[Elephant_Canyon]

Before the "They wouldn't survive long enough" people chime in, they failed with the Priv yet decided to continue with 2 MORE android devices.

That remains to be seen. If the devices haven't been officially announced, with official pictures, specs, and a release date, then they essentially don't exist.

[app_Developer]

High production costs are one hurdle that needs to be addressed. Outsourcing or even sticking to more obsolete hardware might be the key.

But outsourcing doesn't necessarily solve the problem, right? Unless you roll exactly the same phone as someone else is selling. And obsolete hardware is an issue because then you get negative reviews, which do matter. This is not an easy problem to solve.

Why would they not have attempted this with BB10 first? Don't even mention the Leap or Z3 since they were never US/1st world release devices. They only released the Passport and Classic which are extremely niche devices that should have expected low volumes.

BB10 has a totally different cost model than the BB Android phones. To do this with BB10, they have to sustain a very high fixed cost of a BB10 team AND they also have to port QNX to each new SoC. These are not trivial costs.

[anon(3983727)]

But outsourcing doesn't necessarily solve the problem, right? Unless you roll exactly the same phone as someone else is selling. And obsolete hardware is an issue because then you get negative reviews, which do matter. This is not an easy problem to solve.



BB10 has a totally different cost model than the BB Android phones. To do this with BB10, they have to sustain a very high fixed cost of a BB10 team AND they also have to port QNX to each new SoC. These are not trivial costs.

Bad reviews follow poor performance. If hardware performs well enough to run the software competitively the user experience does not suffer. Look at the Gameboy.. it outsold everything with a glorified graphing calculator processor. The passport even as old as it is runs BB10 as smooth if not better than the priv runs android L. Blackberry should target a single hardware platform and build variations of the same device on that. Basically taking a page from Apple's book.

[anon(6038817)]

Here's a visualization I created of Kantar WorldPanel data from the past 4 years.



Click this link for the interactive dashboard: https://public.tableau.com/views/Kan...es&:showTabs=y

It's difficult to really understand how far BlackBerry handset market share has fallen - and how long it has been falling - until you see a visualization like this.

You see the purple section of the area chart? That's BlackBerry. Even at its thickest back in 2012 it was only about 11% of the total worldwide market share (of the countries for which Kantar had data). Now it is a few tenths of one percent.

There is absolutely no reason to get excited over a fraction of a percent increase when viewed in the context of the overall historical trend.

[anon(3983727)]

Here's a visualization I created of Kantar WorldPanel data from the past 4 years.



Click this link for the interactive dashboard: https://public.tableau.com/views/Kan...es&:showTabs=y

It's difficult to really understand how far BlackBerry handset market share has fallen - and how long it has been falling - until you see a visualization like this.

You see the purple section of the area chart? That's BlackBerry. Even at its thickest back in 2012 it was only about 11% of the total worldwide market share (of the countries for which Kantar had data). Now it is a few tenths of one percent.

There is absolutely no reason to get excited over a fraction of a percent increase when viewed in the context of the overall historical trend.

If those numbers were correct than that fraction of a percent increase would represent about a half million devices. When you are selling only 800K down to 600K that is HUUGE. The numbers are likely wrong or have an error larger than the supposed increase. But consider the fact that the market is constantly growing and Blackberry gains in a growing market. This would be a big thing if it could possibly be confirmed (likely not)

[ZeBB45]

I love how optimistic this place has become in recent months...

Q10 - 10.3.2.2876/SR .2836  < α∂∂ι�т > 

[southlander]

I love how optimistic this place has become in recent months...

Q10 - 10.3.2.2876/SR .2836  < α∂∂ι�т > 

I definitely have taken a negative attitude towards BlackBerry after years of buying their products and doing word of mouth promotion.

But make no mistake I would love to see them dominant again.

[Kryngle]

That remains to be seen. If the devices haven't been officially announced, with official pictures, specs, and a release date, then they essentially don't exist.

Yeah but the horse named John Chen has stated numerous times of these comings soooo they WILL exist.

Posted via CB10

[Drg84]

Chen seems to be trying, but he is kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. BB10 was so good because it was a OS refined by its owner Ala iOS. Until recently, Iphones just worked. Usually Blackberrys just worked. It wasn't like androids where "oh this part doesnt work with this phone, get this fix or this firmware". Ive been there, done that. I owned a Droid pro, and not everything worked like it should. The thing I see with the Priv is its a attempt at making a slider, android blackberry. Its too much to one shot. If the classic had had an android port or the passport, that would have been a nice transition. If the Priv had a bb10 version for the people who stuck by BB10, that would have also helped. But suddenly saying "hey look! a $750 phone from a company thats never made an android phone before!" is far to jaring. And it looks like Chen has seen that, so theres hope yet.

[ohaiguise]

Even if all it means is that Android Runtime can be updated on BB10 so that it can continue to run apps through Amazon Appstore, that would be a basic courtesy.

I hope Google get hammered. They are tax-dodging, anti-competitive bandits just as much as Microsoft under Gates was.

[DrBoomBotz]

I hope Google get hammered. They are tax-dodging, anti-competitive bandits just as much as Microsoft under Gates was.

This may come as a shock to your innocent sensibilities but that's what successful companies do. They attempt to minimize the amount of tax they pay and to get rid of their competition.

[johnny_bravo72]

This may come as a shock to your innocent sensibilities but that's what successful companies do. They attempt to minimize the amount of tax they pay and to get rid of their competition.

Spot on. There's a fine line between tax avoidance and tax evasion.

*C5303

[ohaiguise]

This may come as a shock to your innocent sensibilities but that's what successful companies do. They attempt to minimize the amount of tax they pay and to get rid of their competition.

I'm a trained economist so I know exactly what 'successful' companies are capable of and the need to keep them in check with regulation. Free markets are not the same as monopolized and abused markets.

If the EU hadn't done the same to Microsoft years ago you wouldn't be sitting pretty with your iOS/Android/Web2.0 consumer paradise right now.

[Bogdan Tudor Dan]

What would you do to turn that around? There were Super Bowl ads, the most prominent F1 team carried the BlackBerry banner for years. Heck, at&t advertised the Passport. While I believe it's the best OS for my needs, I recognize it lacks what the majority of smartphone users desire. They haven't been hiding, they've been rejected.

Super Bowl? AT&T? That's advertising for America only. What about Europe, Asia and Africa? I don't know about Asia and Africa but in Europe just a few people knows about BlackBerry 10. At least in countries I've been everybody I met was surprised to see BlackBerry are still producing smartphones.
Formula 1? Not even 50% of the world's population watches Formula 1.

Apple is advertising IPHONE in movies, carriers comercials, news, stores, TV commercials.... that is advertising!

Posted via CB10

[Soulstream]

Super Bowl? AT&T? That's advertising for America only. What about Europe, Asia and Africa? I don't know about Asia and Africa but in Europe just a few people knows about BlackBerry 10. At least in countries I've been everybody I met was surprised to see BlackBerry are still producing smartphones.
Formula 1? Not even 50% of the world's population watches Formula 1.

Apple is advertising IPHONE in movies, carriers comercials, news, stores, TV commercials.... that is advertising!

Posted via CB10

Well, in Europe we had Nokia which was a very strong brand here (at least much stronger than BB was in Europe). And carriers actually advertised Lumia phones (before they were bought by Microsoft) and it still didn't succeed.

[Bogdan Tudor Dan]

Well, in Europe we had Nokia which was a very strong brand here (at least much stronger than BB was in Europe). And carriers actually advertised Lumia phones (before they were bought by Microsoft) and it still didn't succeed.

Didn't succeed with windows OS. We had Nokia with Symbian and that was a succes. Maemo could be a real succes if they wouldn't go with Windows. Or a hybrid between Symbian and Maemo.

Posted via CB10

[Soulstream]

Didn't succeed with windows OS. We had Nokia with Symbian and that was a succes. Maemo could be a real succes if they wouldn't go with Windows. Or a hybrid between Symbian and Maemo.

Posted via CB10

Symbian had the same problems as BBOS did: it was good for its time, but its technological base was outdated and couldn't be updated much longer. I was just pointing out that just carrier presence and marketing isn't and wasn't enough for an OS to succeed. Ecosystem is still a very huge factor. But hindsight is 20-20.

Just as BB was never big in Europe, Nokia was never big in America. Both companies focused their marketing in the markets that they used to dominate. Also Nokia had the advantage of not having to spend billions of dollars on building its own OS. Just because you don't like Windows phone, it doesn't mean it's a bad OS. Still both companies failed.

The stories of Nokia and BB is basically the same: a giant that once ruled a region in terms of sales, caught off-guard by a tech shift.

[Elephant_Canyon]

We had Nokia with Symbian and that was a succes.

Until Apple stepped in and changed the game, and only Google realized in time time to catch up. Sound a little bit familiar?

[Bogdan Tudor Dan]

Symbian had the same problems as BBOS did: it was good for its time, but its technological base was outdated and couldn't be updated much longer. I was just pointing out that just carrier presence and marketing isn't and wasn't enough for an OS to succeed. Ecosystem is still a very huge factor. But hindsight is 20-20.

Just as BB was never big in Europe, Nokia was never big in America. Both companies focused their marketing in the markets that they used to dominate. Also Nokia had the advantage of not having to spend billions of dollars on building its own OS. Just because you don't like Windows phone, it doesn't mean it's a bad OS. Still both companies failed.

The stories of Nokia and BB is basically the same: a giant that once ruled a region in terms of sales, caught off-guard by a tech shift.

You are right that only marketing is not enough, but it is an important thing in succes. Nokia focused their marketing in Europe and BlackBerry in America, while Apple and Samsung did that worldwide. What does that tell you?
Nokia was killed from inside, it didn't die because Apple had better product.

Posted via CB10

[Soulstream]

You are right that only marketing is not enough, but it is an important thing in succes. Nokia focused their marketing in Europe and BlackBerry in America, while Apple and Samsung did that worldwide. What does that tell you?
Nokia was killed from inside, it didn't die because Apple had better product.

Posted via CB10

The problem is that both waited too long. Windows phone launched in October 2012 and BB10 launched in january 2013. And I would argue the good versions (Windows 8.1 and BB10 10.2.1) were released in 2014.

Both companies missed the explosive growth of the market. They entered a mature market where where their shortcomings could not so easily be overlooked as with iOS and Android in the early years (2007-2008).
Samsung in (april) 2013 was already launching the the Galaxy S4, so they already had 4 years of Android experience and Market exposure by the time both Nokia and BB had a modern smartphone launched.

If two seperate companies, with two different products, in two different regions experience almost the same fate it's clear (to me) that the root cause was the lack of an ecosysytem due to them being to late to the market.

[Bogdan Tudor Dan]

Until Apple stepped in and changed the game, and only Google realized in time time to catch up. Sound a little bit familiar?

Yes, sounds familiar. I still remember when first Iphone came out, couldn't do half of what a Nokia device was able to do, but people still bought the Iphone with 1000 euros and an expensive contract with the carrier only because it had a good touch screen and because they been told thant Iphone is the big ****. Now, that's marketing!
I still remember it was everywhere on the news that IPhone will be the smartest device ever and when it finally came out I was surprised how week it was. The fact that it had a new technology in touch screen didn't get change the fact that Nokia was more usefull as a smartphone. On the other hand, BlackBerry was behind.
With all of that I can say that it is not enough to have a great product if you had a wrong marketing strategy.
BlackBerry wants to be a leader again, like Samsung and Apple are nowadays? In that case they should promote their products on all the continents, they should create a more trustful image, not the one they have.
Talking about Chenny's turnaround strategy, he says that everything he is doing is a part of the initial turnaround plan, so when he launched the latest BlackBerry 10 devices he knew that BlackBerry 10 will be put aside to make some room for Android.
If Android BlackBerry devices was a change in their plan that means the turnaround plan they had is not so good.
If the OS is so important how come nobody talks on the street about the "amazing BlackBerry Priv" now that "the amazing BlackBerry company" is finally using "the amazing Android" for their devices? I tell you why. It's because Android has a huge market share but only a few of the Android devices manufacturers have a big market share worldwide, not all of them.

Sorry for going a little bit off topic.

Posted via CB10

[Bogdan Tudor Dan]

The problem is that both waited too long. Windows phone launched in October 2012 and BB10 launched in january 2013. And I would argue the good versions (Windows 8.1 and BB10 10.2.1) were released in 2014.

Both companies missed the explosive growth of the market. They entered a mature market where where their shortcomings could not so easily be overlooked as with iOS and Android in the early years (2007-2008).
Samsung in (april) 2013 was already launching the the Galaxy S4, so they already had 4 years of Android experience and Market exposure by the time both Nokia and BB had a modern smartphone launched.

If two seperate companies, with two different products, in two different regions experience almost the same fate it's clear (to me) that the root cause was the lack of an ecosysytem due to them being to late to the market.

I agree with what you are saying, but in the same way BlackBerry 10 doesn't have the same ecosystem as Android and IOS have, in the same way IOS and and Android were missing many things at the beginning. There is no company in this type of industry that can become a leader in a couple of years with something new, or maybe it is possible with a good marketing strategy.
After they put so much energy in this OS it's sad to go full Android and be just another...
I don't like the fact that Google made everything to be under their control and I wish every company to be able to offer a better product without being influenced about what is hip, or who has the control of the market.

Posted via CB10

[kvndoom]

I agree with what you are saying, but in the same way BlackBerry 10 doesn't have the same ecosystem as Android and IOS have, in the same way IOS and and Android were missing many things at the beginning. There is no company in this type of industry that can become a leader in a couple of years with something new, or maybe it is possible with a good marketing strategy.
After they put so much energy in this OS it's sad to go full Android and be just another...
I don't like the fact that Google made everything to be under their control and I wish every company to be able to offer a better product without being influenced about what is hip, or who has the control of the market.

Posted via CB10

You keep saying IOS was missing things. Missing what, exactly? Apple changed the way people looked at phones. It changed the way people used their phones. It made people become emotional about their phones. In other words, it changed the entire phone market. Google saw it, dumped the BlackBerry clone it was working on, and got in while the getting was good.

If Google had kept working on a "BlackBerry killer" while BlackBerry had seen the writing on the wall and started making a large touch phone with an app-based OS, all the whining we read on crackberry would be over on android central instead.

BlackBerry Classic non-camera, Cricket Wireless

[Soulstream]

I agree with what you are saying, but in the same way BlackBerry 10 doesn't have the same ecosystem as Android and IOS have, in the same way IOS and and Android were missing many things at the beginning. There is no company in this type of industry that can become a leader in a couple of years with something new, or maybe it is possible with a good marketing strategy.
After they put so much energy in this OS it's sad to go full Android and be just another...
I don't like the fact that Google made everything to be under their control and I wish every company to be able to offer a better product without being influenced about what is hip, or who has the control of the market.

Posted via CB10

You must also understand that there is very limited room for more than 3 ecosystems in the market (and the 3rd place is usually not in a very good state). For desktop you have Windows, MacOSX and Linux distros and for mobile you have Android, iOS and WindowsPhone. Notice there are no really new desktop OSs being launched for a long long time now?

Just the same as the desktop market converged to its current state, so will the mobile one do. I am a mobile dev myself and I can tell you that we as devs don't really want 10 OSs to support and are ok with the current setup of the mobile market. Devs have been ok with the current setup of the desktop market for a decade now and the world keeps on running.

But also, devs don't have anything against BB or BB10, but they also pay no favors. Devs didn't really care which OSs become successful, just that the market for apps thrive. It just happened that this generation iOS and Android are the victors, but it could just have well been BB10 (to the devs it would have been the same, just a name change).

[BigBadWulf]

Super Bowl? AT&T? That's advertising for America only. What about Europe, Asia and Africa? I don't know about Asia and Africa but in Europe just a few people knows about BlackBerry 10. At least in countries I've been everybody I met was surprised to see BlackBerry are still producing smartphones.
Formula 1? Not even 50% of the world's population watches Formula 1.

Apple is advertising IPHONE in movies, carriers comercials, news, stores, TV commercials.... that is advertising!

Posted via CB10

The Super Bowl is a global phenomenon, especially It's advertising. F1 also global, though primarily Europe, and carries the largest fan base of any sport. at&t is the US, but those were simply limited examples. Canadian carriers also advertised, and I don't think anyone could rival Indonesia's marketing.

Apple may have great marketing, but what shot them and Android skyward, was listening and delivering what consumers want.