RIM what the iPod was for Apple back in 2003.

Developing the new platform – which way to go?

I suspect that RIM will not try to beat Apple and Android at their own game. I suspect, and I hope, they will take a different course. Mobile phones with lots of browsing and game-playing capabilities are important. But they are not the be-all and end-all of electronic gadgets. While they appeal to a huge, rapidly-expanding market, products sold to that market will become less and less profitable, and more difficult to differentiate from their competitors.

What the success of Apple has demonstrated is that profits are to be made in niche markets with semi-dedicated devices (like the iPod). These can be dumbed-down low cost versions of the basic platform, or they can be tarted-up versions that can be sold at much higher margins. This same marketing strategy has been used by major car manufacturers for almost 100 years.

There are all kinds of niche markets that can use dedicated or semi-dedicated devices. The most obvious examples are many of RIM’s own dedicated messaging devices. But there are others: tablets used as operating manuals for upscale cars; eReaders like the Kindle, and many more.

There is an almost limitless number of niches that could use dedicated devices: Golf carts with simple GPS systems; ambulances with dedicated devices running completely customized software; special units running high grade apps designed for the construction industry, the financial industry, the music industry, the food services industry, etc., etc., etc.

Many people think Apple has these markets locked up, but a lot of these same people thought that about RIM a few years ago. At one time Microsoft looked unassailable. Not so much anymore. Even Google is scrambling to stay ahead of the curve – threatened by the paradigm shift known as social media. Things change. New things quickly become old. It’s a big world with lots of opportunities, and it is getting bigger every day.

The game for RIM is far from over. If they can successfully develop a platform that allows the sort of upward, downward, and lateral product development that Apple has engaged in for the last number of years, they could be well on their way to a completely rejuvenated future.

Of course having a rejuvenated platform is not enough. They need imagination and innovation in order to develop products that appeal to markets not yet tapped out, and not yet developed. Only time will tell if they can pull it off.

A few times every week a police cruiser goes “cruising” at high speed through our little town, sirens howling. Some times there are serious accidents “up at the corner”, other times they are (apparently) just on important police business. The kind of importance that requires them to speed through the main intersection of a little town where people are often trying to cross at the light. Police have privileges, after all.

They are also below average drivers. According to this report

“…so many Halton [Oakville and area] police cruisers have been involved in exceedingly dumb (and easily avoidable) crashes that the force has actually instituted a mandatory 90-minute online driving course in an effort to curb collisions.

According to a report in the Toronto Star, in the first six months of this year, Halton police cars were involved in 70 accidents, at a cost of $158,780 in damage to the cruisers. Four cruisers were write-offs – which isn’t good news from a procurement-perspective considering Ford just wrapped up production of the Crown Vic last month.”

The OPP have also introduced mandatory driver training, no doubt for similar reasons.

Gee I feel a lot better about those speeding cruisers now.

Canadians are a bit dumbfounded by the convoluted process involved in grappling with the current US debt ceiling crisis. Americans are being told “your government will run out of money if we don’t solve this problem” (raising the debt ceiling). So what results is brinkmanship and potential paralysis if the two (three?) sides can’t agree before some magical deadline.

In the Canadian parliamentary system a party governing with a clear majority in the House of Commons would just pass legislation to get the job done. That would be that. Given the weak structure of our Senate there is very little anybody could do about it.

I’ve read commentaries that say this demonstrates the superiority of the Canadian system. But I think exactly the opposite is the case. If you know anything about British constitutional history you will know that the supreme power of parliament has devolved from the supreme power of the monarch. Four or five hundred years ago a British monarch could more or less do what he or she wanted (levy taxes, wage wars, raise armies, create nobles, build castles, etc., etc.) That power was gradually wrested away from the monarch and vested in Parliament.

This demonstrates both some of the strengths and some of the weaknesses of an evolved system of government like that of Britain (and by extension, Canada). On the plus side such a system retains continuity with the past and knows what has worked and what has not. On the negative side it is very difficult to modify or get rid of traditions or assumptions (the absolute power of the ruler, for example) that may not fit current conditions, or are no longer morally justifiable.

The founders of the American system obviously worked within British traditions, but they were intent on rejecting the arbitrary power of the monarch. Given that starting point they gave themselves a more or less blank slate. If you know a little bit about American history you know that the balance of opposing powers was viewed as a critical component of the system – necessary for not letting any one branch or section of the government become too powerful.

The current debt ceiling crisis demonstrates the way these counter-balancing elements within the U.S. government work. The President does not have the power to simply do what he pleases (unlike the Canadian PM in a majority situation). There must be agreement between the President and Congress.

But getting the approval of Congress requires satisfying two different “houses”, which, in this case, are controlled by different parties with what seem to be radically different points of view. And even more confusing, one of those houses – the House of Representatives – is controlled by a party (the Republicans) that is seriously split between traditionalists and a more radical “change” oriented group.

What we have seen over the last few weeks is how the American democracy works. A relatively small group of radicals (The Tea Party Republicans) have tried to stand by their principles – the ones they were elected to promote – and in so doing have thwarted the apparent will of the majority.

But not really, since ultimately the majority has gotten its way. Furthermore, the compromise that has emerged is probably fairly close to what what most Americans can agree to.

Unless you are died-in-the-wool “majority rules” true believer, a compromise like this seems like a pretty democratic result. The dissenters (elected by “the people”) have had their views taken seriously. The Republicans have made a strong case for their position and clearly defined their “bottom line”. And the Democrats have put forward the kind of compromise that can get enough support from moderate Republicans to get passed.

All in all, I’d say a pretty “democratic” process.

Don’t you get tired of hearing about the “Liberal brand”? It comes up in editorials and TV commentaries all the time. We never hear about the “NDP brand” or the “Conservative brand” or the “Green brand” (unless you’re talking about a sticker you put on appliances.) Just the “Liberal brand”.

Somebody in the media started talking this way, and like good little lemmings so many of those who write about or comment on Canadian politics parrot the expression (nice mixed metaphor, eh?) Ironically, now that the status of the Liberal party has been diminished and their “brand” is just about all that’s left, parroting pundits will probably stop talking about it.

It was interesting watching the election coverage on the CBC last night. I think they did about 7 interviews with NDPers and maybe 3 with Conservatives. According to the coverage, the big story was the “orange crush” of the NDP.

But once reality sets in time will demonstrate that there is not much substance to the NDP’s success. Quebec maintained its stance of the last 20 years as the region-that-supported-the-other-guys. As I suggested yesterday, Layton will have even less impact now than he had before. Now that Harper has demonstrated he does not need Quebec to win a majority, Layton will have to take upon himself the Duceppian mantle of protector of Quebec’s interests. The NDP will now be dominated by young Quebecers and I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Layton is replaced before the next election.

I believe this also makes it less likely that the Liberals will merge with the NDP although (obviously) I may completely wrong on that score.

Ignatieff made it clear last night that he was prepared to stay on as leader and fight to rebuild the party. But others in the party wanted to get the bloodletting over as quickly as possible. Bob Rea is salivating for a shot at the top job, and no doubt in his own mind is perfectly positioned to be a mover and shaker in the “unite the left” movement. In other words, the “uniters” have the upper hand at the moment.

But I don’t see Layton going for it. The only thing that would move him in that direction would be his own inability to run the radically realigned NDP caucus. If Layton cannot hold onto his (abnormal) support in Quebec, as well as turn last night’s gains into traction in the rest of the country his days as leader will be numbered.

Surely the centrists in the Liberal party are thinking the same thing. So they will hang on until the NDP starts to fall apart and then negotiate from a position of relative strength. The best case scenario for both the Liberal Party and the country will be a rejuvenated party with a more realistic appreciation for changing national interests. If they can put behind themselves their traditional subservience to Quebec and focus on appealing to the West they have a chance to survive and come back in a big way.

The present belongs to the Conservatives

So the big story both of today and the next few years is one of realignment. As of right now the present belongs to Harper and the Conservatives, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s a good thing. As Andrew Coyne said a number of times last night, there has been a realignment of power blocks in Canada with Ontario joining forces with the West for the first time in Canadian history.

This will make for greater stability – something we should all benefit from – and I will be very surprised if Harper pursues some kind of right wing “hidden agenda”. The agenda of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party has never been hidden. They have made a point of saying from day 1 that it was all about realignment – breaking down the Ontario/Quebec monopoly of power in Canada (manifested in the Liberal Party) and giving the West its appropriate level of influence.

Of course there has always been a strong whiff of “social conservatism” attached to the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives, but strategically for Harper those have been secondary concerns.

I just can’t see that changing. Harper is unlikely to force the issue on things like abortion or the death penalty – even though these are near to the hearts of many right wingers. Harper will focus on the economy, and possibly reformation of the Senate. He may even call a truce with Layton in order to gain brownie points in Quebec. All of these are good things.

Here’s a great video of President Obama “roasting” Donald Trump at a recent Washington Correspondent’s dinner:

Something has gone awry in the Conservative push for a majority over the last two weeks. That the NDP have made it a game is not news anymore. Why this is happening is another question.

Blame the media, sort of

The Canadian media have been a big part of this story. Everyone in Canada knows that the mainstream media – with the CBC leading the charge – are, shall we say, just a bit biased towards the left of the spectrum. But IMHO even more important is their lack of detailed reporting and analytical depth.

I am certainly not what you would consider a CBC hater. The Toronto CBC station is my default, and has been ever since I remember my dad listening to “Voice of the Pioneer” Sunday mornings back in the 60s.

In the last few years I’ve become more critical of the way “serious” journalism on both CBC radio and TV has become concentrated in the hands of very few on air personnel. The predominance and omnipresence of Peter Mansbridge is the best example.

Or consider their “At Issue” panel that regularly comments on Canadian politics. The same 4 people present the same point of view week after week. Isn’t there anybody else in Canada with something a bit different to say on these issues?

The focus is on strategy, not policy

Most of the political discussions we hear at the national level are not about policies or actual issues. They are about strategy. In their attempt to appear more or less neutral between political viewpoints our national media do not do a very good job when it comes to substance. At least not directly.

For example, the whole run up to this election was about the motives of the various parties for wanting an election, or how Harper can manipulate things to achieve a majority.

As far as I can tell, the majority of the coverage during the election has not been about alternative policy proposals. It has been about polls, and most lately about the surge of NDP support. But you will have to look very hard for a critical analysis of actual policy proposals in the Canadian media. How about those thousands of doctors Layton is going to hire? How about the real cost of those jets Harper is buying? How about the real story behind the deficits of the last couple of years?

The resurging NDP

So how do we explain the renewed supprot for the NDP? First, there’s no doubt there is a large contingent of Canadians who believe increased government involvement in our daily lives would be a good thing. At the same time one gets the impression that most of us – apparently including many party strategists – have no idea of the complexity and delicately balanced nature of the economy.

The NDP and Liberal proposals regarding the corporate tax rate are a case in point. According to Jack Layton raising the corporate tax rate will bring in an easily calculated amount of revenue for the new doctors and other goodies Layton is going to give us. Sure Jack.

It is hard to believe most Canadians actually believe these “promises”. What they must see in Layton is a relatively fresh character with a more positive, sunny, less desperate attitude – the privilege of never having to seriously contemplate winning.

But what has really happened is that Quebec has shucked off the tired appeals of the BQ and gone for the only left-leaning federalist party that has not embarrassed itself over the last couple of decades. It is not hard to see why the Liberals have fallen out of favour in Quebec. And it is not difficult to see why the Conservatives do not appeal to left-leaning Quebecers.

And since voter trends in Quebec tend to influence how people in Ontario vote we are seeing a relatively important rise in NDP support in Ontario as well. Odd, but true.

Likely scenarios

The increase in NDP representation in Parliament will likely have two important effects. I think Harper is right about the effect this will have in another minority government. Layton will push hard for increased spending and higher taxes. Harper will either have to agree, or go down to defeat, thus opening the door to the much reviled “coalition” and the potentially reckless economic policies that will involve.

Second, Layton will have to pander more seriously to Quebec interests because much of his new base will be from there. In a majority situation this may relieve Harper of the need to do his own Quebec pandering. He can just let Jack do it, and do his best to ignore him.

In a minority situation things will be different. He will actually have to pay attention to Layton’s Quebec representatives – much as he has had to pay attention to the BQ. From the Quebec point of view this is a good thing, so it makes sense for them to vote NDP this time around. For whatever reason(s) this seems to be the conclusion many Quebecers have arrived at.

What will Liberals do?

The wild card in all of this is the reaction of traditional Liberal party supporters in tomorrow’s election. While it is true that Liberal support seems to have been significantly reduced, it is not obvous that traditional Liberals will end up voting for the NDP.

Many pundits assume that the natural home of disaffected Liberals is on the left, and the polls seem to support this. But come election day things may be different. Many traditional Liberals are centrists and a significant number of them are quite conservative.

Nor is it obvious that Liberals in parliament will be more inclined to vote with the NDP than with the Conservatives. In a minority parliament with the NDP as official Opposition many Liberals will be concerned with maintaining their own identity rather than enhancing the status of the NDP. The motivation for pretending to be a hard left party will be gone. Ignatieff can go back to being himself.

While a few Liberals have openly talked of a Liberal-NDP merger, many more will not support such a move – especially when they are at their weakest. In such a merger the once proud Liberal party will be reduced to an NDP splinter group – very much like what happened to the Progressive Conservative party when they merged with the Reform/Alliance a few years ago.

For Liberals it is not a good time to vote NDP. They would be better off to let Harper get his majority, and attempt a rebuilding process as the “big tent” centrist party they have always been.

Watch the full episode. See more FRONTLINE.

It turns out my instincts were right back when I was in Grade 11 and trying out for my high school football team. I’m not sure what got into me that year, but I thought it was worth a shot.

But after getting regularly tromped on in practice and having my head mashed against some gorilla’s padding a few times, I figured there were better ways to have fun.

In spite of the obvoius dangers (and discomfort) inherent in high school football its popularity is on the rise. There’s no doubt it can be a challenge and an exhilarating experience to be part of a well-oiled team. But the dangers to young players are real.

More real than ever as entertainment money gets involved. It is just the incentive needed to drive sports-crazy parents to push their kids to be ever more competitive.

This documentary from Frontline (PBS) takes a look at hyper competitive football in a small Arkansas town. The Frontline website also has more information about hard hits, brain damage, heatstroke and other things to look out for when you or your kids are playing serious football.

Watching the leaders debate last night (the English version) I had the distinct impression that Harper “won” – at least in the sense that he presented the strongest case for why the Conservatives should continue running the party. The only other credible alternative is the Liberals, and Ignatieff had a difficult time IMHO saying just exactly what the Libs would do if they were to form the government.

It is not difficult to see why people are ambivalent (or downright negative) about Ignatieff. He is obviously a very intelligent guy and could probably do a decent job as PM, but he just has a difficult time saying anything specific. Perhaps it is because he is an academic, who by nature usually don’t like to oversimplify things. So instead of suggesting specific things he would do if he was in power, he is big on vague proposals like the “Family Pack”.

I am aware the FPak contains what sound like specifics, but we all know the Liberals will not do at least half of what they “promise” to do. So the Liberal position basically boils down to “We like Canadian families. We’ll help Canadian families.” This is just an updated version of the Paul Martin claim back in 2006 that the Liberals “represent Canadian values” and the Conservatives do not. Every party claims to “represent Canadian values”, but the Liberals are especially shifty and self-righteous about it.

The federal Liberals under Michael Ignatieff have issued a big chunk of their election platform. It is being called the “Liberal Family Pack” because it contains many “family-friendly” goodies: help for families with college-bound kids, more child care spaces, time off for family caregivers, pumped up CPP payments, and help for people wanting to make their homes “greener” by adding insulation, etc.

As John Ivison reports in the National Post – Liberal ‘Family Pack’ no bargain the new red book proposals are not all they seem. Many have been recycled from previous campaigns or lifted from the other parties.

As Ivison says, paying for the goodies in the Liberal plan will come from increased revenues due to the Liberal pledge to increase the corporate tax rate. That rate has been steadily reduced by Harper. It now stands at 16.5% and is slated to move down to 15% next year. Ignatieff wants to move it back to 18%.

But the expected revenue from this increase is far from a slam dunk. Increasing the corporate tax rate will have a difficult to predict impact on corporate investment. The negative impact could be as much as $50 billion according to Jack Mintz of the School of Policy Studies at the University of Calgary. And you can be sure that if the overall Canadian economy grows less because of the tax increase than it otherwise would have, the net cost of the Liberal program will be greater than predicted.