[xanadome]

Does "build from the ground up" mean anything to you? Did Apple have all the features when it was first released? iPhone wannabe? Really dude? So just because a phone has a "rectangular" shape it's considered a wannabe? Also if the market wanted a efficient keyboard then why do most people call it "outdated" tech? Only few wants a keyboard phone. Me, I wanted a touchscreen, just didn't want to fall for Apple or Android devices. Legacy users were not left out. They just don't know about BlackBerry 10's existence. And I disagree with you on the marketing. The superbowl commercial could have saved them big time if it was anything worth watching. A huge opportunity that failed. Didn't really give a person a reason to buy or upgrade to a BlackBerry 10. Apple didn't kill BlackBerry. BlackBerry still going on. Even though stock fell it wasn't due to Apple. I remember when Thorsten said that the "iPhone was outdated" stock actually rose at that remark. It was due to BlackBerry's poor business tactics, lack of marketing, lack of a saving grace (Thorsten hiding and not coming out to refute journalist claims), the lying (BB10 coming to PB), and of course the "For Sale" fiasco. These reasons seemed to be the reasons Bulls turned to Bears.

Perhaps I should point out that I wrote it with a bit of tongue-in-cheek sarcasm. I also knew that pitting Apple against BB, although that was not my intention, will cause an uproar in this BB fan forum :-).
But you completely mistook my point. It has nothing to do with a brand new platform, or time taken to refine the software etc. My point was that the whole motive/strategy/goal for BBRY to go to BB10, why BB was popular, and how BB10 should look like, was misguided at the start, but it was just one man's opinion. It was the well known fact that RIM underestimated the impact of the iPhone, which at the time was just an iPod with a phone capability. iPhone's root was the iPod. Skipping in-between, BBRY ended up creating an all touch slab just like an iPhone (or Android). In that scenario, unless BB's slab had something really unique to differentiate from other all-touch slabs, it would have been difficult to even compete with those already in that market segment, and Apple's engineering prowess, project management capability and even the presentation flair was awesome. And iPhone (and Android) has a huge ecosystem, not just app stores, but other devices to connect to, and utilization of cloud storage and syncing etc, that BB10 did not have. It is still relying on loading someone else's app store. It's only accepted in BB fan club, but if you come to think of it, it's a huge embarrassment and everybody must be scratching their heads. Without such differentiator (s), BB10 could not compete, except some diehard BB fans toying the BB10. Swipe navigation, hub, flow and all that was not sufficient to convince the market. This point was also raised by someone else in this thread. There might be arguments about what brought down the BB10, but we can only look at the sales results in the end. I also do not believe some arguments in some quarter of CB forum that the underwhelming sales of the BB10 was because people did not know it even existed. But that's just an apologist argument. Lack of marketing argument is another such misconception. The market knew of the BB10, but thy just did not like it, or could not find anything superior to the competitions to open their wallet to. Even many of long time BB fans also still did not buy the BB10. They certainly knew of the existence of the BB10 and how they work etc. But don't take me wrong This is a typical case of each to his own I never criticize someone's choice of BB10 (I once bought it too :-). Each has his/her own reasons to use certain brand of product. It is just that BB10 is not popular among general consumer market That's all. Things may, and sure will, change though.

Now... talking about Heins & Co., I have a full and complete agreement with you, LOL. But those also contributed to the poor sales of the BB10 greatly, no doubt.
Some argue that Heins came in and did what he was supposed to do, including laying off a huge number of employees. Slimming down was probably in the agenda anyway, but I do not believe for a minute that this huge layoff, for example, was what was initially planned. RIM bet the company's fate on the single product (BB10) and failed. Of course one of the first things they had to do was to layoff these poor souls who were victimized by this rather remarkable mismanagement. I regard it more as a consequence of the mismanagement by the Hein's & Co. than anything planned. They certainly wanted to save their experienced work force if things went well (but I always thought RIM was a bloated structure in the first place. Just seemed too many employees for essentially a single product company). The new management appears to be robust and I truly hope that they grasp and understand what really went wrong, and remedy them.

Again, one man's opinion...