[DrBoomBotz]

As many have said before the likely result would have been returns when people found out the app situation. The word of mouth from these same people would be very bad.

[Tre Lawrence]

Are you kidding? How about the Hub? How about Blend? How about security? (Remember Sony hacks? The Clinton email hacks?) How about ease of use? How about the premium hardware like superior microphones, speakers and antennas (at least in the Passport)?

These are the types of features things Madison Ave. has been selling for 75 years. Look at the silly things Samsung bothers to spend big money marketing. Waterproof? Curved sides? If those are worth marketing, so is Blend. Chen did not spend a nickel marketing Blend.

Posted via CB10

Do you truly believe that an ad onslaught featuring the Hub would have moved devices?

Hub and Blend are both great features, but were they good enough to cover up for the major shortcomings of BB10? Now if they were value added, yay. If those features were above and beyond what other platforms offered, great. On their own? Not so much.

I am the biggest cheerleader of both, but it's tough to hang a hat on features that, by the way, can be replicated on other platforms (somewhat) anyway.

And security? Even the most hawkish vets here mostly acknowledge that that is not a bankable feature. Your think those email hacks would have been prevented with BlackBerry? The Sony hacks had NOTHING to do with smartphones.

Being late hurt BBRY big time.

[markmall]

Do you truly believe that an ad onslaught featuring the Hub would have moved devices?

Hub and Blend are both great features, but were they good enough to cover up for the major shortcomings of BB10? Now if they were value added, yay. If those features were above and beyond what other platforms offered, great. On their own? Not so much.

I did not say "ad onslaught." I am talking about a strategic marketing plan. It might include TV ads, but there are plenty of ways to advertise these days. Remember, you are on a BB10 forum. Those not chased off yet like BB10 and think that the Hub, the file system and other features are plenty "value added." What is "value added" about either iOS and Android other than their universality?

I am the biggest cheerleader of both, but it's tough to hang a hat on features that, by the way, can be replicated on other platforms (somewhat) anyway.

If the Hub and Blend are so easy to replicate, why can't Blackberry itself do it on Android? The truth is that they are not easy to replicate. At least Hub is deeply ingrained into the OS. On Android it is an overlay onto Android. It sounds like borderline bloatware to me, although I admit I have not tried it.

And security? Even the most hawkish vets here mostly acknowledge that that is not a bankable feature. Your think those email hacks would have been prevented with BlackBerry? The Sony hacks had NOTHING to do with smartphones.

If Blackberry knew what it was doing, it could sell fear to IT managers all over the world. Business executives will spend money to avoid blame for an IT breach. Once upon a time, Blackberry was the IBM (former IBM) of business communication tools. No one wants to look bad. If they knew that BB10 were the safer choice for the employees, many would have used it for the same reason that many governments use or used to use it.

[app_Developer]

If the Hub and Blend are so easy to replicate, why can't Blackberry itself do it on Android? The truth is that they are not easy to replicate. At least Hub is deeply ingrained into the OS. On Android it is an overlay onto Android. It sounds like borderline bloatware to me, although I admit I have not tried it.

At least from the Apple perspective, Hub wouldn't be hard to implement. It just runs counter to the commitments they've made to their partners/developers/ecosystem. We want people in our apps. That's part of the business reality that BlackBerry never really understood.

If Blackberry knew what it was doing, it could sell fear to IT managers all over the world. Business executives will spend money to avoid blame for an IT breach. Once upon a time, Blackberry was the IBM (former IBM) of business communication tools. No one wants to look bad. If they knew that BB10 were the safer choice for the employees, many would have used it for the same reason that many governments use or used to use it.

That's a tough one, because BB is also out here telling us that if we buy BES12 we can make our iPhones and Android devices safe. So they are selling fear and a solution to that fear, but they can't undermine BES sales by telling us our iPhones with BES/Good are unsafe. Their promise to IT managers is that if you manage your iPhones on BES, you will be fine.

[conite]

Their promise to IT managers is that if you manage your iPhones on BES, you will be fine.

Which also happens to be true.

[Tre Lawrence]

At least from the Apple perspective, Hub wouldn't be hard to implement. It just runs counter to the commitments they've made to their partners/developers/ecosystem. We want people in our apps. That's part of the business reality that BlackBerry never really understood.



That's a tough one, because BB is also out here telling us that if we buy BES12 we can make our iPhones and Android devices safe. So they are selling fear and a solution to that fear, but they can't undermine BES sales by telling us our iPhones with BES/Good are unsafe. Their promise to IT managers is that if you manage your iPhones on BES, you will be fine.

Bingo.

BlackBerry itself believes it's possible to be safe on Android and/or iOS.

Security, again, is not a marketable advantage.

[Tre Lawrence]

I did not say "ad onslaught." I am talking about a strategic marketing plan. It might include TV ads, but there are plenty of ways to advertise these days. Remember, you are on a BB10 forum. Those not chased off yet like BB10 and think that the Hub, the file system and other features are plenty "value added." What is "value added" about either iOS and Android other than their universality?



If the Hub and Blend are so easy to replicate, why can't Blackberry itself do it on Android? The truth is that they are not easy to replicate. At least Hub is deeply ingrained into the OS. On Android it is an overlay onto Android. It sounds like borderline bloatware to me, although I admit I have not tried it.



If Blackberry knew what it was doing, it could sell fear to IT managers all over the world. Business executives will spend money to avoid blame for an IT breach. Once upon a time, Blackberry was the IBM (former IBM) of business communication tools. No one wants to look bad. If they knew that BB10 were the safer choice for the employees, many would have used it for the same reason that many governments use or used to use it.

Why would BlackBerry waste to much resources implementing stuff folks did well without?

The Hub is just not enough of an advantage, especially for folks that really communicate on other platforms.

BBRY wasn't even able to to sell BB10 to its legacy BBOS users.

[RaduBB]

BBRY wasn't even able to to sell BB10 to its legacy BBOS users.

Excellent point!! Totally agree!

[kvndoom]

As many have said before the likely result would have been returns when people found out the app situation. The word of mouth from these same people would be very bad.

That's actually what happened in 2013 when it launched. Hmmm...

[DrBoomBotz]

That's actually what happened in 2013 when it launched. Hmmm...

Quite right, I should have said more returns and more bad word of mouth.

[Invictus0]

First, Microsoft as treated Windows phone like a red-headed stepchild. I used to listen to Leo Laporte's Windows Weekly, and they would talk about this all the time. I think about as many people know about Windows phone as BB10.

This is another example of the pro-Android people making up facts to support their point. If you say that does not make it true.

Second, marketing refers to more than advertising although advertising is a big part. It also refers to branding, pricing, product design and many other things. Chen struck out in just about every respect. The Passport was not his so he doesn't get credit for its design. Its marketing was terrible. The "work wide" campaign -- if you could call it that -- appeared just about no where except banner ads for people doing Google searches for it.

Windows Phone was heavily marketed by both Nokia and Microsoft, the problem was the OS took a while to mature and it had/has an app gap. The platform largely began seeing a drop in support following the Nokia devices acquisition and executive changes at Microsoft (I think most will agree that Ballmer was behind much of the Windows Phone push).

Many of the marketing elements you've listed are largely for consumers, as we've discussed before, that's a market BlackBerry left in 2013.

[anon(6125289)]

I do all of my work on an IMB OS2 computer and print then hand deliver the documents to the appropriate person. I could use the Internet and any modern OS, but the choice with all the programs is overwhelming. I work better when I am so limited. Tools not toys.. am I right guys?

Posted via CB10

[anon(55900)]

LOL, yep sir, I said the same a few months ago. Sold my Passport and bought a Google Nexus 6 which I do enjoy it wider screen.

But a little more than a month ago I bought a new Passport of Amazon and use it as much as I can. If not for my cellular Republic Wireless causing a few text issues I'd permanently switch back. So for now I use my Passport over WiFi and just use the Nexus 6 for phone, text and Amazon Video. Passport is the best darn phone of all time! I love the UI, the swipe gestures, the wonderful touch sensitive and lighted physical keyboard, the awesome width of its screen. So go and explore but don't be surprised the siren call of BB10 pulls you back!

[markmall]

And security? Even the most hawkish vets here mostly acknowledge that that is not a bankable feature. Your think those email hacks would have been prevented with BlackBerry? The Sony hacks had NOTHING to do with smartphones.

I forgot: you might want to mention to John Chen that security is not a bankable feaure. He is trying to build a new company based on this theory.


Posted via CB10

[JSmith422]

I suppose that some employers lock down their phones and employees use personal phones as well. I suspect that very few employers issue two phones if that is what you are suggesting. Today a locked down phone is more likely to be an Android or iphone.

Posted via CB10

Not necessarily that two phones are issued, but that two phones are used.....that a diverse and secure business basically requires two devices these days.

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

At least from the Apple perspective, Hub wouldn't be hard to implement. It just runs counter to the commitments they've made to their partners/developers/ecosystem. We want people in our apps. That's part of the business reality that BlackBerry never really understood.



That's a tough one, because BB is also out here telling us that if we buy BES12 we can make our iPhones and Android devices safe. So they are selling fear and a solution to that fear, but they can't undermine BES sales by telling us our iPhones with BES/Good are unsafe. Their promise to IT managers is that if you manage your iPhones on BES, you will be fine.

How much are all those BES sales today that were supposed to be a salvation three years ago?

Posted via CB10

[app_Developer]

How much are all those BES sales today that were supposed to be a salvation three years ago?

Chen won't tell us, of course. I'm finding his lack of transparency frustrating, too.

But at least we know BES isn't costing them billions of dollars. There is no inventory risk obviously. Also, the gross margins are very, very strong. That we do know. So from a financial perspective, it's certainly better than making phones for a company this size.

[Tre Lawrence]

I forgot: you might want to mention to John Chen that security is not a bankable feaure. He is trying to build a new company based on this theory.

Different scenario. He isn't attempting to sell hardware with security as the main selling point. At least not any more.

Folks feel secure enough on the platforms they already use.

For years, some folks looked for the "mobile security Armageddon" to occur... that monumental information catastrophe that would drive a chastised public back to BBRY's embrace. Never happened.

[JSmith422]

Also in their defense, Microsoft pumped a lot of money into Windows phone marketing and that still got them nowhere.

Personally, I think Microsoft has the same identity crisis that Blackberry does. Neither company (or their customers for that matter) are entirely sure what they do anymore. Do they make phones, do they make computers, do the make software, something else? What is it that they do? Ask anyone what apple does and they'll be able to tell you. Ask anyone what Microsoft did in the 90's and 2000's, or Blackberry during the same period. Anyone can answer those questions. Microsoft obviously wants to be in the big data game evidenced by their development of Windows 10, but that's Google's thing....consumers don't need a desktop anymore. They have a phone. That ship has sailed. But now Microsoft is going to make the desktop more like a cell phone? All they are doing is alienating their business customers who neither have the time, inclination, or resources to retrain their staff on it and on top of it they don't want their data all over Microsoft's serves. They forgot who actually uses their products in today's day and age. Businesses and professionals, and small business still represents the majority of the workforce, these are the people that still NEED computers. Blackberry is similar in that they're not sure what the heck they're doing or who they're actually selling to anymore. Why build a blackberry phone to compete with an iPhone? Why not build a blackberry to do what the customer needs it to do.....and price it accordingly. People drive Honda Civics, Ford 150's, and Porsche 911 Turbos.....they're all vehicles, and sure they have some similarities, but they are different solutions to different problems. Porsche doesn't care what the market share or price on either of those other vehicles are because that's not their customer. In fact, if any of those companies started emulating the other vehicles, they would quickly be out of business.

Posted via CB10

[app_Developer]

Why build a blackberry phone to compete with an iPhone? Why not build a blackberry to do what the customer needs it to do.....and price it accordingly. People drive Honda Civics, Ford 150's, and Porsche 911 Turbos.....they're all vehicles, and sure they have some similarities, but they are different solutions to different problems. Porsche doesn't care what the market share or price on either of those other vehicles are because that's not their customer. In fact, if any of those companies started emulating the other vehicles, they would quickly be out of business.

If you could have said these words to BlackBerry's board 7 years ago, you might have saved shareholders many billions of dollars. I'm serious.

Of course you have to do all the things that luxury brands do, but that might have been possible back then.

[JSmith422]

Different scenario. He isn't attempting to sell hardware with security as the main selling point. At least not any more.

Folks feel secure enough on the platforms they already use.

For years, some folks looked for the "mobile security Armageddon" to occur... that monumental information catastrophe that would drive a chastised public back to BBRY's embrace. Never happened.

Yet.

Expanding on that. I happen to think the "Armageddon" risk lies most squarely in the modern reliance on cloud computing. As the old saying goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket." That's exactly what the cloud is.....one basket.

Posted via CB10

[Tre Lawrence]

Yet.

Expanding on that. I happen to think the "Armageddon" risk lies most squarely in the modern reliance on cloud computing. As the old saying goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket." That's exactly what the cloud is.....one basket.

Posted via CB10

I don't disagree.

[markmall]

Different scenario. He isn't attempting to sell hardware with security as the main selling point. At least not any more.

Folks feel secure enough on the platforms they already use.

For years, some folks looked for the "mobile security Armageddon" to occur... that monumental information catastrophe that would drive a chastised public back to BBRY's embrace. Never happened.

People didn't know they needed Intel inside their PCs until Intel told them. I agree security is not the best selling point, but for IT managers it might be. That's at least what BlackBerry thought but they didn't seem to do anything about it.

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

If you could have said these words to BlackBerry's board 7 years ago, you might have saved shareholders many billions of dollars. I'm serious.

Of course you have to do all the things that luxury brands do, but that might have been possible back then.

It was possible when they released the Passport two years ago. No, it doesn't handle well in the snow because it fishtail but it's great at what it does.

Posted via CB10

[JSmith422]

It was possible when they released the Passport two years ago. No, it doesn't handle well in the snow because it fishtail but it's great at what it does.

Posted via CB10

I may be one of the (very) few that believes it's still possible today. I think BB10 could do very well in the hands of a niche group that understands the market...

I'd like to see Blackberry go back to being RIM, and then make "BB10" a subsidiary of RIM. Let the new RIM follow their IOT software plan and then let BB10 do what it does. Then bring in strategic shareholders to handle hardware and distribution. Personally, I don't think blackberry was too far off the mark with the Z10 and Q10 (at the time)....it was just so poorly executed. A few adjustments could have gone a LONG way back then.

It would look different, and it would be small, but that beats throwing it in a drawer and letting it die.



Posted via CB10