[Speedygi]

I think at the end of the day fans and non-fans can't influence how the company is run through posts on a blog or any form of media. No amount of ranting and blogging and noise making can directly influence the way Thorsten runs the company. We as the community can only do one thing, which is to vote with our dollars, and that's the only thing we as consumers can do to directly affect the outcome of the company.

You might say: what about we try to promote as a community the brand of BlackBerry to the masses? The truth is even Thorsten and the board have conceded that they need help in pulling through this, hence now actively searching for strategic alternatives. It's something that's not supposed to be taken lightly. So this is why I think it's a good sign that the masses aren't voting enough for BlackBerry with their dollars. The masses have pretty much spoken that way.

This lack of success has in turn led to the criticism, and vice versa, creating a very deadly vicious cycle. It's saddening but it's the way it has become.

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

[Sexy Sadie]

Come on. Stop making threads like this.

[wildbanger]

It is a sad time, as a good phone like z10 is not considered as an option to learn but people said it is a copy of an iPhone or Android.

When I first heard people saying z10 is hard to use, I was thinking if they got paid by Apple or Samsung.

Channel : C000FA856 | Z10STL100-3/10.2.0.1047

[Roo Zilla]

Agree. Competition breeds innovation. If one isn't even using a particular platform, what care should they have if they go away??

Not necessarily. There are some industries where competition is adverse to the public good. The most common example given are public utilities like gas companies. Imagine if there existed competition in gas companies as multiple gas companies tried to compete for your business. There's a very good chance you would end up with higher prices as multiple gas companies install multiple gas pipes everywhere. It's much more efficient and beneficial to society for there to be only one set of gas pipes. Same goes for electricity, wired or fiber telephones, cable TV. You get the idea.

Economists have written a lot about MS and their de facto monopoly and whether it increases or impedes innovation. Imagine if there were 20 desktop OSes available each with equal market share. The PC OS industry might very well be very competitive and there might possibly be great innovation in OS technology. The problem is that developers would have to create 20 versions of their apps. This could possible greatly stifle innovation in apps as each developer would have to devote more resources to simply making different versions of the same app. In the PC environment, which is more important? Innovation in the core OS? Or innovation in apps? Many would argue the latter is more important. There might be a very good reason why computer OS just naturally gravitates towards monopoly.

[Speedygi]

A few caveats...

1. There aren't as many OS developers in the mobile space as you have for a number used in your example.

2. Innovation does happen in spite of having less players in a market, but that is the exception and not the norm...

Sent from my GT-N7105 using Tapatalk 2

[Denise in Los Angeles]

Come on. Stop making threads like this.

Great idea.

[NotGoodIMO]

Blackberry screwed this one up big time. They focused on margins when they should have focused on the number of devices sold. Just ask a simple question, what competitive edge does Apple and Samsung have over Blackberry? Ecosystem, right? That could have been only achieved by having more users on board with very attractive pricing. In fact, with all the cash they have they should have tried to sell devices at break even instead of spending money on that useless super bowl add. Instead, Blackberry has the most rediculous pricing, look at how they have priced Q5 and that too in the emerging markets. If Z10 was priced at $99 or $49 with two year contract, I am sure it would have got lot of buzz. The management doesn't have any common sense. I am simply disgusted at the fact that these morons at the top are going to get generous severance packages for destroying Blackberry.

[TheQuietRioter]

Do it. The naysayers might just be wrong. There's a reason why TH isn't saying anything and it might be a different one than they think.

Either way, do you think a pumped Z10 will be any less of a phone than an SG4? Even if 10.2 is the last update (and I doubt believe it is, could be wrong! ) in the current market it's still going to be one of the best phablets out there, if not the best, for the lifetime of your normal contract anyway.

If BlackBerry isn't around by then? Get something else! In the meantime you'd have missed out on BB10 which is how a smartphone should be, right now!

Feel it, Swipe it, Love it. BlackBerry Z10...

I have the Z10. Got it the very day TMO USA dropped it to market.

If BlackBerry is in this dire of a situation, how can I be sure my upgrade to the Z30 in November won't leave me wondering why BlackBerry deserted me?

I mean, if they sell and the company gets sold off in pieces, where does that leave me as a consumer?

So, I buy the Z30, and that's it? No more BlackBerry phones after that because XYZ Company decided it wasn't worth continuing...?

Speaking in worst case scenario of course.

The Z10 is my 7th BlackBerry to date.
I'd LIKE the Z30 to be the 8th, but if odds aren't in Blackberry's favor, I'm switching to WinPhone.

Posted via CB10

[pantlesspenguin]

Not necessarily. There are some industries where competition is adverse to the public good. The most common example given are public utilities like gas companies. Imagine if there existed competition in gas companies as multiple gas companies tried to compete for your business. There's a very good chance you would end up with higher prices as multiple gas companies install multiple gas pipes everywhere. It's much more efficient and beneficial to society for there to be only one set of gas pipes. Same goes for electricity, wired or fiber telephones, cable TV. You get the idea.

Isn't it the other way around, though? The more options there are, the BETTER it is for the consumer. Companies drive down their prices, offer packages and incentives, etc, to entice consumers to sign up for their service. If there were only one provider of a service, they could charge whatever they wanted to and the consumers would either have to deal with it or go without. For example, ever since Google Fiber came to my area, cable tv/internet providers have DRASTICALLY decreased their prices and increased the level of service you get for the price.

And in this situation, mobile technology has everything to gain from competition. A good example is the recent bump in camera specs. For a couple YEARS, 8mp cameras have been pretty standard. Then one manufacturer bumps on the camera specs, then another, then another... It's all good for the consumer.