but I’m close.  Even if I wasn’t, I’d have to take exception with Alec’s iPhone post this morning, where Alec was comparing RIM to Apple:

It’s as if Apple is the Washington Capitals with one very talented star player in iPhone and RIM is the Detroit Redwings with a full line of talented and deep players.  We all know who won the Stanley Cup.

With all due respect, which is very due and very respectful, I’d say Alec is exactly wrong. It’s almost as if RIM has a talented star player, the BlackBerry, and Apple has a full line of talented and deep players: the iPhone, the iPod, the Macintosh, iTunes, mind share, global distribution, excitement, buzz, hundreds of thousands of developers…  My overwhelming sense as I use my iPhone, and look at the iPhone applications is : this isn’t a phone, it’s a really small computer.  They’ve convinced me to buy their really small computer by telling me it’s a phone.

I’m not telling anyone that the iPhone is in anyway an Enterprise tool. It’s not. I get that.  Here’s what I think is missing from the debate: how the technology comes into the Enterprise.  If what I’m hearing and seeing is the how the future looks, people will bring technology into the workplace, not the other way around. If that’s true, RIM is toast.

And who is Stanley? And his Cup, what does that have to do with anything? Did he win it? Tell me more, I’m intrigued. I’ll look it up on my iPhone now.