[KAM1138]

Sure. I am sure that there are efforts required to adapt any piece of software. What I don't really have any sense of is what is driving the costs within a program such as that.
People write apps "in their basement" as it were, or with a small team, etc. Blackberry takes 40 people to maintain create or maintain two (two separate groups it sounded like) basic apps. Go to the Google Play store and search for Calculators--do you really think that any of those had a similar backing and effort?
An article I looked up indicates that the cost to develop an App is somewhere in the range of $10-100 Thousand Dollars. If blackberry is employing 10-20 people (average) for a Calculator app...what's going on?

So, BB10 takes a billion dollars a year to MAINTAIN--not create, but just keep going. NASA that puts Rovers on Mars and supports the International Space Station, and many other things has an annual budget of around $20 Billion. A quick search showed that the next Mars Rover will cost about 2.5 Billion Dollars.

I can't dispute the claims being made here about costs--I have no information on that at all. But if an OS (any, not just BB10) takes that much maintenance, then I had no idea how insanely inefficient the world of software is.

So, does anyone know--would an OS that DOESN'T have third party apps--essentially a Fixed set of features be simpler and less costly? Is a lot of the cost having to deal with so many variables?

In any case--I appreciate all the responses here. I honestly am trying to understand the reasons these things cost so much.

[KAM1138]

I have another question related to this.
I recall that the Amazon App store was added (with the original passport I think), but don't recall when the Android Runtime stuff was added (perhaps at the beginning).

How much programming effort was required to pursue this path--which ultimately failed. Meaning, they tried to run Android apps in a variety of ways.

How much more efficient would it have been for BB10 to NOT follow that entire concept, and be essentially a Feature phone, or with only in-house (first part) apps? Or at least, only Native Apps? Or isn't that a factor at all in the development cost?

What I'm wondering about is whether Blackberry spent a ton of money playing 'follow the leader' instead of doing something different--pursuing (and building) a different market entirely, which is similar to what Chen is suggesting now.

Using myself as an example: I could use my Stock Passport as it arrived out of the box and be very happy not installing any third party applications. It isn't that I want a phone that does only two things--I like the many things that my Basic Passport does--many features, but not endlessly variable (third party) features.

Would that make security simpler? Would it make a phone more secure? Would it reduce complexity? Would it reduce cost?

Might Blackberry have saved huge amounts of money by NOT trying to emulate Apple and their "it's an app for that" model? While Blackberry had apps way before BB10, I don't think that 3rd party apps are what built the company. Rather it was core functionality--and premium performance for what it did best. That's not to say that markets and consumer wants don't shift and change, but Consumer needs are not monolithic either.

If what Chen is talking about now is Viable for SOME market...well, then maybe it was viable way back then as well, and they could have captured and retained it with much less cost. Of course, all of that is water under the bridge, but might be a good lesson to consider moving forward.

[Chuck Finley69]

And apparently for Maintenance as well.

Is there some inherent necessity that makes it so inefficient?

What changed over the last 10-15 years? Obviously, the market has matured, but back then Palm, Blackberry, Apple and Google were all able to pursue Phone OS from scratch, and now, it's so inefficient of a proposition that even maintaining an existing product is near impossible.

What has fundamentally changed in how software works that has made it so unwieldy.

I guess those are rhetorical questions and not really the point of this thread's OP. I'm just surprised if it is even a fraction of what you describe why no one has figured out a better approach.

I'm no IT person. However, when you mention Palm and BlackBerry, their business model and proprietary OS had no real competitors. Microsoft and Nokia had the closest model to competition with their own respective solutions and then even they had to partner up and fail.

The reason was simple. The market grew and the capital required to maintain, develop and compete grew exponentially.

I've said this multiple times. You could have given BB, Android ownership and they still would have failed because they had nothing in terms of economic assets to compete with the big three. The better technology doesn't win if there's no economic staying power to fight a business war.

[Elephant_Canyon]

While Blackberry had apps way before BB10, I don't think that 3rd party apps are what built the company. Rather it was core functionality--and premium performance for what it did best.

Its core functionality was providing data services on pre-3G networks, which were not meant for things like email and web browsing. When the carriers upgraded to faster infrastructure, they made BlackBerry's core functionality obsolete, and the upper management at BlackBerry refused to see this coming. The only way forward, at that point, was to play "follow the leader."

[KAM1138]

I'm no IT person. However, when you mention Palm and BlackBerry, their business model and proprietary OS had no real competitors. Microsoft and Nokia had the closest model to competition with their own respective solutions and then even they had to partner up and fail.

The reason was simple. The market grew and the capital required to maintain, develop and compete grew exponentially.

I've said this multiple times. You could have given BB, Android ownership and they still would have failed because they had nothing in terms of economic assets to compete with the big three. The better technology doesn't win if there's no economic staying power to fight a business war.

I really don't want to get into the whole issue of Blackberry's Business missteps. However, "economic assets" in a business come from selling products or services.
Google apparently has massive income from other sources--I don't know what that business model is, but it apparently isn't from selling Android OS.
Apple on the other hand sells iphones and other products based on their OS, and I'd guess a lot of their income comes from those products.
So, based on what I've been told in this thread, the state of things is that there are two OS that appear to be continuing--Android being the dominant one, and iOS being significantly smaller (and others being a rounding error). And those two are such that they require 10 billion dollars (approximate) to keep them going.

We know that OS WERE created at one point--for much less money, and sure they were simpler, but...so what? Phones in 2009 did pretty much what BB10 Phones do with core functions today.

It seems to me--that it should be possible for a Technological product to be sold and profit to be made in 2018 without spending a billion dollars a year to maintain it.

[Elephant_Canyon]

So, given the basic outline mentioned by Chen for a device with core functions would it be cheaper to start from scratch?

No. It would be cheaper to start with an existing kernel that is already continually maintained by someone else, such as Android, and build functionality on that.

Is there no benefit from having code written and the architecture designed? Back to a mechanical analogy. Could you not strip it down and still have that foundation?

No, because the foundation is in such disrepair that it can no longer be built upon. In other words, there are no SoC's currently in production on which BB10 could run without a major overhaul of the core parts of the OS.

[KAM1138]

Its core functionality was providing data services on pre-3G networks, which were not meant for things like email and web browsing. When the carriers upgraded to faster infrastructure, they made BlackBerry's core functionality obsolete, and the upper management at BlackBerry refused to see this coming. The only way forward, at that point, was to play "follow the leader."

So, Blackberry couldn't have offered top of the line messaging, web browsing and other PDA, productivity, camera, navigation functions without following the "There's an App for that" model?

I'm not following why Blackberry (modern products) couldn't work on faster 3G or later networks. They can and they do--as do VERY cheap and simple devices today.

I haven't looked into it, but I'm guessing there ARE feature phones today operating on modern networks.

[conite]

So, based on what I've been told in this thread, the state of things is that there are two OS that appear to be continuing--Android being the dominant one, and iOS being significantly smaller (and others being a rounding error). And those two are such that they require 10 billion dollars (approximate) to keep them going.

This was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The level of innovation now is so high, that only these two companies can possibly afford it now.

[KAM1138]

No. It would be cheaper to start with an existing kernel that is already continually maintained by someone else, such as Android, and build functionality on that.


No, because the foundation is in such disrepair that it can no longer be built upon. In other words, there are no SoC's currently in production on which BB10 could run without a major overhaul of the core parts of the OS.

Bizarre. Not saying I don't believe you--it's just a bizarre way of making a product, or a bizarre situation for a product to be built in.

So, what was Chen talking about then? People such as Blaze seemed to think BB10 would be a natural fit, and Blackberry wouldn't benefit from having someone NOT licensing a Blackberry product make a 9900 type device. Unless he's referring to keyboards alone.

[KAM1138]

This was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The level of innovation now is so high, that only these two companies can possibly afford it now.

Well, what I'm having trouble understanding is how it would be impossible for someone to make (or adapt) an OS that ISN'T chasing "innovation", doesn't have to deal with third party software (compatibility, etc), and is making a focused product.

People created various OS from scratch for fractions of this cost--and made functional viable devices. Why couldn't someone today repeat that process--having all the knowledge and experience of the last 10 years if they are essentially just making a "fresh" current version of the same functional product?

See--if people who know about building cars want to build a car--they don't have to reinvent the car. They use the knowledge and experience to build another car--for CHEAPER than before.
The car might not have as much horsepower, but it doesn't need to, because it's not hauling as much as a modern car. In fact--it might be more efficient, because you can still utilize modern lessons and technology in the frame design for example--making it lighter and safer, even though you're still using an older engine design.

That analogy is getting off. So, 15+ years ago, people could make a device that sent e-mail and did messaging right? With all the experience, isn't it true that someone could make a device that could do those things--very efficiently and economically?

Again--anything else implies a "lost knowledge" type of situation.

I have no real knowledge of this, but I've heard people say that Android is massively bloated and complex at this point--not efficient at all (which would explain the need for such massive support). Is this accurate?

If so, then wouldn't it stand to reason that a LESS complex system would be cheaper and more efficient?

What are you referring to when you say "Innovation."

[KAM1138]

This was a self-fulfilling prophecy. The level of innovation now is so high, that only these two companies can possibly afford it now.

OR...doesn't it seem that it would be a good idea to NOT spend 10 Billion a year on maintaining a product so bloated that it requires such Huge efforts?
Isn't that a potential opportunity for someone to produce a much more efficient product that isn't starting 10 billion in the hole every year?

[glwerry]

I have another question related to this.
I recall that the Amazon App store was added (with the original passport I think), but don't recall when the Android Runtime stuff was added (perhaps at the beginning).

How much programming effort was required to pursue this path--which ultimately failed. Meaning, they tried to run Android apps in a variety of ways.

How much more efficient would it have been for BB10 to NOT follow that entire concept, and be essentially a Feature phone, or with only in-house (first part) apps? Or at least, only Native Apps? Or isn't that a factor at all in the development cost?

What I'm wondering about is whether Blackberry spent a ton of money playing 'follow the leader' instead of doing something different--pursuing (and building) a different market entirely, which is similar to what Chen is suggesting now.

Using myself as an example: I could use my Stock Passport as it arrived out of the box and be very happy not installing any third party applications. It isn't that I want a phone that does only two things--I like the many things that my Basic Passport does--many features, but not endlessly variable (third party) features.

Would that make security simpler? Would it make a phone more secure? Would it reduce complexity? Would it reduce cost?

Might Blackberry have saved huge amounts of money by NOT trying to emulate Apple and their "it's an app for that" model? While Blackberry had apps way before BB10, I don't think that 3rd party apps are what built the company. Rather it was core functionality--and premium performance for what it did best. That's not to say that markets and consumer wants don't shift and change, but Consumer needs are not monolithic either.

If what Chen is talking about now is Viable for SOME market...well, then maybe it was viable way back then as well, and they could have captured and retained it with much less cost. Of course, all of that is water under the bridge, but might be a good lesson to consider moving forward.

First, let me say that I do appreciate your tone / approach - I read that you are genuinely trying to understand an area that's new/bewildering to you.

I'll just try to address one area of this comment - the "ART" (Android Run Time), because I have had similar experience at work.

Embedding the ART into BB10 is actually much more difficult that it appears. For starters, the ART is NOT a "full" implementation of the Android operating system. That limits its usefulness and functionality. At some point an Android app is going to want to do something that the ART just isn't set up to do. Things break at that point.

Secondly, a person winds up with very specialized code in BB10, because it has to deal with actions from the ART as well as actions from the phone itself. If there were no ART, then you would only be dealing with the phone's actions. Toss in the ART and you have DOUBLE the work to do on many functions. (This is very simplistic).

Part of the issue in the long run was that the world was going head-long into the "app for everything" space.
I myself, although a BB10 fan had to jump to the BB Android world because my Classic couldn't use a key Google app that I required for work.

That's part of what killed BB10.

[conite]

OR...doesn't it seem that it would be a good idea to NOT spend 10 Billion a year on maintaining a product so bloated that it requires such Huge efforts?
Isn't that a potential opportunity for someone to produce a much more efficient product that isn't starting 10 billion in the hole every year?

Bloat is a relative term.

It would actually take more resources to start from scratch rather than working with what you have and implement new features. That said, you still have teams that are always looking to streamline at the same time.

[KAM1138]

Hello glwerry,

Thanks--I appreciate your taking the time to share your knowledge.

Ok, so when I say "follow the leader" I'm referring mainly to the idea that a Phone had to have expansive 3rd party apps to be competitive. Certainly this was the route that Android and Apple took, and no argument that that has been successful for them. I'm CONSIDERING that there may be another product that doesn't follow that--a different set of customers with different needs. I'm NOT saying that No one needs that third party functionality--as clearly people such as you (and Conite has stated previously) want and need that.

Ok, so the Android Run Time. You say that's very difficult--and that's not too surprising to me, based on what little I know. I also understand updating it would be very difficult--essentially not viable. That's fine.

It seems as if you are confirming however, that having the ART is a significant (not sure what percentage) of effort in regards to the entire OS.

So, I can surely see that people who NEED certain Apps (or functions offered only through third-party apps) would not have BB10 as a viable option.
What I'd like to know is how much effort (money) was spent in pursuing a limited option, vs NOT following that option at all.
Did the attempt to provide Android compatibility add significant cost (direct costs) as well as complexity (which lead to secondary costs)--and for very little (relative to using a full android device) benefit?

See--for me there is this key question. Blackberry tried to play in the exact same Arena as Android and Apple, AFTER delaying and denying that was what some people wanted. They basically made two wrong choices--denial and then inefficient pursuit, instead of acknowledging that they were offering a different product with a different focus.

I'm not denying that there was both a need (by some, such as yourself) to having third party apps or other functions, AND a marketing push to convince consumers of exactly that. What I'm asking--and what Chen is talking about conceptually, is whether there is ALSO a segment of customers (likely much smaller), that really DON'T want or need those things?

Some people want and need a Monster Truck with huge carrying capacity, and other people want and need a light vehicle to carry groceries. Both are viable products, so why wouldn't the same be true for other types of products.

I love games of all sorts, but I do not need to play games on my Communication-focused device. Some people might like to combine them, but I'd prefer to have a dedicated device which does each category of function BEST--not pretty good at both. That's ONE type of consumer.

So, slightly different question: When I'm on my PC, and I want to watch a YouTube Video--I don't use an App installed on my Hard Drive--I use the YouTube Website. Isn't the whole concept of websites and browsers based on having compatible systems and NOT having individual applications?
The same goes for Twitter, Facebook, instagram, online banking--and many other services. NONE of those have an application installed on my computer. So, why do phone have to work under THAT model, when PCs do not.

Some others in the 9900-type device thread (main page article) have talked about some HTML-5 Based app system (I don't know what that is), but I'm vaguely aware of apps that work HTML--in a browser--akin to the PC based web-functions, rather than apps installed on a device.

It seems that BB10 had HTML-5 Support and that was a route to added functionality. Is that dead--or used by only a few? Is there an inherent difference in how that works and what it offers users, or is it less or more efficient?

Thanks again for your responses.

[KAM1138]

Bloat is a relative term.

It would actually take more resources to start from scratch rather than working with what you have and implement new features. That said, you still have teams that are always looking to streamline at the same time.

Are you referring to Android Specifically, or any OS?

[conite]

Are you referring to Android Specifically, or any OS?

Any.

[kvndoom]

Are there really no people that understand BB10?

You got a mirror?

[KAM1138]

Any.

Ok, so if one were trying to make a device that did roughly the functions in an "out of the box" BB10 Device--not including any Android Run Time or 3rd party apps (although perhaps subsequent first party apps). It would be more efficient taking an existing OS as a starting point (perhaps a simplified version) than creating one from scratch.

Now, I don't know how much it cost to create WebOS early version of Android etc, but I suspect less than 10 billion a year to start.

Elephant Canyon stated that it would be easier to use an Android Basis than a BB10 basis for this simplified system. Do you agree with that? Bearing in mind this is NOT something looking to interface with Google services or run Android Apps.

What is a more efficient system to Adapt AND to operating moving forward--or isn't this something that can be easily determined and known?

And perhaps BB10 and Android aren't the only or best choices. Would WebOS be a viable choice (just throwing one I know about out there). It seems to me that the answer would be based on what you want the product to do, and how efficient/secure the software is. This would include how demanding it is on memory, processors, etc as well.

Is Android a BETTER product for this, or simply a cheaper one...well, one that someone else is paying for.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Others have explained the costs of developing a comprehensive mobile OS (over $1 B per year is correct) - that's roughly what Nokia spent on Meego, it's roughly what Palm spent on WebOS, and what BB spent on BB10. MS spent about $1.5B a year, Apple about $1.3B a year, and Google nearly $2B a year. With that kind of consistency across different companies in different locations, it stands to reason that those costs are reasonable - you wouldn't have 6 companies all doing things "the wrong way" just to waste money; there is obviously a reason for those expenses. I could get into FAR more detail, but my point here is to come at this another way.

For "desktop" computing (desktops, laptops, etc.), we've had 2 commercial OSs that utterly dominated the market for the last 35 years or so: Windows and MacOS. Yes, there have been a few others who tried (DR-DOS, GeoWorks, OS/2, Amiga, BeOS), but none of them ever managed to capture more than 1 or 2% - and numbers like that simply aren't sustainable, because ongoing development costs are too high, and you have to have market share GROWTH or you'll run out of money and investors and banks won't give you any. (Yes, Linux exists for the desktop, but its development is largely funded by the companies who charge big bucks for the SERVER flavors of Linux and contribute code back to the main project - and Linux is still at about 2% of the desktop market).

Why is it, do you imagine, that no company has been able to displace Windows or MacOS in 34 years? The answer, in a word, is APPLICATIONS.

See, OSs exist for the primary reason of RUNNING APPLICATIONS, because everyone has different needs for their computers than their neighbor or coworker, but because the cost of developing and maintaining an OS is so high, it isn't feasible to make a bunch of different niche OS to meet niche use cases. Instead, the market has strongly embraced the use of GENERALIZED OSs that can be customized for virtually any use case by the use of APPLICATIONS.

And those applications require developers to create them, and those developers want to make as much money as possible doing the least amount of work possible - just like anybody else. With 2 OSs that cover 98+% of the desktop market, that means they can develop their application 2 times - once for each OS - and almost anyone who needs their OS can run it on the computer they already own.

If a third OS was created, and the market got split between them, that would mean the developer now has to create THREE versions of their app in order to reach the exact same number of people they used to be able to reach with only TWO versions - which means that their development costs are increased by 50% but their revenues stay the same, and they make a whole lot less money!

For this reason, developers prefer a world with only 2 desktop OSs, and they tend to ignore any niche OSs that crop up - no matter how awesome they seem - until that OS attains a significant share of the market. Of course, without apps, those niche OSs can't achieve significant market share, and they fail, and the developers are happy knowing that they won't have to endure a 50% cost increase for zero revenue increase. Thus, Windows and MacOS continue to dominate the desktop market.

The parallels between the desktop OS market and the mobile OS market should be obvious, because the market forces are nearly identical. Developers only want to have to support 2 OSs, and they're going to get behind the OSs that offer the best tools, the best support, and the biggest customer bases - and those companies are Apple and Google. Other mobile OSs will largely be ignored until they go away, UNLESS that OS offers a HUGE leap forward that mainstream customers will insist upon AND that the established OSs can't quickly offer.

And as long as that remains true (and there's no reason today to expect that to change), then no other mobile OS is going to be significantly successful, as the development costs of a mobile OS are so high (to get it to mainstream acceptability) that it's only possible to sustain IF you have a significant share of the market (around 15% or greater).

Back when Mike Lazaridis bought QNX and planned to create a new mobile OS to replace BBOS, he assumed that he'd sell a minimum of 40M phones a year - which was less than the number of BBOS phones he was selling at the time, AND the market was growing significantly at the time. All of the spending to develop BB10, starting in 2010, was based on those numbers, and it was always well understood that there was a threshold of yearly unit sales (which Chen placed at 10M per year) that was required just to break even - and that only counts phones sold at full price, not at firesale prices.

BB10's best sales year was 2013, and it barely broke 6M in sales, and only after there was a huge discount on Z10s, which meant that a ton of those Z10s were sold for zero profit - just to cash out the components they were made from. An insider calculated that BB *lost* about $100 on every BB10 phone ever sold. Think about that: not only didn't they make a profit, they didn't even break even - they essentially subsidized the sale of each and every phone. In order for BB to have broken even, they'd have had to increase the MSRP of their phones by $100 - and then they'd had to have gotten people to buy them at those prices. And all that for ZERO PROFIT!

Why is that? Because BB had to pay for the expensive of developing the OS, the development language, the developer tools, the marketplace, the payment processing systems, the server farms, the Internet bandwidth bills, and on and on - ON TOP OF the cost of the hardware, distribution, marketing, and after-sale support - and the only source of revenue was the one-time sale of the device itself.

The result: BB lost around $10B of cash and value, nearly went bankrupt, put it self up for sale, wasn't able to find a buyer, and was ultimately forced to borrow $1.25B to stay afloat AND agree to put Watsa on the board and put Watsa's pick as CEO (which turned out to be Chen), and to follow Watsa's mandate, which was to get out of the smartphone business and seek other sources of revenue that could be made with the skills, resources, knowledge, and patents that BB had access to. And so far, Chen has been fairly successful, though there's still a long way to go.

Note: CEO Thorsten Heins was looking for companies interested in licensing BB10 since back in 2012, and when BB10 flopped in mid-2013, the accounting consultants that were brought in to advise him also sought licensees - but no one was interested, because anyone in that business understood what the costs were to develop and maintain an entire ecosystem, and they knew it would never be sustainable, much less profitable.

That's why you're never, ever going to see another BB10 phone other than in your own dreams. There's simply no business case to make it possible.

[KAM1138]

'in my dreams'. Well you got me there. Bravo.

Posted via CB10

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

Well now that BlackBerry looks like it will survive, and the QNX base from which bb10 is built on top of is still solid, and has been ported to 64bit devices a second look by a manufacturer might be worth their while.

Yes BlackBerry will not equal Android nor Apple in marketshare owing to size differentials, I'm not sure that is even necessary, in order to profit from a more relatively niche market of the best-basic smartphone os platform available. It was one thing when BlackBerry was bleeding billions, it is quite another when it is a more stable going concern. All that basic work in bb10 makes it a lucrative option for an enterprising outfit that may not be "deep enstated" in the Open Handset Alliance cartel of android manufacturers. A little gov't leverage over the smartphone platform duopoly would easily help a new entrant or re-entrant keep the marketplace from remaining a monopolistic or complete duopolistic closed marketplace impossible for other participants to survive.

Perhaps a look at the overwhelming pressure mounted by the duopoly's in the various sales channels may be looked at.

There is no question the QNX roots of BB10 seem to be the best platform to continuing development of a security and privacy oriented smartphone. The question is, do governments really want privacy oriented smartphones in the hands of the populace? Do they want the populace to have a variety of informed choice over privacy How much privacy will they actually allow, and in what form.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

....and of course will the populace wake up and start enforcing and/or demanding privacy from plain unwanted prying or data gathering by either private or government entities. It is worth noting that the most well-educated class of citizenery has the lowest percentage usage of smartphones. There may be a compelling reason for that behaviour....a trust-worthyness privacy-protection factor certainly may currently be at play in the current business models for some potential smartphone users.

[KAM1138]

First, I have to convey a humorous story. In the Comments on the "Bold 9900" article--I'm called a fool for listening to people on the forums (like Conite or Tony). Someone there says that the people on the forum have no idea what they're talking about in terms of costs, implementing software, etc, when I bring up cost issues raised here.
HERE, I'm a "dreamer"--essentially a moron who denies reality about BB10's future.
I've managed to be no one's friend. Wah-Wah for me.

So, I understand that Android (the OS itself, not things like Play store) is open source.
Am I right in thinking that this means that people using Android actually pay Zero Dollars for it?
I'm curious, because several people talk about how no one "Bites" on offers to sell BB10.
If their competition is 'selling' for $0...well, then that's sort of tough to compete with.
What's the viability of a product that sells for $0--of the product itself (assuming this is the case). Well, it doesn't have one--so it's supported by other revenue sources--those may be related, such as licensing of other google services related to Android, or data-selling or however google makes their money.
On the other hand, Apparently iOS is sustained by sales of the product it is attached to, so it seems Apple has a business model that works--and is able to support an OS. To my knowledge they don't license it out. So Apple is supporting it with...Sales of Products. So, it seems there is A business model that allows a company to sell products and with those funds support the development of those products. Maybe I'm wrong--does Apple have a Magical Money Tree that provides funds outside of selling products/services?

What actually happened is that Blackberry(RIM) Failed to create and execute a business plan that worked. Others did, so it's not impossible, and wasn't Predestination.
People blaming a piece of software (that's really good) for Blackberry's failure have a very strange perspective as I see it. The Technology didn't fail--I'm using it daily.

Blackberry (RIM) is a company that failed to create, market and sell products that generated revenue to support their development costs.
Apple is a Company that SUCCEEDED in its plans to create, market and sell products that generate revenue to support its products development.

Sooner or later things will change, and while it's true that BB10 isn't going to be part of that, I can dream can't I? No...that's not allowed here. Ok, fine, I won't even dream them.

[conite]

First, I have to convey a humorous story. In the Comments on the "Bold 9900" article--I'm called a fool for listening to people on the forums (like Conite or Tony). Someone there says that the people on the forum have no idea what they're talking about in terms of costs, implementing software, etc, when I bring up cost issues raised here.
HERE, I'm a "dreamer"--essentially a moron who denies reality about BB10's future.
I've managed to be no one's friend. Wah-Wah for me.

So, I understand that Android (the OS itself, not things like Play store) is open source.
Am I right in thinking that this means that people using Android actually pay Zero Dollars for it?
I'm curious, because several people talk about how no one "Bites" on offers to sell BB10.
If their competition is 'selling' for $0...well, then that's sort of tough to compete with.
What's the viability of a product that sells for $0--of the product itself (assuming this is the case). Well, it doesn't have one--so it's supported by other revenue sources--those may be related, such as licensing of other google services related to Android, or data-selling or however google makes their money.
On the other hand, Apparently iOS is sustained by sales of the product it is attached to, so it seems Apple has a business model that works--and is able to support an OS. To my knowledge they don't license it out. So Apple is supporting it with...Sales of Products. So, it seems there is A business model that allows a company to sell products and with those funds support the development of those products. Maybe I'm wrong--does Apple have a Magical Money Tree that provides funds outside of selling products/services?

What actually happened is that Blackberry(RIM) Failed to create and execute a business plan that worked. Others did, so it's not impossible, and wasn't Predestination.
People blaming a piece of software (that's really good) for Blackberry's failure have a very strange perspective as I see it. The Technology didn't fail--I'm using it daily.

Blackberry (RIM) is a company that failed to create, market and sell products that generated revenue to support their development costs.
Apple is a Company that SUCCEEDED in its plans to create, market and sell products that generate revenue to support its products development.

Sooner or later things will change, and while it's true that BB10 isn't going to be part of that, I can dream can't I? No...that's not allowed here. Ok, fine, I won't even dream them.

The ROI for Android's and iOS' OS development is achieved through the sale of content and/or from targeted advertising.

Both enjoy captive audiences anchored to their respective ecosystems.

This is why BB10 never had a chance. There isn't much margin in hardware alone - unless you can spread expenses over a massively insane number of units like Samsung or Apple.

[KAM1138]

The ROI for Android's and iOS' OS development is achieved through the sale of content and/or from targeted advertising.

Both enjoy captive audiences anchored to their respective ecosystems.

This is why BB10 never had a chance. There isn't much margin in hardware alone - unless you can spread expenses over a massively insane number of units like Samsung or Apple.

Well, that's now. TODAY they have a "Captive Audience anchored to their respective ecosystems." I think you're 100% correct about that--but that's the RESULT.
Android and Apple didn't have a lock on Audiences in 2007. How many people ever heard of Android in 2007. There was no Predestined success--the result is based on the choices/execution of these companies plans.

The iphone changed the game--and some companies read that right and developed a plan that worked and others didn't. Or other factors just didn't work out for them.

Apple and Google ended up with "captive audiences" because they won--beating Blackberry's business plans with their own. None of this was predestined or written in stone. It was the result of better planning and execution.
I don't understand why people insist on taking hindsight too far--transforming it into a retroactive prediction saying "it was always impossible" rather than simply saying "Blackberry/RIM failed."

What has never made sense to me is that people point to BB10 itself as if that was a cause or a technological failure. That's just not correct. Not saying BB10 is PERFECTION, but it's like blaming A Bishop for losing a Chess Game. NO--the PLAYER is to blame, not the pieces.