[cbvinh]

All of the current devices are his doing. He spent a year birthing the Classic. He killed off the all touch offerings in the drawing board. Heins at least tried on hardware. Chen isn't

The Passport is more likely a Heins device.

At the time the Classic was being considered, it made sense. Chen went around and asked CEO's what they wanted and they said they wanted more Bold's. BlackBerry even had to start up the Bold assembly pipeline again. What he probably didn't realize was that his CEO buddies literally just wanted Bold's, not Bold-like BB10's... and that the CEO's trusted their IT departments to make tech decisions, which didn't include BlackBerry more and more.

The Leap is likely just a continuation of the Z3, a Foxconn deal probably already in progress under Heins.

Chen probably compared profit margins between hardware and software and concluded that software was were they could make the most money. It makes sense that he's putting minimal effort into hardware and BB10.

[jmr1015]

Are you saying, then, that full touch was a failure? Going down the road of BB10 instead of sticking with BBOS was a failure?

Yes. The way BlackBerry handled full touch: Outdated and under spec'd, but flagship pricing, it was a failure. And BB10 has been nothing but 24 months of failure. 6 or more consecutive quarter reports are testament to that. The majority of BlackBerry's user base is still on BBOS. I think that is another testament to BB10s failure.

The foolishness of BlackBerry during that time period was trying to keep up appearances. They reported their highest per device profit margin, but didn't bother to change up the strategy when sales plummeted. I would have given the new platform a year, adjusting strategy along the way. Look at what Apple did with the original iPhone. They released it at a high price. Adoption initially was good, then just three months later, they dropped the price by 1/3! Why? They had a sales target they announced at launch and did everything they could to hit it. As far as shareholders/customers were concerned, Apple successfully achieved their goal, even with a $200/device loss in margins.

Lol you think Apple dropped the price because it wasn't selling well enough? They dropped the price because it was a hit, and they wanted to widen their potential user base. Other companies have done the same thing. Motorola, for instance, with the colossally successful RAZR, had a starting price of $499, on a two-year contract. Six months later, Motorola realized it had a smashing sales hit on its hands, and dropped the price to $199 on contract, to aim the RAZR at a more mainstream demographic. By the end of 2005, the price was $99 on contract. Not because it wasn't selling, but because it was selling, and Motorola could afford to sacrifice some profit margin in exchange for higher sales numbers and revenue.

Let's not forget that the iPhone price drop occurred around the same time the iPod Touch was released, which uses many of the same components as the iPhone. The central rule of tech is that the unit price drops sharply with volume. Selling an iPod using the same components as the iPhone means Apple would achieve scale faster and would be able to drop prices sooner, as the prices for components would decrease, and gross margins would increase, leaving room for price cuts while maintaining margins.

Also, I don't know where your loss per device numbers are coming from, but dropping the price by 1/3rd did not lead to a $200 loss per device. The original iPhone launched with a 55% gross profit margin. So apple could have slashed the price by 1/2 and still been breaking even. If they did indeed suffer a $200 loss per device after the price drop from $600 to $400, on a 2-year contract, then this is the first I'm hearing of it.

[cbvinh]

Yes. The way BlackBerry handled full touch: Outdated and under spec'd, but flagship pricing, it was a failure. And BB10 has been nothing but 24 months of failure. 6 or more consecutive quarter reports are testament to that. The majority of BlackBerry's user base is still on BBOS. I think that is another testament to BB10s failure.

Well, that would mean BlackBerry could have gone Android or Windows Phone, with Android being more likely because Nokia had already taken up Windows Phone (and eventually fail). Would BlackBerry have been capable of building a secure enough device with Android? And if so, would it be still capable of running Google Services without compromising that security? Or would BlackBerry be just another commodity maker of Android devices for Google, competing with the might of Samsung's marketing?

Lol you think Apple dropped the price because it wasn't selling well enough? They dropped the price because it was a hit, and they wanted to widen their potential user base. Other companies have done the same thing. Motorola, for instance, with the colossally successful RAZR, had a starting price of $499, on a two-year contract. Six months later, Motorola realized it had a smashing sales hit on its hands, and dropped the price to $199 on contract, to aim the RAZR at a more mainstream demographic. By the end of 2005, the price was $99 on contract. Not because it wasn't selling, but because it was selling, and Motorola could afford to sacrifice some profit margin in exchange for higher sales numbers and revenue.

Let's not forget that the iPhone price drop occurred around the same time the iPod Touch was released, which uses many of the same components as the iPhone. The central rule of tech is that the unit price drops sharply with volume. Selling an iPod using the same components as the iPhone means Apple would achieve scale faster and would be able to drop prices sooner, as the prices for components would decrease, and gross margins would increase, leaving room for price cuts while maintaining margins.

Also, I don't know where your loss per device numbers are coming from, but dropping the price by 1/3rd did not lead to a $200 loss per device. The original iPhone launched with a 55% gross profit margin. So apple could have slashed the price by 1/2 and still been breaking even. If they did indeed suffer a $200 loss per device after the price drop from $600 to $400, on a 2-year contract, then this is the first I'm hearing of it.

It's not a $200 loss per device, but $200 less profit per device than had they kept the price the same. Re-read what I wrote, "$200/device loss in margins". Yes, Apple dropped the price to improve adoption, which BlackBerry was reluctant to do, to show high device margins.

At this point, Apple is no longer interested in losing margin. They're gobbling up smartphone profits, right? They reached an adoption rate that keeps them profitable and there's no reason to try for economy of scale. Apple is by far more successful today than when the original iPhone was released and yet they have not dropped the price of devices. If they're so insanely successful, why haven't they dropped the price to show it like they didn't the pas, as you indicate companies do to show success?

[jmr1015]

Well, that would mean BlackBerry could have gone Android or Windows Phone, with Android being more likely because Nokia had already taken up Windows Phone (and eventually fail). Would BlackBerry have been capable of building a secure enough device with Android? And if so, would it be still capable of running Google Services without compromising that security? Or would BlackBerry be just another commodity maker of Android devices for Google, competing with the might of Samsung's marketing?

That is all interesting to think about, isn't it? What if BlackBerry jumped on Android early. Early... Like, before Samsung made a huge dent in the market... And became the majority Android OEM? Today would be a very different world.

It's not a $200 loss per device, but $200 less profit per device than had they kept the price the same. Re-read what I wrote, "$200/device loss in margins". Yes, Apple dropped the price to improve adoption, which BlackBerry was reluctant to do, to show high device margins.

At this point, Apple is no longer interested in losing margin. They're gobbling up smartphone profits, right? They reached an adoption rate that keeps them profitable and there's no reason to try for economy of scale. Apple is by far more successful today than when the original iPhone was released and yet they have not dropped the price of devices. If they're so insanely successful, why haven't they dropped the price to show it like they didn't the pas, as you indicate companies do to show success?

My mistake on where you were going with margins.

As for why Apple doesn't drop the price of all models of iPhone: what company does that? I never said companies drop their prices to show success. What I am saying, is most mobile companies with a hit on its hands, drop the price to broaden the customer base. Samsung sells insane amounts of phones. Yet the launch prices of the Galaxy S and Note lines have steadily increased over time. But the release price is never solid through its run though, as it usually drops $100 or more, on contract, within months. It's the way mobile does things. I would never say Samsung is lowering prices because their phones aren't selling. It's just the norm for the big league flagships that sell well.

The opposite is what happened with the Amazon Fire Phone and Z10. The initial price was too high. Adoption was poor. Prices were eventually aggressively slashed to try and move inventory. But in the end, both companies saw massive write downs and losses.