[aha]

It's simple: they did the math.

Great analysis, Troy! This is why BBRY has to find a way to improve their user base first to break this chicken-egg scenario.

Marketing + Best specs + Competitive pricing

[Nine54]

It's simple: they did the math.

Thanks for your detailed post. I appreciate the explanation, though my question was around why companies say "No" when BlackBerry itself offers to develop the app on behalf of the company. Regarding the math, yes, and I believe the CEO has said something to that effect in the past. In my view, it doesn't pass muster, but I'll get to that in a bit.

A company like Netflix, say, cannot afford to have a lousy in-house app bringing down their reputation. Simply porting an Android app wouldn't be good enough, and BB10 doesn't run modern (4.x) Android apps right now. Presumably it will with 10.2, but it's yet to be seen how well. But let's give BB the benefit of the doubt (!) and assume that 10.2 is out and available everywhere, and it runs Android apps just fine. Then let's assume that Netflix simply ports their Android app over with some BB10 optimizations, to get the app out quickly and to save dev costs.

All valid points, but my question presumed that BlackBerry would develop the app on behalf of the company, i.e., it's not really an "in-house app." Regarding the porting, it would be nice to think the company is that concerned about the experience of a ported app vs. a native one, but I'm sure that--if it were even being considered--the hesitance would have more to do with Android runtime compatibility than any perceived degradation of experience. After all, providing BB users with zero experience is worse than providing them with a less-than-optimal experience.

Though it's getting better, Android fragmentation is challenging enough on Android devices; I'm sure the last thing app houses want is to deal with Android fragmentation on BBRY devices (e.g., it works on 10.2 only, but multiple carriers haven't rolled it out, etc.).

It costs money for Netflix to have their programmers working on the BB10 port, and that expense won't happen just once, but will be on-going. Every time there is an app update (most major Android apps are updated every 2-4 weeks), there will have to be a new build of the BB10 app too. New builds means additional in-house testing as well, each time. Who knows when a BB10 update might break something? Or when an Android update might cause a change that breaks BB10? That is normal stuff for a software dev.

Yep, I'm well aware of the implications around regression testing, support, training, etc., in the software development world. But unless I'm misunderstanding how these arrangements have worked in the past (such as with the Facebook for BlackBerry app), my assumption was that all the recurring costs and effort around development, maintenance, testing, support, etc. would be BlackBerry's responsibility. After all, it's an app by BlackBerry. The app owner would just be providing BlackBerry with the private API or SDK and maybe relatively minor assistance along the way.

Once the app is out on the market, Netflix also has to SUPPORT it.

Again, I'm assuming it's BlackBerry that would be responsible for supporting an app that they developed.

So, even a "simple app port" is going to cost Netflix a good amount of cash. Now, let's look at the potential upside.

3.7M BB10 phones were shipped between Q413 and Q114. For the sake of argument, we'll assume that 3M of those were sold and are actually in user's hands, being actively used, the rest either still in inventory, returns, or damaged/warranty repairs. BB10 phones have been launched in over 150 countries, which gives an average of (only!) 20,000 phones sold per country since launch. The US is a big, wealthy country, so we'll assume that the rate of take-up was 5 times the average, meaning there are 100,000 BB10 phones active in the US. If someone has better numbers, I'd be interested, but I think these "back of a napkin" figures are fairly realistic.

Netflix's primary market is in the US, given that much of its content is only licensed for the US, so we're going to focus on those 100,000 US BB10 users. How many of those 100,000 BB10 users have an interest in subscribing to Netflix? Let's be very generous, and say 10%. Now, how many of that 10% is already subscribed to Netflix, and watching movies on their TV/DVD player/computer/tablet already? Figure at least 2/3. So, Netflix may generate 3,300 new subscriptions, which are people who own BB10 phones, who don't currently subscribe to Netflix, but who would if an app was available for their phone (all of which is a stretch, IMO). That would increase Netflix's revenues $26,400 a month, or $316,800 a year. Most of that revenue goes out to pay for content licensing, so being generous and saying that Netflix would keep 20%, that's $63,360, MINUS the dev and support costs for the app.

That should give you some idea of why devs aren't bothering with BB at this stage: the adoption numbers of BB10 to date are way, way too low to justify the investment and ongoing costs of development and support.

Right, the amount of net-new subscribers Netflix would gain through a BB 10 app is a small fraction of an already small fraction. That was more or less what I think Hastings said when questioned on alternative platforms. However, that hasn't precluded Netflix from supporting seemingly every other device or platform around, such as Roku players, PS3, Xbox 360, certain HDTVs, etc. Device or platform omissions seemed to be the exception rather than the rule, which is why it was so noticeable when a Netflix app wasn't available.

Keep in mind that Netflix started with DVD distribution, and that has been a significant part of its value prop and is what drove subscriptions earlier on. So, while a subscriber grab may be a benefit of app development, I always saw its app development as paving the way for the future. It wanted to make it easy for customers to leverage their Netflix subscription regardless of their device, making the service 'stickier' for existing subscribers (even though its streaming catalog still pales in comparison to its DVD catalog). And by supporting multiple platforms, Netflix would entrench itself as the de facto standard for streaming entertainment while being perceived as a tech-savvy, forward looking company.

Somewhere are along the way--likely when Netflix started facing more investor scrutiny and subscriber backlash--it feels like cost-cutting initiatives began and someone started looking at the cost to develop and support these apps compared to the ROI. Then, ROI became about adding subscribers instead of about providing current subscribers with additional value.

But even with all that aside, if it were just about the math, that might make sense for BB 10. But, it doesn't really hold up for BBOS, which has roughly as many users worldwide as the Xbox 360.

[bp3dots]

After all, providing BB users with zero experience is worse than providing them with a less-than-optimal experience.

Right, the amount of net-new subscribers Netflix would gain through a BB 10 app is a small fraction of an already small fraction. That was more or less what I think Hastings said when questioned on alternative platforms. However, that hasn't precluded Netflix from supporting seemingly every other device or platform around, such as Roku players, PS3, Xbox 360, certain HDTVs, etc. Device or platform omissions seemed to be the exception rather than the rule, which is why it was so noticeable when a Netflix app wasn't available.

But even with all that aside, if it were just about the math, that might make sense for BB 10. But, it doesn't really hold up for BBOS, which has roughly as many users worldwide as the Xbox 360.

I disagree. A low quality app is only going to grow negative perception about your capability as an OS. Not having an app is more easily explained as a failure to be on the same page as whatever company you're working with. (Or something of the sort) And, of course, the other company loses if their app on BB is not up to their standards.

All of those platforms are either built specifically for video entertainment, which needs no explanation why NF would make itself available, or are fro companies that are substantial volume partners with NF. BB is niether of those things. And assuming BBOS could run a fully featured NF well, that group of users is largely concentrated (nowadays) in areas where NF is not even available.

As for the idea of developing and supporting the app, I think it's probably unrealistic for BB to be able to handle both, in a cost effective enough way to evem make it worth the gains they might get in areas where BB10 would get the benefit.

[Troy Tiscareno]

All valid points, but my question presumed that BlackBerry would develop the app on behalf of the company, i.e., it's not really an "in-house app."
<snip>
Yep, I'm well aware of the implications around regression testing, support, training, etc., in the software development world. But unless I'm misunderstanding how these arrangements have worked in the past (such as with the Facebook for BlackBerry app), my assumption was that all the recurring costs and effort around development, maintenance, testing, support, etc. would be BlackBerry's responsibility. After all, it's an app by BlackBerry. The app owner would just be providing BlackBerry with the private API or SDK and maybe relatively minor assistance along the way.
<snip>
Again, I'm assuming it's BlackBerry that would be responsible for supporting an app that they developed.

A few things:

• I seriously doubt that BB has the resources to develop, test, and support this app and do all the other things they are currently doing. They are currently downsizing the company again as we speak.
• Netflix updates their apps pretty regularly. Even my Blu-Ray player gets a Netflix app update every 6 months at least. The constantly-evolving nature of their business requires this.
• Even if BB sent devs to work with Netflix on the initial build, they'd still likely need plenty of in-house assistance. Netflix doesn't have a public API because they are legally responsible for the security of their content, and the content-owners would ROAST them if something was broken and people could steal their content via Netflix. That's another reason that this app in particular would need to be handled in-house by Netflix, just like they do with every other platform they are on.
• Customers aren't going to care who the listed developer of an app is - if the app they get their Netflix service through isn't working, they're going to contact Netflix (the person they are PAYING a monthly access fee to) for support. Getting the "we didn't write it" run-around is not going to keep customers happy, and Netflix knows it.

Right, the amount of net-new subscribers Netflix would gain through a BB 10 app is a small fraction of an already small fraction. That was more or less what I think Hastings said when questioned on alternative platforms. However, that hasn't precluded Netflix from supporting seemingly every other device or platform around, such as Roku players, PS3, Xbox 360, certain HDTVs, etc. Device or platform omissions seemed to be the exception rather than the rule, which is why it was so noticeable when a Netflix app wasn't available.
<snip>
But even with all that aside, if it were just about the math, that might make sense for BB 10. But, it doesn't really hold up for BBOS, which has roughly as many users worldwide as the Xbox 360.

The devices you are listing are specifically (many exclusively) video content delivery platforms, which are hooked up to an HDTV and the Internet at all times. You can't compare them to a phone. Only a relatively small number of phone users actually watch movies on their phones; most people continue to watch them primarily on TVs, for obvious reasons (much larger display).

No one is developing anything for BBOS at this point. It's a dead platform. Plus, worldwide numbers are meaningless to Netflix, because their licensing agreements for their content restricts them to only offering service to a handful of countries. If we were talking about an app with more global potential (Instagram, for example), then global numbers would be applicable, but that isn't the case for Netflix.

[Nine54]

I disagree. A low quality app is only going to grow negative perception about your capability as an OS. Not having an app is more easily explained as a failure to be on the same page as whatever company you're working with. (Or something of the sort) And, of course, the other company loses if their app on BB is not up to their standards.

I get that, but define low-quality. Is an Android port low-quality just because it's not native? I agree it's less than ideal, but we're talking about Netflix here: the ultimate goal with the app is to watch a full-screen video. And as Netflix's data suggests, phones would be a secondary platform for most subscribers.

All of those platforms are either built specifically for video entertainment, which needs no explanation why NF would make itself available, or are fro companies that are substantial volume partners with NF. BB is niether of those things. And assuming BBOS could run a fully featured NF well, that group of users is largely concentrated (nowadays) in areas where NF is not even available.

Good point about NF not being available in all markets--forgot about that. Unless NF is trying to enter those markets... While those other platforms are built for entertainment, their individual market share is relatively low. Again, the # of Xbox 360s sold over its entire life is roughly equal to the # of BB subscribers. So, the decision to not support a platform isn't all about numbers.

As for the idea of developing and supporting the app, I think it's probably unrealistic for BB to be able to handle both, in a cost effective enough way to evem make it worth the gains they might get in areas where BB10 would get the benefit.

Perhaps, but that is what I was talking about and what others often are suggesting when they say BBRY should do something about the app issue. Whether it's feasible or will provide a good ROI, I don't know... But it's more than just numbers: it's also about mindshare and eliminating one more barrier to a potential new sale or subscriber.

[bp3dots]

I get that, but define low-quality. Is an Android port low-quality just because it's not native? I agree it's less than ideal, but we're talking about Netflix here: the ultimate goal with the app is to watch a full-screen video. And as Netflix's data suggests, phones would be a secondary platform for most subscribers.

I just meant that if they couldn't get the ported app to be what they wanted, no app would be better.

Good point about NF not being available in all markets--forgot about that. Unless NF is trying to enter those markets... While those other platforms are built for entertainment, their individual market share is relatively low. Again, the # of Xbox 360s sold over its entire life is roughly equal to the # of BB subscribers. So, the decision to not support a platform isn't all about numbers.

XBox isn't the partner though, Miscrosoft is. That means distribution to almost every PC sold, Windows Phone, and Xbox. Much bigger number.

Perhaps, but that is what I was talking about and what others often are suggesting when they say BBRY should do something about the app issue. Whether it's feasible or will provide a good ROI, I don't know... But it's more than just numbers: it's also about mindshare and eliminating one more barrier to a potential new sale or subscriber.

I agree they need to do something, but the problem is the potential income growth here is so low, its hard to expect it to be a priority.

[Nine54]

A few things:

• I seriously doubt that BB has the resources to develop, test, and support this app and do all the other things they are currently doing. They are currently downsizing the company again as we speak.
• Netflix updates their apps pretty regularly. Even my Blu-Ray player gets a Netflix app update every 6 months at least. The constantly-evolving nature of their business requires this.
• Even if BB sent devs to work with Netflix on the initial build, they'd still likely need plenty of in-house assistance. Netflix doesn't have a public API because they are legally responsible for the security of their content, and the content-owners would ROAST them if something was broken and people could steal their content via Netflix. That's another reason that this app in particular would need to be handled in-house by Netflix, just like they do with every other platform they are on.
• Customers aren't going to care who the listed developer of an app is - if the app they get their Netflix service through isn't working, they're going to contact Netflix (the person they are PAYING a monthly access fee to) for support. Getting the "we didn't write it" run-around is not going to keep customers happy, and Netflix knows it.

While you might be right, whether or not BBRY has the resources to properly develop and support an app is a little beside the point. When people say BBRY should throw money at the problem, they often mean subsidizing the company for app development either with $$ or with developer resources. What else are they going to do by throwing money at the problem? Cut the company a check for $100k? If that's what people are thinking, there better be another 0 there for that to even raise an eyebrow.

Also, while I recognize the effort and resources that developing and supporting an app can take, let's make sure the effort we're describing aligns with the output. We're not talking about porting Photoshop here. Many popular apps essentially are just native front-ends or wrappers to a web-based application or service. That's partly why they pop up relatively quickly on so many different platforms and devices: the majority of the app is "server-side." This goes for Netflix, too.

The devices you are listing are specifically (many exclusively) video content delivery platforms, which are hooked up to an HDTV and the Internet at all times. You can't compare them to a phone. Only a relatively small number of phone users actually watch movies on their phones; most people continue to watch them primarily on TVs, for obvious reasons (much larger display).

Yep, I agree. But you originally stated that after Netflix decided not to support BB after they did the math. My point was that if you did the math on some of these other platforms, you might come to the same conclusion. So, obviously there's more to it than just the math. Ironically, that Netflix feels it needs to justify its decisions with math only emphasizes that there's more to it.

Also, just to be clear, I'm not blaming Netflix here: if it thinks its resources are better spent elsewhere, that is its choice. And I, for one, don't need Netflix on my phone. All I'm "countering" is the "moving target" or hypocritical logic used to explain why it won't develop for BB:

• "Most users don't watch movies on their phone and smartphones are a secondary client for most." -- OK, and that doesn't apply to iPhone and Android?
• "We did the math on net-new subscribers we'd gain and it's low." -- OK, and the net-new subscribers you'll gain from including the app on one new line of TVs from one manufacturer is high?
• "We want to concentrate on the mainstream, widely adopted platforms." -- OK, has Windows Phone market share suddenly climbed?

No one is developing anything for BBOS at this point. It's a dead platform. Plus, worldwide numbers are meaningless to Netflix, because their licensing agreements for their content restricts them to only offering service to a handful of countries. If we were talking about an app with more global potential (Instagram, for example), then global numbers would be applicable, but that isn't the case for Netflix.

Yep, good point (as I also mentioned to bp3dots above).

[Tre Lawrence]

The "offer" to develop was simple posturing. I'm fairly sure each party involved knew that wasn't the issue.

Microsoft has shown a willingness to spend major money. They can afford to though.

[Nine54]

I agree they need to do something, but the problem is the potential income growth here is so low, its hard to expect it to be a priority.

If they're not willing to throw money (and by money, I mean several million in incentives or developer resources) at the issue, then they need to stop paying lip service to it. Maybe they're not and it's just the twisting of words by overzealous fans, but there is the perception that they're "doing everything" to address the app gap. Well, if you're only putting pennies in your war chest, then you're not doing everything. Continue the port-a-thons, do some developer evangelism, but tell users that it's up to the app houses to develop the apps and that we should send our requests directly to them.

If it's not willing to spend money on third-party apps, then it should divert those resources towards creating its own highly compelling apps or services. And it should work hard to maintain and grow its market share in emerging markets and use that to exert influence on U.S. app houses that might want international exposure.

[bp3dots]

If they're not willing to throw money (and by money, I mean several million in incentives or developer resources) at the issue, then they need to stop paying lip service to it. Maybe they're not and it's just the twisting of words by overzealous fans, but there is the perception that they're "doing everything" to address the app gap. Well, if you're only putting pennies in your war chest, then you're not doing everything. Continue the port-a-thons, do some developer evangelism, but tell users that it's up to the app houses to develop the apps and that we should send our requests directly to them.

If it's not willing to spend money on third-party apps, then it should divert those resources towards creating its own highly compelling apps or services. And it should work hard to maintain and grow its market share in emerging markets and use that to exert influence on U.S. app houses that might want international exposure.

The potential income I referred to was on Netflix side.

I do agree with some of your post, but they still need to be smart. Portathons bred mostly sh!t apps. They need the focus on native, quality ones. New services is a good idea, but they need ways to get them traction.

IMO, at this point, getting BB10 fully fleshed out and legacy OS users all switched over would be the best first step. 70-80M users is a lot more incentive for other companies to come on board than 3M.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Also, just to be clear, I'm not blaming Netflix here: if it thinks its resources are better spent elsewhere, that is its choice. And I, for one, don't need Netflix on my phone. All I'm "countering" is the "moving target" or hypocritical logic used to explain why it won't develop for BB:

• "Most users don't watch movies on their phone and smartphones are a secondary client for most." -- OK, and that doesn't apply to iPhone and Android?
• "We did the math on net-new subscribers we'd gain and it's low." -- OK, and the net-new subscribers you'll gain from including the app on one new line of TVs from one manufacturer is high?
• "We want to concentrate on the mainstream, widely adopted platforms." -- OK, has Windows Phone market share suddenly climbed?

• You can't REALLY be comparing either the money or the market perception difference between BB and iOS/Android, given their respective sales numbers, can you? A fraction of iOS/Android users is still a huge number, while a fraction of BB10 users is a small number at this point.
• TVs are "primary movie-viewing platforms", while phones are "secondary platforms". Netflix has publicly stated many times their goal to be on "every TV." That doesn't mean "every mobile phone OS."
• Microsoft has a long relationship with Netflix, and given that Microsoft has other compatible platforms (Win8 desktops and laptops, Surface tablets) along with Win Phones, developing a "Metro" Netflix app makes a lot more sense. BB only has phones.

Again, I'm just trying to give you Netflix's (likely) perspective and reasoning. It's not hard to understand their position if you look at the big picture.

[Nine54]

IMO, at this point, getting BB10 fully fleshed out and legacy OS users all switched over would be the best first step. 70-80M users is a lot more incentive for other companies to come on board than 3M.

Agree. That will be a challenge in emerging markets--where a lot of those 70+m subscribers are--without a data efficiency value proposition like BIS. One great benefit about BIS is that it's a value prop to both the consumer and the carrier, so you get a more organic sales push. Without that, BB will just be competing at the lower end with Android, and it will be hard to win that war on price.

[Nine54]

• You can't REALLY be comparing either the money or the market perception difference between BB and iOS/Android, given their respective sales numbers, can you? A fraction of iOS/Android users is still a huge number, while a fraction of BB10 users is a small number at this point.

I realize it's not really comparable, but you're also only considering the state of BBRY right now. What was the reasoning in 2009 when BBRY's market share was 20% worldwide and 40+% in the U.S.? But yeah, it's non-starter now.

• TVs are "primary movie-viewing platforms", while phones are "secondary platforms". Netflix has publicly stated many times their goal to be on "every TV." That doesn't mean "every mobile phone OS."
• Microsoft has a long relationship with Netflix, and given that Microsoft has other compatible platforms (Win8 desktops and laptops, Surface tablets) along with Win Phones, developing a "Metro" Netflix app makes a lot more sense. BB only has phones.

Windows Phone currently is in the same boat as BB 10, and neither Surface has really set the world on fire (though I have an RT and like it). Plus, what's the real need for an app when movies can be streamed from the web on Surface or Windows 8 devices?

Again, I'm just trying to give you Netflix's (likely) perspective and reasoning. It's not hard to understand their position if you look at the big picture.

Yep, I definitely understand it. Again, I'm not advocating for Netflix to change course here. I'm just saying it's OK if they're straight up about thinking that the market opportunity doesn't warrant the required investment. I was just calling a little BS because I never saw its mobile app support as a subscriber grab. I've been a subscriber for a long time, and in the past, always saw Netflix as looking to increase value for existing subscribers.

But while we've been talking about Netflix specifically, I've really been considering them as an example for any major app. What's Instagram's reasoning? How hard could it be or how long could it possibly take to develop a client for that service...

[xBURK]

Great thread OP.
I do have to mention this yet again. Marketing. BlackBerry is not going to capture anyones imagination without a campaign at least as good as the top two. It really drives me up the wall. BlackBerry finally has a great product and it seems their only advertising is BAD PRESS. How would this work for any company? The Keep Moving campaign is good. Well, Good will not cut it. They need something that gets people excited and inspired to give BlackBerry a second look. Right now, they are just looking away. Shame!

Posted via CB10

[aha]

Lack of ecosystem is the top reason BlackBerry sales are low | CrackBerry.com is why BBRY should focus on how to win the ecosystem war.

[Troy Tiscareno]

But while we've been talking about Netflix specifically, I've really been considering them as an example for any major app. What's Instagram's reasoning? How hard could it be or how long could it possibly take to develop a client for that service...

Instagram changes *constantly*. The app is updated about once a week on Android and iOS. They recently added video support to it, for example. Adding a third client means they'd need to spend a bunch of money hiring full-time-employees to develop, test, document, market, manage, and support that third client, and it would make them that much slower at executing any new changes or additional services. A high-visibility company like Facebook is not going to want a crappy port for their official client, because it would make Instagram/Facebook look bad. It would need to be fully re-done in Cascades, and it would need to be maintained and supported.

And the costs for that, not to mention the hassle and risk (of being caught/passed up by a smaller, nimble company that may not even exist yet) because they got too big and too slow is just not worth it for them, when the marketshare for BB10 is too low.

[Nine54]

Instagram changes *constantly*. The app is updated about once a week on Android and iOS. They recently added video support to it, for example. Adding a third client means they'd need to spend a bunch of money hiring full-time-employees to develop, test, document, market, manage, and support that third client, and it would make them that much slower at executing any new changes or additional services. A high-visibility company like Facebook is not going to want a crappy port for their official client, because it would make Instagram/Facebook look bad. It would need to be fully re-done in Cascades, and it would need to be maintained and supported.

And the costs for that, not to mention the hassle and risk (of being caught/passed up by a smaller, nimble company that may not even exist yet) because they got too big and too slow is just not worth it for them, when the marketshare for BB10 is too low.

True, but that logic could apply to any company developing cross-platform apps. If every development house had that mentality, few would have developed apps for Mac OS back in the day (before Apple became cool). Game companies wouldn't support all game platforms (Xbox, PS, PC, Wii). And so on.

Sure, resources don't go on trees, and assigning developers to one thing means they might not be able to work on something else. But, at some point, there is a diminishing margin of return where throwing more developers at a new feature or what-not isn't going to get it out any faster. And if Facebook is running so lean that having some developers focus on a new client means the company can't improve its core service, then there are bigger problems there. That smaller, nimbler company that passes them up might be the one who figures out how to repurpose code more effectively and develop more efficiently so that it can support multiple platforms.

[bp3dots]

Why be surprised at Instagram waiting? They took forever to launch on Android, and there were way more users in that potential (at the time) market.

[Tre Lawrence]

Why be surprised at Instagram waiting? They took forever to launch on Android, and there were way more users in that potential (at the time) market.

Good point.

[GadgetTravel]

I think there is only one possible way. Build an outstanding UI, email client and maybe a few other tools on top of Android and switch to that. It may be too late but I think that is the only way.

[z10fido]

Thor had a chance at ecosystem but he killed the playbook. A bunch of half baked bb10 phones does not an eco system make.Doesn't help that bbos and bb10 are totally separate and are as compatible as oil and water.
Ecosystem
IPod
Ipad
Iphone
Apple tv
Mac book
Mini mac
I mac


Posted via CB10

[aha]

Considering the amount of Z10s they had to write off, can we say they missed the opportunity to employ the strategy discussed in this thread?

Too bad.

Posted via CB10 with Z30 on 10.2.1.2234

[The Big Picture]

Considering the amount of Z10s they had to write off, can we say they missed the opportunity to employ the strategy discussed in this thread?

Too bad.

Posted via CB10 with Z30 on 10.2.1.2234

Wow this thread is 9 months old.

I believe the new strategy is to employ what nokia did with the 520 lumia. Sell cheap and sell many the eco system will improve.

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2228, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

[garnok]

Wow this thread is 9 months old.

I believe the new strategy is to employ what nokia did with the 520 lumia. Sell cheap and sell many the eco system will improve.

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2228, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

how cheap can BB10 be ?

lumia 520 can become a huge hit sales because they are offering a very cheap phone with decent specs when it arrived with only just a few big brand competitors in low end market..

now android phone maker already push android phone price to the bottom, you can get $50 - $90 android phone with a very decent specs...just see Lenovo a-series, asus zenfone 4, Nokia X, LG L3 II, Samsung galaxy Y etc...for phone lower than $100

while in $100 - $200 range there are asus zenfone 5, Lenovo S series, with spec sheet almost as good as Z10

[aha]

Wow this thread is 9 months old.
SGS3

LOL. Yeah I have a 9-month recurring reminder set up on my Z30 so I can come back to check this one again until they take the advice and give me the super-spec'ed phone we were talking about

Posted via CB10 with Z30 on 10.2.1.2234