[BlackBerry Guy]

Came across this blog post tonight on Stratechery tonight. Somewhat fitting considering today's news regarding Microsoft and Nokia, and the recent news on BlackBerry seeking strategic alternatives. We've all heard it before, BlackBerry and Nokia should go Android. But this is one of the few analysis' that go beyond the simple reason of getting access to the Android ecosystem. This breaks down not only why, but exactly how it should be adopted specifically for these two companies. Mods - sorry if this has been posted before, please feel free to lock and link to original post if that's the case.

BlackBerry - and Nokia's - Fundamental Failing | strat


BlackBerry � and Nokia�s � Fundamental Failing
Monday, August 12, 2013

In December 2009, while a first-year student at Kellogg, I went to a RIM (now BlackBerry1) recruitment presentation.

�Our problem,� the relatively senior fellow said, �is that when I get on a plane, everyone uses a BlackBerry until they close the door. Then they pull out their iPods. We need to make BlackBerry�s the only device they need.�

Obviously, consumers ended up going in precisely the opposite direction, but the truth is that BlackBerry was already in major trouble.

Android 2.0 �Eclair� had launched two months previously, and a second app ecosystem was starting to take root, sealing BlackBerry�s fate as a standalone ecosystem. It wasn�t just BlackBerry; Nokia�s door to platform independence closed at the exact same time for the exact same reason: while the history of software ecosystems is not long, the maximum number of said ecosystems seems to be about 2, maybe 2.5. This has held true for the desktop, for consoles2, and now for mobile.

Still, that needn�t have been the end for BlackBerry, or Nokia for that matter. Both were viable enterprises in 2009 and into 2010. But then both made the exact same strategic error: they didn�t know what they were good at, and consequently threw their differentiation away.

I�ve used this graph multiple times on this blog, and for good reason: understanding and appreciating the entire stack is the foundation of any sort of coherent analysis.
The Mobile Hierarchy of Needs



Both BlackBerry and Nokia had significant strengths in this stack:

BlackBerry had differentiated hardware � there are people who still swear by their keyboards � and highly differentiated services, including BlackBerry Enterprise Server and BlackBerry Messenger
Nokia dominated all the parts of this stack you don�t see: they had, and in some respects, still have, the best supply chain and distribution network. In addition, they had high quality hardware that served every segment imaginable

Notably absent in these strengths is the OS and Apps. By 2009, BlackBerry OS and Symbian were clearly obsolete, and their app ecosystems, such as they were, were eclipsed by iOS and then Android. The problem, as I alluded to above, is that while the OS was ultimately under the control of BlackBerry and Nokia, respectively, and thus could be fixed, the efficacy of their ecosystem wasn�t, and wouldn�t be.

Building a healthy app ecosystem is probably the most difficult problem in technology, maybe in business:

You need an API that can be built upon
You need an OS that developers want to use
You need consumers who are willing-to-pay
You need a liquid marketplace
You need to overcome the opportunity cost of developers working on other platforms

It�s the last one that is a killer to the 3rd and 4th ecosystem into a market, which, by 2009, both BlackBerry and Nokia were destined to have.

And so, by far the smartest strategic thing either could have done would have been to accept their weakness � they didn�t have an adequate OS or ecosystem � and focus on their strengths.

BlackBerry should have adopted Android and made it enterprise-ready, with BBM for consumers. And, of course, those hardware keyboards
Nokia should have adopted Android-stock, and used their unmatched supply chain and distribution to do to their competitors, well, exactly what Nokia had been doing to their competitors for the last decade (if you think Samsung is running roughshod over everyone today, in 2007 they could only manage 41 million phones compared to Nokia�s 110 million3).

Both BlackBerry and Nokia would have gotten a good OS and thriving ecosystem for free and been able to compete and differentiate themselves on the exact same vectors they had previously. To put it another way, RIM and Nokia had never been successful because of their OS or ecosystem, yet both decided their best response to iOS and Android was to build a new OS!4

In fact, the strategic superiority of the Android option for RIM and Nokia was even then so obvious that I suspect their core failing was not so much strategic as it was all-too-human: pride. Owning an ecosystem seems much more important than owning services or supply chains, even if building said ecosystem completely devalues what you�re actually good at (this tweet captures the waste perfectly).

And so, for BlackBerry at least, today came the fall.

[badiyee]

I think you're romanticizing Android too much.

BlackBerry to enter Android in total (no back up plan) would be a pitfall that they can nver get back up to.

BlackBerry and Nokia to enter Android hegemony = thrive and prosper? Look at all the companies besides Samsung, and all I see are corpses to be cannibalized while the King of Hill (Samsung) continues to crush everyone. Even Samsung is now preparing Tizen as a breakaway.

I fail to see how BlackBerry could even climb the pitfall if they fall in Android (in which they most probably wouldn't even be able to crawl up)

[GadgetTravel]

Came across this blog post tonight on Stratechery tonight. Somewhat fitting considering today's news regarding Microsoft and Nokia, and the recent news on BlackBerry seeking strategic alternatives. We've all heard it before, BlackBerry and Nokia should go Android. But this is one of the few analysis' that go beyond the simple reason of getting access to the Android ecosystem. This breaks down not only why, but exactly how it should be adopted specifically for these two companies. Mods - sorry if this has been posted before, please feel free to lock and link to original post if that's the case.

BlackBerry - and Nokia's - Fundamental Failing | strat


BlackBerry � and Nokia�s � Fundamental Failing
Monday, August 12, 2013

In December 2009, while a first-year student at Kellogg, I went to a RIM (now BlackBerry1) recruitment presentation.

�Our problem,� the relatively senior fellow said, �is that when I get on a plane, everyone uses a BlackBerry until they close the door. Then they pull out their iPods. We need to make BlackBerry�s the only device they need.�

Obviously, consumers ended up going in precisely the opposite direction, but the truth is that BlackBerry was already in major trouble.

Android 2.0 �Eclair� had launched two months previously, and a second app ecosystem was starting to take root, sealing BlackBerry�s fate as a standalone ecosystem. It wasn�t just BlackBerry; Nokia�s door to platform independence closed at the exact same time for the exact same reason: while the history of software ecosystems is not long, the maximum number of said ecosystems seems to be about 2, maybe 2.5. This has held true for the desktop, for consoles2, and now for mobile.

Still, that needn�t have been the end for BlackBerry, or Nokia for that matter. Both were viable enterprises in 2009 and into 2010. But then both made the exact same strategic error: they didn�t know what they were good at, and consequently threw their differentiation away.

I�ve used this graph multiple times on this blog, and for good reason: understanding and appreciating the entire stack is the foundation of any sort of coherent analysis.
The Mobile Hierarchy of Needs

http://stratechery.com/wp-content/up...ds-600x450.jpg

Both BlackBerry and Nokia had significant strengths in this stack:

BlackBerry had differentiated hardware � there are people who still swear by their keyboards � and highly differentiated services, including BlackBerry Enterprise Server and BlackBerry Messenger
Nokia dominated all the parts of this stack you don�t see: they had, and in some respects, still have, the best supply chain and distribution network. In addition, they had high quality hardware that served every segment imaginable

Notably absent in these strengths is the OS and Apps. By 2009, BlackBerry OS and Symbian were clearly obsolete, and their app ecosystems, such as they were, were eclipsed by iOS and then Android. The problem, as I alluded to above, is that while the OS was ultimately under the control of BlackBerry and Nokia, respectively, and thus could be fixed, the efficacy of their ecosystem wasn�t, and wouldn�t be.

Building a healthy app ecosystem is probably the most difficult problem in technology, maybe in business:

You need an API that can be built upon
You need an OS that developers want to use
You need consumers who are willing-to-pay
You need a liquid marketplace
You need to overcome the opportunity cost of developers working on other platforms

It�s the last one that is a killer to the 3rd and 4th ecosystem into a market, which, by 2009, both BlackBerry and Nokia were destined to have.

And so, by far the smartest strategic thing either could have done would have been to accept their weakness � they didn�t have an adequate OS or ecosystem � and focus on their strengths.

BlackBerry should have adopted Android and made it enterprise-ready, with BBM for consumers. And, of course, those hardware keyboards
Nokia should have adopted Android-stock, and used their unmatched supply chain and distribution to do to their competitors, well, exactly what Nokia had been doing to their competitors for the last decade (if you think Samsung is running roughshod over everyone today, in 2007 they could only manage 41 million phones compared to Nokia�s 110 million3).

Both BlackBerry and Nokia would have gotten a good OS and thriving ecosystem for free and been able to compete and differentiate themselves on the exact same vectors they had previously. To put it another way, RIM and Nokia had never been successful because of their OS or ecosystem, yet both decided their best response to iOS and Android was to build a new OS!4

In fact, the strategic superiority of the Android option for RIM and Nokia was even then so obvious that I suspect their core failing was not so much strategic as it was all-too-human: pride. Owning an ecosystem seems much more important than owning services or supply chains, even if building said ecosystem completely devalues what you�re actually good at (this tweet captures the waste perfectly).

And so, for BlackBerry at least, today came the fall.

This is a much better explanation of what I have been saying. This isn't the first time this has happened for those of us old enough to remember the early days of the PC. What determined the winners there was software - apps - to a large extent. Not whether Commodore, CPM or Microsoft were better operating systems. No one cares about the OS within a very broad range. They care about what they can so with the device. And that's software.

[GadgetTravel]

I think you're romanticizing Android too much.

BlackBerry to enter Android in total (no back up plan) would be a pitfall that they can nver get back up to.

BlackBerry and Nokia to enter Android hegemony = thrive and prosper? Look at all the companies besides Samsung, and all I see are corpses to be cannibalized while the King of Hill (Samsung) continues to crush everyone. Even Samsung is now preparing Tizen as a breakaway.

I fail to see how BlackBerry could even climb the pitfall if they fall in Android (in which they most probably wouldn't even be able to crawl up)

Maybe look at BB and Nokia instead. One sold as parts and one seeking strategic alternatives. From the numbers I have seen several Android companies beside Samsung are outselling BB10 devices. The real question is could BB compete better against other Android vendors than against the whole group of them? I think it certainly could have. But in reality we will never know.

[badiyee]

Maybe look at BB and Nokia instead. One sold as parts and one seeking strategic alternatives. From the numbers I have seen several Android companies beside Samsung are outselling BB10 devices. The real question is could BB compete better against other Android vendors than against the whole group of them? I think it certainly could have. But in reality we will never know.

Nope. Asking to compare BB to Nokia in the form of "One sold as parts and one seeking strategic alternatives" vs Asking to compare BB to Nokia as in "Should they have plunged into Android at all" are two entirely different forks in decision making, 2 different universe(s) at all.

What the OP is doing is romantizing that Android is the answer. If I remember correctly, I've even given you a written statement as to WHAT will happen if BlackBerry goes Android but will eventually face a few issues, and you were there saying "they can't solve it". Essentially, BB going Android would be a deathtrap. BB has made BES much more Android friendly, and its usable for the enterprise sector in the BYOD movement, if memory serves me right. But going full Android would have only led to a sure conclusion of death. What I'll dare say is, had BB went Android, by now it would have been bust, without breaking up QNX and BBM into separate entities. Or should I say Old RIM would have gone down under faster than before they could say "we quit".

[badiyee]

This is a much better explanation of what I have been saying. This isn't the first time this has happened for those of us old enough to remember the early days of the PC. What determined the winners there was software - apps - to a large extent. Not whether Commodore, CPM or Microsoft were better operating systems. No one cares about the OS within a very broad range. They care about what they can so with the device. And that's software.

To add on to this point, there were lots of OEMs that rose and fall too, just to cater to the market of Microsoft Windows.

[Its Spade]

What if we think of this a bit different....

What if BlackBerry and Nokia go with a partnership?

Think of all the patents between the both of them... the ideas are endless..

Member of Squircle of Trust!

[GadgetTravel]

Nope. Asking to compare BB to Nokia in the form of "One sold as parts and one seeking strategic alternatives" vs Asking to compare BB to Nokia as in "Should they have plunged into Android at all" are two entirely different forks in decision making, 2 different universe(s) at all.

What the OP is doing is romantizing that Android is the answer. If I remember correctly, I've even given you a written statement as to WHAT will happen if BlackBerry goes Android but will eventually face a few issues, and you were there saying "they can't solve it". Essentially, BB going Android would be a deathtrap. BB has made BES much more Android friendly, and its usable for the enterprise sector in the BYOD movement, if memory serves me right. But going full Android would have only led to a sure conclusion of death. What I'll dare say is, had BB went Android, by now it would have been bust, without breaking up QNX and BBM into separate entities. Or should I say Old RIM would have gone down under faster than before they could say "we quit".

I think your comments about the point that they made Android more enterprise ready through BES seriously undermines your hypothesis. In not talking about slapping just Android on a handset. More like Balance with secure and less secure sectors.

[GadgetTravel]

What if we think of this a bit different....

What if BlackBerry and Nokia go with a partnership?

Think of all the patents between the both of them... the ideas are endless..

Member of Squircle of Trust!

Do you mean Blackberry and Microsoft? Or actually Nokia?

[badiyee]

I think your comments about the point that they made Android more enterprise ready through BES seriously undermines your hypothesis. In not talking about slapping just Android on a handset. More like Balance with secure and less secure sectors.

Hypothetically, true, if they went android and slapped BES on top of Android and offered that to all consumers, I think overnight BlackBerry would have seen the switch. But it would not have stopped them from losing customers to iOS (which was still in lead until Android's domination with samsung via the S3), and there would still be people grumbling about vanilla android, lack of updates / or slow of them, and the poor hardware.

That is assuming BES is slapped on top of a BlackBerry made android os for free. But if it wasn't free? again with the 3 things i mentioned, and BlackBerry just dug themselves a quicksand blackhole with nobody to bail them out. (because all companies would gleefully look at potential new businesses in the enterprise sector)


so that's why that OP's statement about BB should have gone full Android from the beginning was just romanticism. Android OS won't save the old RIM at all. It would have only hastened its death.

[ranzabar]

So if Android is the future, do I just bend over and accept that I'm a dog to be abused by the Google adware spies on my phone? If I have no choice but a Google product (or Microsoft & apple) , then I'll do without a smartphone.

Posted via CB10

[Its Spade]

Do you mean Blackberry and Microsoft? Or actually Nokia?

with whatever is left of nokia....

like for instance... timeshift with nokias 40x megapixel camera..

they do have the patents still... why not license them out to anyone who is willing to pay.... that just 1 example

[BlackBerry Guy]

I think you're romanticizing Android too much.

BlackBerry to enter Android in total (no back up plan) would be a pitfall that they can nver get back up to.

BlackBerry and Nokia to enter Android hegemony = thrive and prosper? Look at all the companies besides Samsung, and all I see are corpses to be cannibalized while the King of Hill (Samsung) continues to crush everyone. Even Samsung is now preparing Tizen as a breakaway.

I fail to see how BlackBerry could even climb the pitfall if they fall in Android (in which they most probably wouldn't even be able to crawl up)

I think what the writer was indicating was that BlackBerry and Nokia are sufficiently differentiated enough to have possibly succeeded by using Android as a base OS and then building upon it with their own strengths. What a lot of the other Android smartphone manufacturers lacked was an identity in the smartphone world, which probably led to the spec arms race as a result in an attempt to differentiate. Identity is something BlackBerry and Nokia were not short off.



Posted via CB10

[GadgetTravel]

I think what the writer was indicating was that BlackBerry and Nokia are sufficiently differentiated enough to have possibly succeeded by using Android as a base OS and then building upon it with their own strengths. What a lot of the other Android smartphone manufacturers lacked was an identity in the smartphone world, which probably led to the spec arms race as a result in an attempt to differentiate. Identity is something BlackBerry and Nokia were not short off.



Posted via CB10

Right. You expressed this better than did I.

[Troy Tiscareno]

with whatever is left of nokia....

like for instance... timeshift with nokias 40x megapixel camera..

"Whatever is left of Nokia" is contractually out of the smartphone business completely for at least the next 30 months. Their chess piece has been removed from the board.

[Its Spade]

"Whatever is left of Nokia" is contractually out of the smartphone business completely for at least the next 30 months. Their chess piece has been removed from the board.

Why is that? Where was that stated?
I'd assume because of Microsoft..?

Member of Squircle of Trust!

[badiyee]

I think what the writer was indicating was that BlackBerry and Nokia are sufficiently differentiated enough to have possibly succeeded by using Android as a base OS and then building upon it with their own strengths. What a lot of the other Android smartphone manufacturers lacked was an identity in the smartphone world, which probably led to the spec arms race as a result in an attempt to differentiate. Identity is something BlackBerry and Nokia were not short off.



Posted via CB10

I still disagree. Looking at how BlackBerry handled the post OS6 to BB10 transition period, and the curious case of HTC's shortcomings in the Android venture, taking that as a parallel example, then you'll see that "identitities" doesn't matter much. The way Samsung steamrolled the competition that HTC was forced to take a loss, BlackBerry would have suffered worst still.

The author may have good romantization of Android per se, but falls short of actually delivering how BlackBerry would actually succeed without even naming the mechanisms, except for the "oh BlackBerry should have gone Android based on my chart of hierachy of smartphone!" which is not a qualify-able statement to raise as an absolute measure-able statement.

Essentially it fails to even attempt to answer how people would react negatively to Android being a closed platform under BlackBerry (do you really think BlackBerry would have allowed rooting for instance, having seen their track record with Playbook's rooting?) and simply glossing over issues as such and make bold claims that Android is the savior.

In hindsight, I could have written a similar article and just changed to say BlackBerry could have just licensed WP and add their layer on top of WP and let MS pay the devs for apps while BB would continue to refine the OS, and it'll work out very good too since BB has the infrastructure to retrieve mails from apple servers, google servers and ms servers just as fine, with or without blockade and sing that WP is the ultimate answer (not that I believe it to be so)

[badiyee]

"Whatever is left of Nokia" is contractually out of the smartphone business completely for at least the next 30 months. Their chess piece has been removed from the board.

Not exactly. Nokia discarded its handphone and hardware section to focus solely on the services and software side. That said, Nokia Maps still belong to the "original nokia", and acquired companies such as Scalado still belongs to the "original nokia". However, the "breakoff Nokia" which is now under microsoft has 'cross-access' to "original nokia's branding",and its related service - patents, and "original nokia" can have cross-access to Microsoft's patents in terms of mobile technologies for mutual benefit.

Source from endgadget.

In a way, they ain't out of the business, but they won't be able to enter the hardware-making segment that easily. It doesn't count that they can still license to access other platforms, for example Android, Meego, Firefox, Ubuntu, or any other party willing to listen to offers.

[GadgetTravel]

I still disagree. Looking at how BlackBerry handled the post OS6 to BB10 transition period, and the curious case of HTC's shortcomings in the Android venture, taking that as a parallel example, then you'll see that "identitities" doesn't matter much. The way Samsung steamrolled the competition that HTC was forced to take a loss, BlackBerry would have suffered worst still.

The author may have good romantization of Android per se, but falls short of actually delivering how BlackBerry would actually succeed without even naming the mechanisms, except for the "oh BlackBerry should have gone Android based on my chart of hierachy of smartphone!" which is not a qualify-able statement to raise as an absolute measure-able statement.

Essentially it fails to even attempt to answer how people would react negatively to Android being a closed platform under BlackBerry (do you really think BlackBerry would have allowed rooting for instance, having seen their track record with Playbook's rooting?) and simply glossing over issues as such and make bold claims that Android is the savior.

In hindsight, I could have written a similar article and just changed to say BlackBerry could have just licensed WP and add their layer on top of WP and let MS pay the devs for apps while BB would continue to refine the OS, and it'll work out very good too since BB has the infrastructure to retrieve mails from apple servers, google servers and ms servers just as fine, with or without blockade and sing that WP is the ultimate answer (not that I believe it to be so)

I think the real point is that there is probably room for 2 or at most 3 systems. BB is probably not in that group, it seems. Microsoft may be able to steamroll itself to be a standard now, but it doesnt seem to matter since it seems either way BB is on the outside now. Think Symbian I am guessing. People said it was a great OS too. Maybe it was, but it didnt become a standard. Nor did CPM nor Commodore 64 nor whatever.

[DS1331]

Lol everybody is saying what would have happened and what will happen if BlackBerry and Nokia went android. Nobody knows the future or what would have happened, stop saying your opinions like their facts. I would still love to see a BlackBerry android Q10

From Q10/HTC One aka Batman & Robin

[badiyee]

I think the real point is that there is probably room for 2 or at most 3 systems. BB is probably not in that group, it seems. Microsoft may be able to steamroll itself to be a standard now, but it doesnt seem to matter since it seems either way BB is on the outside now. Think Symbian I am guessing. People said it was a great OS too. Maybe it was, but it didnt become a standard. Nor did CPM nor Commodore 64 nor whatever.

Yes, room for 2-3 ecosystems. But how many OEMs actually even survive in that congested ecosystem? I raised the question yet you choose not to answer, only glossing over that Android will help. Yes it can and it will, but TO WHAT EXTENT? I have already even lined up the scenarios where BlackBerry chooses android, not only in this thread but other threads as well, and I believe I've made my argument clear enough (though as unconvincing it may be) that a full Android powered BlackBerry would kill the old RIM faster than BB10 powered BlackBerry.

Secondly, you're wrong about Symbian. It was a de-facto standard used by Nokia, Sony Ericson and Samsung on a global scale, much like now Android > iOS users on global scale by today's standards.This is true even after Nokia bought Symbian just to choke out on the competition (because Samsung and Sony Ericson were creating better User experiences on their Symbians). Symbian was a giant before Apple iOS took dominance. After Android was introduced, Symbian fell even further down to oblivion.

But back to the so called "real point". I don't think BlackBerry can survive being an Android at all, looking at the track record of hardware history, as well as the way things were done from OS6-BB10. Compare the hardware, the launch execution, and it would be true of the mantra that BlackBerry would be dead by 2012 had they gone the Android route.

[badiyee]

Lol everybody is saying what would have happened and what will happen if BlackBerry and Nokia went android. Nobody knows the future or what would have happened, stop saying your opinions like their facts. I would still love to see a BlackBerry android Q10

From Q10/HTC One aka Batman & Robin

No, i'm not stating my opinion as a fact. As a matter of fact, I drew parallel comparisons of how BlackBerry did from OS6 to BB10 (z10 and q10 launch) years, then compared to the same development of Android during those years and general sentiments echoed by many Android users, such as rooting, skinning, hardware specs, etc. Drawing on that two parallels, I drew up a "what if" BlackBerry went FULL ANDROID (meaning abandoning whatever they have and embraced Android fully) and I claimed that the old RIM would have died before they could throw in the towel.

If per say, BlackBerry would to launch an ALTERNATIVE side-by-side, BlackBerry 10 OS powered phone and a heavily skinned / layered / *whatever BlackBerry does to it* addition Android powered OS, the BlackBerry faithful would have 2 choices to choose from. However, that was not the OP's statement. OP's statement was BlackBerry alone could survive on Android FULLY just because they have a differenciating identity, when ironically it was some of those identities that are present in rival competition Android devices that actually brought them down to their knees.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Why is that? Where was that stated?
I'd assume because of Microsoft..?

Nokia's press release:

Nokia to sell Devices & Services business to Microsoft in EUR 5.44 billion all-cash transaction � Nokia – Press

Microsoft has agreed to a 10 year license arrangement with Nokia to use the Nokia brand on current Mobile Phones products. Nokia will continue to own and maintain the Nokia brand. Under the terms of the transaction, Microsoft has agreed to a 10 year license arrangement with Nokia to use the Nokia brand on current and subsequently developed products based on the Series 30 and Series 40 operating systems. Upon the closing of the transaction, Nokia would be restricted from licensing the Nokia brand for use in connection with mobile device sales for 30 months and from using the Nokia brand on Nokia's own mobile devices until December 31, 2015.

[DS1331]

Essentially it fails to even attempt to answer how people would react negatively to Android being a closed platform under BlackBerry (do you really think BlackBerry would have allowed rooting for instance, having seen their track record with Playbook's rooting?) and simply glossing over issues as such and make bold claims that Android is the savior.

I don't think many BlackBerry users who actually want a safe platform would have complained as it could have been an awesome and safe phone expecially for enterprise purposes. I like your reasoning though how would you explain HTC's fall from the top? Simple competition? Was someone bound to blow up like samsung and they were just in the right position at the right time with the right amount of money to do so?



From Q10/HTC One aka Batman & Robin

[GadgetTravel]

Yes, room for 2-3 ecosystems. But how many OEMs actually even survive in that congested ecosystem? I raised the question yet you choose not to answer, only glossing over that Android will help. Yes it can and it will, but TO WHAT EXTENT? I have already even lined up the scenarios where BlackBerry chooses android, not only in this thread but other threads as well, and I believe I've made my argument clear enough (though as unconvincing it may be) that a full Android powered BlackBerry would kill the old RIM faster than BB10 powered BlackBerry.

I thought I did answer abo how many can survive in the Android ecosystem. If BB had 10% of the Android market they would be doing a lot better than they are now. Could they get 10%, who knows. But they seem very unlikely to do that well as a 4th ecosystem, probably not even a 3rd, although will almost certainly be Microsoft. So it would be competitive in the Android world but they might be in the game. Now, I'm afraid not.

Secondly, you're wrong about Symbian. It was a de-facto standard used by Nokia, Sony Ericson and Samsung on a global scale, much like now Android > iOS users on global scale by today's standards.This is true even after Nokia bought Symbian just to choke out on the competition (because Samsung and Sony Ericson were creating better User experiences on their Symbians). Symbian was a giant before Apple iOS took dominance. After Android was introduced, Symbian fell even further down to oblivion.

But back to the so called "real point". I don't think BlackBerry can survive being an Android at all, looking at the track record of hardware history, as well as the way things were done from OS6-BB10. Compare the hardware, the launch execution, and it would be true of the mantra that BlackBerry would be dead by 2012 had they gone the Android route.