Oh, it was pretty clear in 2013 to anyone outside the bubble of this forum that BB10 was a mistake.
Oh, it was pretty clear in 2013 to anyone outside the bubble of this forum that BB10 was a mistake.
Just think of where BlackBerry could have been today had they've just went to Android after the Bold 99 like myself and many, many other people wanted them to do. Back then Samsung wasn't the massive monster it is today in the Android world. At that time, BlackBerry stood a real good chance of being one of the biggest Android OEMs. They could be the company selling hundreds of millions of Android phones each year right now.
Instead, they bought QNX and lost billions of dollars on devices that utilised that purchase. BlackBerry was foolish and arrogant enough to believe that they could compete with iOS and Android with a brand new operating system and the fact of the matter is they couldn't. They never stood a chance. That was clear the first quarter of Z10 availability. When all is said and done, BlackBerry went to Android. They just wasted several billions of dollars before doing it.
How could anyone not consider BB10 a massive mistake?
^dont forget around that time, bb was making some serious bank in other countries with cheap bold 'geminis'? And android was, at best, a cess pool. Motorola and samsung were just throwing stuff at the wall to see what stuck. I agree they took a gamble with qnx and bb10 but idk if I'd call it foolish
Posted via CB10
IMO when they decided to include the android runtime in the playbook was the point when the risk got out of hand.
Never had a playbook but I can't really fault them for adding support. Remember, they had flash support - which was a big deal at the time. When I look at the top of the playstore, I see maybe 10 useful apps and most of them work fine on bb 10 to a degree **or have an equivalent bb 10 app**
Posted via CB10
Foolish only because time spent developing BB10 was time Android competitors spent cleaning up the Android cesspool and building a decent ecosystem. BlackBerry's problem was focusing on the wrong thing. Had they started BB10 development when Apple started on building IOS then it would be a different story.
Then again, I don't think BlackBerry founders ever really expected BB10 to succeed, ever... I think Jim and Mike used BB10 "development" as way to keep BIS and BES users paying monthly income as long as possible. Enterprise users and individual enthusiasts were strung along while Jim and Mike were LEGALLY dumping their BlackBerry shares. When BlackBerry share price was in tank and company up for sale, Jim and Mike didn't step up and bid (Ala Steve Jobs & Apple) to save company.
Not sure what flash has to do with the ART.
Adding the ART signalled to the stakeholders that they were not confident in the success of their native ecosystem.
Good point! Blackberry came up short when the carriers needed them most
Posted via CB10
I think flash was something that they used as leverage against the "appification" of everything. Maybe ART didn't make the best first impression but I'm glad they added it
Posted via CB10
Adobe Flash and Adobe Air were both mistakes.
Air was very big mistake.
The Development of BB10 was no mistake, it was a well thought out project, and it was a serious effort (not a diversion) to solve a serious problem and threat -Apple. And bb10 was meant to leapfrog the swamp that Android was at the time. The playbook was a fantastic (if rather expensive device) compared to the Android tablet offerings, and even had features that were better in some respects than the ipads.
The problem was that the ecosystem that grew around apple (apps) and even kind of Android were more mature, as they had more time to grow than BB10 did, but the pre-BB10 apps on the Playbook were excellent in their own right....they just couldn't brag about having as many as the Duopolys had at the time. Financially BlackBerry just couln't hold its breath long enough to allow BB10 to get the momentum it needed, Samsung was already a behemoth at the time, as was Google and Apple.
You do realize your costs are WAY OFF right? Lol
Posted via CB10
Yes. They are probably too low.
It's pretty safe to call a diversion tactic. Obvious red flag were founders liquidating enormous holdings of BlackBerry stock beginning at high end and continuing to do so regardless of the fact that price was trending down. By spending the R&D, they could make argument to regulators, that attempt were being made against competitive threat. From the beginning, they knew they didn't have the resources to fight Apple, Google and Microsoft.
They knew the carriers were looking to get rid of monthly revenue streams they were providing to BlackBerry. The carriers wanted devices that used data and the carriers were going to keep all the data revenue. There would be no more $5-$10/month going to BlackBerry for each subscriber.
BlackBerry never even mentioned a plan how they were going to replace that monthly revenue. They could see internally how they were burning up all their cash on developing BB10 and could see it was a mistake they couldn't admit to. So, they kept liquidating their BlackBerry holdings. In the end, with the company up for sale, the founders didn't come back to rescue the company with their financial resources. Heck, they could have bought the company back cheap. They knew BB10 was a mistake long before the rest of us fans did.
Posted via CB10
With the sort of numbers we are talking about - maybe upwards of $2000 per user per month just to cover Qualcomm drivers?
Maybe mediatek would be cheaper? Get it down to $1900 per month?
only if they would switch the chipsets provider and give up on the vulnerabilities from Qualcomm...
posted via del virtual
at this price pount they could hire the FSF or Richrard Stalmann himself to write the drivers...
posted via del virtual
Yes but the issue is - you'd need the money first - so you need them to pay for say 12 months first to develop the drivers with the aim of them having a device (at an additional cost - maybe a few thousand per handset because of the low numbers) in another six months?
Founders can liquidate whenever they like. If they sensed an upcoming or prolonged big squeeze on earnings, they could liquidate and realize their investments. (being caught flat on a few cycles by the advancement of Apple and Android was certainly a clue)..so yes that's a red flag for short/mid term for investors (executive liquidations)...but not necessarily about long term prospects. (I didn't follow their buying/selling habits). It's tough to speculate what they were going to do after they sold. At some point they were out so that's history.
I don't know about the regulatory environment in details and whether one could laughably argue anything "illegal" was being done, but Gd knows what laws are lurking everywhere these days. I'd be more likely to bet the Android cartel would be more interesting from a law, market and competition perspective. But you all expressed your views that this was a preposterous position previously - so no need to rehash that one right now.
Their earlier financial model of Monthly recurring revenue stream were drying up, okay. The market was shifting to apps and globally growing device sales as revenue streams. Okay so they observed (in my estimate) the trend, obviously like Apple and Google they felt there was room for a third appstore BlackBerryWorld and that this would partially or fully compensate for potential revenue stream declines (though security was still a good bet) , and had a large volumes of sets sold, they would have made it. Companies don't always lay out strategic plans in precise details, so its no surprise BlackBerry didn't.
But of course that's not what turned out. It seems that maybe they had trouble with device producers and licensors (Qualcomm for example). But clearly it was a genuine effort. They even boosted the security aspect of the devices with the adoption of QNX ( for Playbook OS & BB10) which had already been built for such things.
Just because they were rapidly shrinking to Davids by this time, doesn't always mean Goliaths would win, their product offerings were and are just different enough, so that's why they still exist as a company.
I would agree to some of what you wrote if BlackBerry had started the BB10 project in 2006, maybe the latest by 2007. BlackBerry started way too late. The Playbook was a bigger problem, BB10 was way behind schedule and the co CEOs diverted the effort. I would guess the Playbook cost BlackBerry 12 to 18 months of BB10 development. Not to mention the major write off of inventory.
True as well, but the thing is BB10 as a basic functional touch operating system surpassed Android and Apple iPhone operating systems at the time. And Tablets in general, and ones with LTE data plans were all the rage in the time frame of the Passport, so it seemed like a sound business plan. Though the iPads were juggernnauting in sales.
So Technically they caught up it would seem, but the market didn't reward them for the advancement, they were shunted aside - definitely in part by the overwhelming social media bad-mouthing but I guess they also lost the battle for the me-too cool-tech impressionable marketing appeal at that time. Though they really were still business focused. And the app side story also left a negative impression for a consumer breakthrough.
Not at launch, or for many many months after. The name was tarnished long before BB10 launch, and most willing to take a look when the Z10 came out, who had already moved on to Android and iOS said meh. Getting them to take a second look when 10.2 released, was an impossible hurdle, regardless the obvious lack of ecosystem. Had they started at 10.2, who knows how the app developers may have responded, but that is fantasy, and reality is all that truly matters.
Yes
Posted via CB10
"';:/*++-+*/:;'#()?! NO!!!!!!
Yes. (Voted twice.)
Posted via CB10