Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chinese Telecom Company Launches 'RedBerry'

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the friends-in-your-corner dept.

287

Ubergrendle writes "The Globe&Mail is reporting that Chinese telecom company China Unicom Ltd. is launching a new wireless device unapologetically named 'Redberry'. This comes in the wake of an almost 2 year regulatory delay blocking the introduction of RIM's Blackberries to mainland China. Certainly this delay was convenient to China Unicom, if not deliberately staged to allow for domestic competition."

cancel ×

287 comments

TFA...No excuse not to read it now. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109179)

China's got RedBerry
Cheaper rival hits the market on eve of RIM's long-delayed debut

GEOFFREY YORK AND SIMON AVERY

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

BEIJING and TORONTO -- On the eve of its long-delayed China launch, BlackBerry is facing a sudden challenge from a cheaper Chinese rival called, unapologetically, RedBerry.

The new service, aimed squarely at BlackBerry, was launched this month by China Unicom Ltd., the state-controlled telecommunications giant that ranks as China's second-biggest mobile operator.

The new RedBerry service could pose a major challenge to Research in Motion Ltd., which is planning to launch BlackBerry in China by the end of next month. Its China launch has been delayed by two years of negotiations and regulatory obstacles, and RedBerry has now been introduced ahead of it.

China Unicom left no doubt that it is brazenly attempting to capitalize on BlackBerry's global fame.

"The RedBerry name extends the vivid name of BlackBerry that people are already familiar with, and it also combines the new red symbol of China Unicom," the company said in a press release.

China Unicom spokesmen refused to comment yesterday on whether they expected any disputes over trademark infringement. RIM did not respond to requests for comment made through its New York-based public-relations firm.

The new China service is the same basic "push-mail" concept as BlackBerry, automatically sending e-mail to the customer's phone whenever a new message arrives, although it does not use a proprietary handset. Instead it uses the CDMA digital cellphones that China Unicom is already marketing.

A state-owned newspaper, China Daily, said China Unicom's decision to call its product the RedBerry is "a clear sign that the firm is ready to challenge the BlackBerry push-mail service." Another Chinese business publication said China Unicom is "taking up the hatchet" against BlackBerry.

In its press release, China Unicom acknowledges that BlackBerry is "the most successful application of push mail." But a standard five-megabyte e-mail account at RedBerry will cost less than a dollar a month, plus a few cents for each e-mail sent. A typical BlackBerry account in Hong Kong costs up to $64 (U.S.) per month for unlimited e-mail.

"From RIM's point of view, this is rather disturbing," a Canadian business consultant in Beijing said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "It's obviously a copycat name. It's a fairly clever example of brand piracy."

RIM announced plans to crack the Chinese market in the first quarter of 2002, and it has already begun selling BlackBerry in Hong Kong. But despite signing a memorandum of understanding with China Mobile in 2004, it has faced lengthy delays in launching in mainland China.

Last week, RIM said it would launch its China service with China Mobile by the end of May. But it said it will target only multinational corporations and others in China who already have BlackBerrys.

One reason for the two-year delay, according to an Ontario government source, is China's concern that the high-level encryption technology in the BlackBerrys could make it difficult for China's security authorities to gain access to e-mail messages. Chinese security agents routinely monitor e-mail messages on China's Internet servers.

Another rival to BlackBerry will be offered soon by China Mobile, which will launch "PushMail" in Shanghai next month. PushMail will allow customers to use e-mail on their existing mobile phones.

Cellphone use in China has soared in recent years, with an estimated 404 million mobile phone subscribers in China today. The market for wireless value-added services in China is expected to skyrocket from $5.7-billion today to $13-billion within three years.

Brand piracy remains rampant in China, despite several court rulings against illegal imitators. In December, Starbucks won a court ruling against a Shanghai coffee shop that was using a similar logo and an identical Chinese translation of the Starbucks name. It won $62,000 in damages from the Shanghai imitator, but an appeal has been filed.

Ferrero, the Italian confectioner, won a court case in January against a Chinese rival that produced copies of its Ferrero Rocher chocolates.

The likelihood of confusion between BlackBerry and RedBerry among consumers would seem high enough for RIM to have a good case. And the company's position would probably be enhanced in a Chinese court if China Mobile joined any action against RedBerry, said Paul Devinsky, a partner at the Washington, D.C., law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. Ultimately, any legal fight would hinge on who registered the trademark and service mark for BlackBerry first in China, he said.

The company has used lawyers to defend the BlackBerry name before. Last year, it sued Massachusetts-based BackOffice Associates after the firm named some of its software "CranBerry."

RIM has been pursuing a foothold in the enormous Chinese wireless market in fits and starts for years. The real challenge seems to be getting an acceptable revenue-sharing business model in place, said Ellen Daley, principal analyst with Forrester Research in Cambridge, Mass.

In Western markets, RIM collects a service fee from the phone companies of about $8 a month per user. In return, RIM runs the wireless traffic through its secure and efficient operating centre in Waterloo, Ont. Other technology firms have found cheaper methods of transmitting wireless data that bypass a centrally managed hub, but RIM's system is considered the premium version.

Chinese companies are looking at RIM's leading technology and saying they want a cheaper method that doesn't involve sharing so much of the profit, Ms. Daley said.

"I don't think RIM's expansion plans in China, in terms of the business user, is in significant jeopardy because of RedBerry," she said. "But if they had designs to go after the consumer side, that's where a lower-cost product is going to make a significant difference."

No Picture (1, Interesting)

Ecko7889 (882690) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109189)

No picture in article (-1, Uninformative)

Re:No Picture (2, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109290)

I just thought the same and went hunting around.

According to what I could find, the handset is the Daxian Cu928 [daxiantelecom.com]

At least according to this older (November '05) article [prnewswire.com] about the redberry.

Re:No Picture (2, Funny)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109310)

No picture in article

One could guess it's like a Blackberry, but Red.

Re:No Picture (3, Funny)

kaptron (850747) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109567)

RedBerry 5 is aliiiive! [radium.com]

Well that's how I pictured it, anyhow.

FIRST POST (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109191)

FIRST POST

Raspberry would have been better! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109192)

Raspberry would have been better!

The question remains... (1)

Joey Patterson (547891) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109195)

Will RedBerry turn out to be a RaspBerry in China?

Cheap competition (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109198)

I guess the rise in wealth in China and India due to outsourcing is now going to bite us in the ass if this product is alot cheaper than the blackberry because its %100 made in China.

Re:Cheap competition (2, Insightful)

horologium (956654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109416)

China was making products that were competitive with First-World versions long before the recent increases in the relative wealth of the inhabitants of Shanghai. (Almost none of which is attributed to outsourcing, the booming economy of China is a little more involved than that.) If a tiny proportion more of the people in India and China are now able to afford luxury items that increases the demand for such items for all manufacturers, including First-World ones. Manufacturers in China would be crazy to neglect the burgeoning local market for these sorts of toys, and if they can fulfil an international market for them, why wouldn't they?

No copycat hardware (4, Informative)

EmbeddedJanitor (597831) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109515)

RTFA. Redberry uses an existing cellphone as the device and does not require special Blackberry-style hardware. All this does is mail forwarding to an existing cell phone. All this is involved is a small incremental service cost. No need for the huge Blackberry costs.

The branding copycatting charge is a bit thin. Most people should be easily able to tell the difference between the two. It's certainly less confusing than Lindows.

China not really competitive (1)

mollog (841386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109601)

The remarks in the teaser that points to the article have a certain zenophobic tone to them. It has been a long standing tradition of nations to protect certain markets from competition. For examples, America, Inc. has been protecting the auto industry (tarrifs on trucks), farmers and ranchers, and other politically connected businesses from foreign competition. Why should we care if China protects some little segment?


And the worry about being dominated by China or India is unfounded. China has some extremely serious problems facing them. And they know it, and they're taking steps to prepare. And India? Please. I wish them the best, but their culture handicaps them in a competitive market. We'll recover from the outsourcing, including the middle class, and we'll find them a congenial partner in the world economy.


We have more problems dealing with Mexico than with China or India.

Re:Cheap competition (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109606)

I think it will bite us, the western world, in the ass. It is part of a larger scheme on the part of China not only to be relevant, but to be a dominant economic and technological force. They already know we rely on them for cheap manufacturing. They already know they fund the U.S.'s massive deficit. Where do you think we get money to make up the difference in our federal budget? A large portion comes from bonds sold to foreign nations, of which China is a big player. They are holding our leash. They can yank us around any time they want, but for now, we are more useful to them if we both cooperate.

Notice that RedBerry is partially owned by the Chinese state, and while the article mentioned trademark cases, intellectual property "piracy" in China runs rampant under the nose of the government there. I doubt BlackBerry will have much of a choice but to accept this. Even when they enter the market there won't be much comptetition. Sure, they will sell some units and services, but really only so China can learn from it and make their RedBerry better. This is one piece of the puzzle. China does this with most products we export to them. Eventually they will catch up and even surpass our technological innovations, making the U.S. irrelevant and China the leader. It happened with Japan, it is sort of happening with Korea, and it will happen with China. The difference is, China is more isolationist. While all three of those countries use the U.S. for their own ends, China is the only one that, in the end, doesn't care what happens to us. Japan and Korea, at least, value us as a trade partner.

This is just another part of the bleak side of globalization. Welcome to the new milennium!

Leave it to China (5, Interesting)

42Penguins (861511) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109199)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at the name "RedBerry." Does the "awakening dragon" suddenly have a sense of humor??
It sounds like something a college kid would make up as a prank and try to sell.
There's gotta be some marketing exec in Beijing reading the paper and going "ROFL" over this...

Re:Leave it to China (1)

Dr Caleb (121505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109238)

No, laugh. 'Redberries' are unripe 'Blackberries'.

Redberries (1)

hackwrench (573697) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109637)

I thought Redberrys were raspberrys or... don't want to research red colored berries in the time to post this article, but there are others.

Re:Leave it to China (3, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109294)

It sounds like something a college kid would make up as a prank and try to sell.

Hmm, I think the kid would have called it Dingleberry...

Re:Leave it to China (1)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109398)

>> Hmm, I think the kid would have called it Dingleberry...

No, that's the Irish [dingle-region.com] version.

They should have waited a few weeks... (1)

sczimme (603413) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109419)


They should have waited a few weeks, then they could have called it the MayBerry. They could have launched the product as an homage to the town's peacekeeper [npr.org] .

(I would have linked to his official site [donknotts.tv] but the site blurb still mentions "upcoming performances". Whoops.)

Re:Leave it to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109502)

I would have thought the Chinese would call it "LedBelly". (Then again, that might get confused with a blues musician's name...)

Re:Leave it to China (1, Funny)

Firehed (942385) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109543)

Fine. I've got dibs on BlueBerry. Capitalization makes all the difference!

Re:Leave it to China (5, Informative)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109320)

From one of the articles I read, the Redberry name is just a nickname for the "Uni Pushmail" software running on the phones.

The first wave of Daxian CU-928 Pocket PC phones
bundled with Uni PushMail software has started pouring into the market. Not
to be outdone by the internationally renowned Blackberry, the Redberry, as
Uni PushMail is nicknamed, flourishes in the Chinese telecom value-added
service sector.


see previous post for link to full article.

Re:Leave it to China (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109381)

Where's the humor? "Red" appears in all kinds of Chinese product names, including Red Flag Linux [tuxpost.de] . China may have become a capitalistic superpower, but officially, they're still a Marxist state [people.com.cn] .

Re:Leave it to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109626)

The color red has traditionally represented good luck in Chinese culture. That has been the case for thousands of years before China learned about communism and marxism from the West.

Re:Leave it to China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109499)

There's gotta be some marketing exec in Beijing reading the paper and going "ROFL" over this...

YOU MISPLEED "ROFR"

Why is blackberry so unique? (4, Insightful)

jimmyhat3939 (931746) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109222)

What I don't understand is the pervasiveness of the Blackberry product for email. Email is an extremely simple application for a client to do, requiring just a simple TCP/IP stack and the ability to do either POP3 or IMAP. I believe that most cellphones now have some email capability built into them. Also, there exist plenty of WAP web-based email platforms out there.

That leaves just the mini-keyboard interface as the big deal in the space. Personally, I'm not all that impressed by that as an input mechanism. But, if people like it, why isn't it copied all over the place? Is the concept of a little QWERTY keyboard seriously patented? Also, what about all those other ideas like having two letters assigned to each keyboard button and then having the phone sort it out based on what it thinks you're probably trying to type? Or something like a chording keyboard (though that would require learning)?

So anyway, what's the big deal with Blackberry in particular. Why is this stuff so hard/interesting/compelling?

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109284)

I used to wonder the same thing. The closest I've ever heard to an explanation is that Blackberry's "product" is less the little handsets but the infrastructure that the cellular carriers use to provide email service. Apparently BB is very easy to deploy, and they have patents on some rather vague concepts regarding (don't quote me on this exactly) where the email is cached. I think the crux of it is that when a cell carrier deploys a BB system, they don't have to dick around with actually running the mailservers or anything else; it's a very holistic/'total package' type solution from their perspective.

Now why somebody else doesn't just make a similar network and market it to the cell carriers, I'm not sure. That's where I'm betting the patents come in. But I think BB has sold itself to the cell carriers as being easier to implement and maintain than a roll-your-own solution, and their handsets and all-you-can-eat pricing (versus SMS) have gotten them a good userbase and the associated name recognition.

If anyone can elaborate on exactly how the BB system works, I would be interested.

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (4, Interesting)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109299)

"Also, what about all those other ideas like having two letters assigned to each keyboard button and then having the phone sort it out based on what it thinks you're probably trying to type? Or something like a chording keyboard (though that would require learning)?"

The only types of people I know with crackberries are attorneys, hedge fund managers and accountants that would have zero patience for learning a new way to type. They don't want to fiddle with T9 when most of the stuff they type is very specialized and wouldn't show up automatically. A mini-QWERTY kbd is quick and good enough for their needs.

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109380)

The only types of people I know with crackberries are attorneys, hedge fund managers and accountants that would have zero patience for learning a new way to type.
All of the management types where I work have corporate sponsored BBs so that everyone can keep in touch with them no matter where they are.
IT is also perfectly willing to set up your personal BB so that the company can reach you anywhere as well. Of course, the company won't pay for grunt level BBs, but they will at least pay for the time for an IT guy to hook up Outlook to bug you at lunch.
I can't see getting a BB myself. Why should I shell out money for a device and for communication costs, just so my company can bug me during lunch, evenings and weekends?

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (4, Informative)

nvrrobx (71970) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109328)

From a users perspective, here's the reasons I was almost inseperable from my old RIM 950 (I'm pretty sure 950 was the model - this was prior to them becoming cell phones also):

* Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.

* The scroll wheel. It seems lame, but it's dead simple to navigate around the device with just your thumb.

* Small, efficient keyboard. Writing email was simple. A lot easier than T9.

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109577)

Push email. I ran an agent on my Outlook at work and email appeared on my Blackberry, subject to the filtering rules I put in place. This is better than IMAP and POP3, I literally only saw emails I care about on the device. I'd much rather design my filters in an Outlook-like interface than on a small device.

Most decent mail servers allow you to install filtering rules server-side, which is far superior to client-side filters, since the client never has to download the email in the first place. Exchange definitely does this, and products like Sieve can be installed for Unix-based servers.

Push email is really the best point I see here, since the only other alternative I know of is IMAP IDLE mode, which requires a TCP connection to be maintained.

* The scroll wheel. It seems lame, but it's dead simple to navigate around the device with just your thumb.

* Small, efficient keyboard. Writing email was simple. A lot easier than T9.


And as the GP rightly pointed out, both of these features are easily duplicated, unless patents get in the way. Which brings us right back to his original point. :)

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (1)

Lord Raze (533857) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109509)

Also, what about all those other ideas like having two letters assigned to each keyboard button and then having the phone sort it out based on what it thinks you're probably trying to type?

I fix Blackberries for a living. The 7100 series [blackberry.com] already has that.

Re:Why is blackberry so unique? (4, Insightful)

oGMo (379) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109580)

So anyway, what's the big deal with Blackberry in particular. Why is this stuff so hard/interesting/compelling?

Don't look for a "killer feature", because there's not a specific killer feature. In fact, each of the Blackberry's features alone is pretty mediocre. This may be hard to understand, but it happens sometimes.

The trick is that, taken as a whole, it has just the right amount of everything to make it a "killer device". Email works well enough. Web works well enough. Calendar is decent. Everything integrates with Exchange. The phone interface is really nice, and the address book is good and can do directory lookups. Companies can run their own internal servers and keep the devices behind the company firewall (big difference between general cell phones). The screen is big enough to read and the full keyboard (or half keyboard with uncannily good predictive text for the more phone-like models) is a must. Connectivity is constant wherever you have cell coverage. For a regular work day, this addresses just about everything.

Finally, you can charge it, and it'll remain connected and on the data network at all times for days before you have to recharge it. And it charges over USB. It will even work offline (i.e. no cell/data network). I can't remember the last time I actually turned mine off, though I have turned off wireless to save battery or switched off work email.

There are other neat features, as well, like the holster functionality. (Unlike any cell phone I've seen, when it's in the holster it will be silent/vibrate, and when it's out it will ring. Nice for never worrying if your phone will embarrass you in a meeting.)

These features taken as a whole, without being loaded down by stuff like cameras and other useless trinkets, make it a very useful device. No, nothing is particularly outstanding. But it's the right combination of ingredients.

In communist china (0)

mixenmaxen (857917) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109243)

In communist China devices should be red, not blue.

that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (5, Insightful)

vykor (700819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109247)

Hm. Is there a reason why the United States is just letting the Chinese practice their blatantly economic-nationalist trade policy, all the while sitting under the pretenses of free trade? How that particular "regulatory tangle" not constituting a barrier to free trade? Where are the retaliatory sanctions?

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (1)

jigjigga (903943) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109257)

there wont be any because "its good for business"... well it is for now. I dont understand it either. People are blind or they know things are going downhill and are making a fortune now and everyone else be damned.

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109268)

Yes, massive campaign donations combined with ability to blackmail key congressionals reps/staffers.

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (1)

jaystrick (955012) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109269)

Dunno, i recall hearing that China owned something like 70% of the US debt (not sure on the number). I sure don't try to piss off my creditors either, not unless I really have to.

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (1)

BluedemonX (198949) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109323)

It's a little different in this instance.

Though yes, the Chinese are subsidising the American way of life....

If I was to stop paying on debts, then I'd find big burly men coming to my house to take my stuff back, called repo men. There really isn't an international equivalent.

As Pierre Elliott Trudeau said once, "you can't foreclose on a country."

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (4, Interesting)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109627)

If a country were to stop paying their debts, they would find themselves unable to borrow because of a loss of credibility.

Would you borrow from a nation that isn't repaying their debts?

Look, you're willing to accept money in lieu of your services because it has a fiat value. You can exchange that currency for goods or services in trade. That currency is only valuable because it is universally accepted. Ask someone who survived ww2 in Germany about currency confidence.

Similarly with government bonds you purchase them on the promise your money will be returned, and while they have your money you earn interest. You are more than happy to buy tresury notes in the US because you know you'll get your money back. If there was ever any doubt, you'd be less inclined to give up your money in exchange for this interest bearing bond.

Certainly you cannot foreclose, but the market in general can.

Debt and China (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109342)

That doesn't quite make sense. If anything, the debt should make China more dependent on the US than the other way around, since they traded a whole lot of hard currency for some pieces of paper that are only worth anything because the US Treasury says so. If the US defaulted (not bloody likely, but speaking theoretically), they would be the ones left holding the bag. At that point it would become a question of what they'd do to make the US pay up -- they can't exactly send someone over to break our kneecaps.

However, the GP's question is still valid: there are a lot of countries that pull the free-trade card when it comes to having access to US markets, but are still staunchly protectionist when it comes to their domestic markets and industries. China, even Japan is like this to a certain extent; even some of the Western European countries (I'm looking at you, France) have "non tariff barriers" to trade that are really protectionism clothed in various regulatory outfits.

I suppose the US plays along because it's good for business to do so, at least in the short run. Whether building up the sort of trade and current-accounts deficit that we have is a good idea in the long run, I'm not so sure.

Re:Debt and China (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109464)

...but are still staunchly protectionist when it comes to their domestic markets and industries.

And the US is one of the most powerful of those.

If you've ever lived in a country that actually does have a free (and not subsidised) internal market, and try and negotiate a free trade deal with the US, you'll find that the US doesn't want a level playing field, only one tilted in it's favour (Yes you can have a free trade deal, except for grain and steel [for starters] where your internal unsubsidised suppliers are cheaper than the US subsidised internal suppliers)

Re:Debt and China (1)

horologium (956654) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109533)

Selling lamb and sugar to the US is no picnic either; but I think all countries make some sort of effort to give a competitive advantage to their own industries. All these efforts get called different things that aren't always obvious, but they are pretty widespread.

Re:Debt and China (2, Insightful)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109490)

there are a lot of countries that pull the free-trade card when it comes to having access to US markets, but are still staunchly protectionist when it comes to their domestic markets and industries.

Wow, that's really funny. Many countries in free trade relationships with the US (like, say, Canada and Mexico), have the exact same complaint... about the US! Interesting how, when the tables turn, people suddenly get all uppity about free trade.

Re:Debt and China (1)

convolvatron (176505) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109639)

perhaps the answer lies in the intent to borrow even more.

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (2, Informative)

BluedemonX (198949) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109270)

Interesting - I thought the Blackberry was made by a Canadian corporation.

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (1)

TigerTime (626140) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109336)

retaliate? We can't put a tarriff on them. That would be too obvious. And the Chinese don't know what the word "invent" means, so it's not like we can delay their products so we can produce a competing device in the US.

How about "We take our ball and go home"? (3, Interesting)

Sir Unimaginative (967464) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109356)

After God-knows-how-many years of "most favoured nation" trade status, a freakishly large amount of production takes place in China; they also have a lot of our foreign debt.

Now imagine either of two scenarios:

1) China ceases production for the US market. (They could easily turn to produce for their own domestic market, and at not too dissimilar revenue levels.)
2) China calls in our tab.

Sleep tight.

Re:How about "We take our ball and go home"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109641)

Your first point is just bollocks. China could not cease production for the US market and get anything close to the same revenue from its domestic market. The reason they produce for the US is that most people over there do not have enough money for electronic gizmos that nobody needs. I'd like to see the Chinese leaders explain to their people why so many of them are out of work because they decided to stop selling to the US.


If China were to start dumping US bonds, their currency would have to appreciate a lot (and the USD would depreciate a significant amount, too). All of a sudden, Chinese goods would get a lot more expensive and nobody would buy them. They buy the bonds not out of the godness of their hearts, but because they don't want this to happen.

Re:that doesn't seem very sporting of 'em (4, Funny)

geobeck (924637) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109473)

Where are the retaliatory sanctions?

The US has fired off a bunch of trade sanctions. Unfortunately, they've got terrible aim, so they all hit Canada instead.

Why the fascination (5, Interesting)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109254)

I know that China is the "new world" and all but for every company to fall all over themselves to deal with them is a bit rediculous. A country that prides itself in constraining all markets, destroying their populace and basically giving the middle finger to rest of the planet is put on a pedestal by the countries that should be invading them to free their people? As all the "free" countries fall all over themselves to sell and buy from a country that is as close to slave labour as we have presently. Maybe we should just forget about them for a while and they may go away, just like Soviet Russia. Before you mod me to hell, think about when you purchase your Walmart crap that is produced by children that don't make enough to feed themselves.

Re:Why the fascination (4, Funny)

fithmo (854772) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109361)

"A country that prides itself in constraining all markets, destroying their populace and basically giving the middle finger to rest of the planet is put on a pedestal by the countries that should be invading them to free their people?"

HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT ABOUT AMERIC..... oh, you're talking about China? yeah, yeah, I agree!
/me gives the middle finger to China

Re:Why the fascination (1)

theboogeyman (919406) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109549)

Before you mod me to hell, think about when you purchase your Walmart crap that is produced by children that don't make enough to feed themselves.
Look, I am not disagreeing with you that China relies a lot on cheap labor for their manufacturing industry. However,you need to quit with the hyperbole and actually research the situation in China. The country has been self-sufficient in food for awhile now so while alot of people are still poor no children are dying of hunger. Food is extremely cheap in China and almost anyone can afford it. Also, manufacturing wages in the coastal provinces have been rising in the past decade. A lot of companies are now moving inland where wages are still low but this will change as well in the future. China will not be relying on cheap labor forever.

Re:Why the fascination (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109633)

Hey IamaGarageGuy2, guess you won't be able to see this!

Odd choice for a product name (5, Funny)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109256)

For the life of me, I cannot fathom why a Chinese company would name their device after an American folk & blues musician that was popular in the early part of the 20th century. Pencils down.

Re:Odd choice for a product name (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109635)

Holy crap I wish I had mod points to mark this one funny. Maybe China will come out with RedBetter for their online gambling service.

The REDberry... (3, Insightful)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109261)

"On the eve of its long-delayed China launch, BlackBerry is facing a sudden challenge from a cheaper Chinese rival called, unapologetically, RedBerry.

Oh, that's not nice... China Unicom left no doubt that it is brazenly attempting to capitalize on BlackBerry's global fame.

So they admit it!

You know, maybe they're counting on Blackberry being too worn out with the courts to persue anything, and IANAL, but isn't this a pretty blatant rip-off? I wonder how long till we see Blackberry sues Redberry - Blueberry feels left out in the cold.

Re:The REDberry... (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109417)

Sues them where? China's trademark laws are a little bit more lenient, particularly in cases of state owned companies.

Re:The REDberry... (1)

Akaihiryuu (786040) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109460)

That assumes that the Chinese government would even allow such a suit. China has its own laws and they generally don't respect the "intellectual property" laws of the west.

Re:The REDberry... (1)

Abcd1234 (188840) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109528)

Which is really only fair considering, in it's early days, the US pulled the same tricks vis a vis British copyright law.

Re:The REDberry... (1)

ZSpade (812879) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109531)

It doesn't matter what China's policies are if they try to sell it in the US, then they will be subject to US laws. (Of course only in regards to their sales in the US)

In Ireland too! (3, Funny)

Skadet (528657) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109286)

In other news, RIM has secured a contract for the Irish city of Dingle [wikipedia.org] . The headline?

DingleBerry is the new RIM job.

How Typical! (1, Interesting)

abstractrude (935296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109346)

RedBerry, wow what a suprise. I love this communist scum, they keep blackberry out so their state controlled telecom company can introduce "MaoBerry" which is probably full of snooping tools. I bet the every email coming from a "MaoBerry" is processed by the government for improper use of the "MaoBerry" or RedBerry. But the guy earlier was right, where is the picture. I wonder if the battery door has a hammer and sickle?

Re:How Typical! (1)

monoqlith (610041) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109483)

Mod Parent (-1, McCarthyist)

Re:How Typical! (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109618)

Mod Parent (-1, Doesn't know what McCarthyism means)

Re:How Typical! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109538)

And that's different from US government electronic surveillance practices in what way?

Re:How Typical! (0, Flamebait)

kizzbizz (870017) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109557)

How horribly misinformed. What a horribly uneducated comment. Stick with what you know, like computers or something else nerdy. Leave International Politics and Forigen Cultures to people who have at least 1 cent of an idea what they are talking about, and have spent a wee bit of time understanding what it means to be a "Communist" and what China really is today (And guess what? It aint communist)

Re:How Typical! (1)

abstractrude (935296) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109586)

China's economy is not communist, althought the government is. They have a communist party. They are a socialst country yes, but they are still under a communist party that controls the entire electorial process, oh and as we see here the telecommunications industry...im uniformed I know.

Re:How Typical! (2, Insightful)

demonbug (309515) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109587)

The parent is a bit of a troll, but according to the article part of the regulatory problem was that the Chinese government didn't like the strong encryption RIM uses for communications (suggesting that part of the reason for the delay was in fact that the government wanted to be able to snoop more easily). Of course, this came from an "Ontario government source", so it could just be speculation.

Or how about? (2, Funny)

TACNailed (753439) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109375)

ElderBerry BlueBerry CommieBerry

In Related News... (2, Funny)

Stormy Dragon (800799) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109402)

A Chinese company named RedTN has sued Redberry for violating one of its red patents.

Bad karma? (1)

seven of five (578993) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109404)

OK, so the Chinese, unwilling to develop a worthy competitor to RIM, simply rip it off in a state-controlled game play. Apparently also, they do not care how this reflects on them as a people, and figure there will be no negative long-term consequences in the business world.

it's only the name copy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109611)

they actually use different technologies. the original article doesn't say there is any voliation on technology's side.

Berry Timely (4, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109407)

China probably waited for the BlackBerry/RTP patent lawsuit to settle. So BlackBerry (RIM) would have the least cash, and maybe the case would reduce the risk China's corporation would be blocked by patents. While BlackBerry and the problems of a single supplier make all the headlines. The last couple of weeks since the settlement is just enough time to unleash the hounds, but too short for the timing to be merely coincidental.

Let's all learn a lesson... (1)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109414)

Paris Hilton had a Blackberry. Her data was stolen "off of it" because the data is stored on telecom servers.

Wouldn't the Redberry be a nice way to spy on people?

Re:Let's all learn a lesson... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109443)

Actually, I think she had a Sidekick.

Re:Let's all learn a lesson... (1)

dteichman2 (841599) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109468)

Uh oh... [ducks]

Re:Let's all learn a lesson... (1)

catzpjz (903171) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109489)

That was a sidekick, u dufus. Paris' comment on the BlackBerry was it was too difficult for her to use and i wasn't surprised.

Why do we think the Chinese will play fair? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109418)

What's in it for them? We can't open a business in China. We have to have a partnership. That means our Chinese partners get our technology. They then open a business to compete with us. We have a factory in China that builds our product on the day shift. On the night shift they build our product with their label and undercut our price.

They have cheap labor. They won't let us compete fairly in their market. On the other hand, we have the resources. Our economy was strong without the Chinese market. I think we should make it a strategic priority to take our manufacturing back from China by developing much more advanced automation. The alternative isn't pretty.

why everybody is saying you cannot run a business? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109500)

GM said it sold 308,722 vehicles in china in the first six months of 2005, up 18.9% on the previous year.

Interesting you should mention that ... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109550)

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06095/679599-185.st m [post-gazette.com]

GM's Chinese partner is now competing against them. QED

So this is the thanks we get?!?!? (2, Insightful)

wigginz (730819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109434)

We export countless manufacturing jobs and import enough to make Chine one of the top five largest and richest economies, and this is how they treat the United States? I'm not even mentioning the devaluing of their currency and impact that has on our economy (actually I guess I just did). I think our administration (US) needs to take a hard look at China's obvious anti-competitive, and one sided global trade policies.

Re:So this is the thanks we get?!?!? (1)

TastyCakes (917232) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109525)

RIM is Canadian

Re:So this is the thanks we get?!?!? (2, Interesting)

wigginz (730819) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109595)

Hmm, you got me there. However the basis of my point is still valid, China's trade and economic policies are still anti-American (and apparently anti-Canadian and probably anti-every other country).

Re:So this is the thanks we get?!?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109537)

This kind of reminds me of the tariff that the U.S. put on Canadian soft wood. Even when NAFTA says to take it off they still kept it in place. It sure is different when it happens to you huh?

Re:So this is the thanks we get?!?!? (2, Informative)

TastyCakes (917232) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109560)

Actually.. This is also happening to Canada.

Trade Fair (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109444)

Why isn't Bush slapping China with a WTO "unfree trade" suit? They've got our oil, and compete with us with artificially lowered Commie wages!

Besides, we opened our trade with Chinese corporations to open their markets for our advanced technology, manufactured there with their artifically lowered Commie wages for their Commie consumers to spend on our products. That's not fair!

Bush? (1)

biggerboy (512438) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109573)

RIM's Canadian. Go ask Stephen Harper.

Re:Trade Fair (1)

realmolo (574068) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109619)

China has cheap labor combined with advanced manufacturing facilities. Cheap labor = more profits, regardless of the product.

Yeah, China's government is pure evil. But generally speaking, the CEO/stockholders of any given corporation really don't give a shit about human rights, or fair trade, or any of that stuff. Profits trump all of that. Actually, that's not true. PERSONAL WEALTH trumps all of that.

Original Ideas.... (1)

bozojoe (102606) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109457)

Is is just me or was the last original idea out of China over 500 years ago?

Blackberry is canadian not american (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109458)

Just to set the records straight, Blackberry/RIM is based out of Ontario, Canada NOT USA.

If I were Canadian... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109481)

...I'd be totally pissed off about the Ameri-centric slant this discussion is getting.

Was it all competition? (3, Funny)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109501)

This comes in the wake of an almost 2 year regulatory delay blocking the introduction of RIM's Blackberries to mainland China. Certainly this delay was convenient to China Unicom, if not deliberately staged to allow for domestic competition.

You mispelled 'surveillance'.

This Just In: Chinese Gov't Protects Local Biz! (2, Insightful)

Rimbo (139781) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109506)

news at 11

Lost in translation (1)

Fahrvergnuugen (700293) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109516)

Redberry = Raspberry?

You know, the "I fart in your general direction" sound?

Re:Lost in translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15109605)

Fart in my general direction will you?

Hmm... I smell ElderBerries -- not RaspBerries!

Thank corporate espionage (0)

v3xt0r (799856) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109517)

This will only continue to happen as long as we allow foreign (corporate) intelligence agents (aka corporate spies) to work here on their H1B Visas.

China is the biggest threat to corporate (and political) espionage in the US today.

RedBerry... figures.

Just remember my little communist friends...

A) Red is the color of blood

not glory (errr, prosperity *cpc buzzword*)

B) The sun rises in the east, and sets in the west.

When the sun sets, only darkness will reign upon thee.

Only one problem (5, Funny)

dingbatdr (702519) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109530)

If you write anything on your device that says anything about Taiwan independence or
Falun Gong, your phone tries to kill you.

Just so tired... (1)

Darth Maul (19860) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109545)


I can hardly even bring myself to question things like this. Why do we still consider them a Most Favored Nation in trade status? All they do is steal our ideas and produce them with cheap, exploited labor. But the U.S. gov't refuses to do anything about it.

Anymore you can pretty much take what *should* be done, then know that the U.S. gov't will not do it. Same with illegal immigration. What the heck is going on here? Why can't we just take a stand, cut off some Chinese products? Sure, everyone argues that we depend on their cheap products, but you know what? Maybe we should suck it up for a few years and get our OWN production back up. Everything is so short-term anymore. What about 10 years from now? What happens when the Chinese decouple their currency from the U.S. Dollar?

Beginning to sound a bit like... (1)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 8 years ago | (#15109625)

...Buckaroo Banzai:

Wasn't every alien named "John berry?"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...