[brookie229]

I am probably wrong about Alcatel making a USA breakthrough.

There is way too much paranoia for any Chinese company to make big inroads in the USA. Just look at the recent comments by senators such as Tom Cotton, Marco Rubio and others about security.

[Bbnivende]

The thing is that by here is no economic incentive to grow the BlackBerry brand at a lower price point. If BB's "special sauce" of the BlackBerry brand, launcher/software, security, durability, practical design and long battery life aren't worth a premium over other phones with the same hardware specs, then BlackBerry Mobile will and should fold up shop and look for a different market altogether.

The only profits in Android will be made by value-added niche producers, like BlackBerry is trying to be, and the highest volume producers in the high and low ends of the market.

That's the business reality. Differentiate or die.

Posted with my trusty Z10

Yes , this was the theory or hope.

They needed to offer hardware to be sold at a price point where the additional costs due to the licensing agreement could be absorbed .

The Motion is like the most expensive house on the block at Snapdragon 625 lane.

[conite]

The Motion is like the most expensive house on the block at Snapdragon 625 lane.

As it must be.

[bb10adopter111]

Yes , this was the theory or hope.

They needed to offer hardware to be sold at a price point where the additional costs due to the licensing agreement could be absorbed .

The Motion is like the most expensive house on the block at Snapdragon 625 lane.

And it's the only one I would consider. The question is, are there enough people like me? Only BlackBerry Mobile know what that number is.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[RLeeSimon]

Google is good at building phones but terrible at selling them<snip>

When BlackBerry made Phones they were good at making them, but poor (very) at selling them...

Now, as BlackBerry Mobile (TCL), they are neither good at making nor good at selling them...

So...

[bb10adopter111]

When BlackBerry made Phones they were good at making them, but poor (very) at selling them...

Now, as BlackBerry Mobile (TCL), they are neither good at making nor good at selling them...

So...

Unsupported assertions not based on facts in evidence. Also, a false equivalence of two completely different organizations.

In the first paragraph, to which phones are you referring? BBOS devices made by BlackBerry? BB10 made by BlackBerry? BB10 made by Foxconn? Android made by Foxconn? Android made by TCL?

In the second paragraph, about a complete different company, to which phones and what quality issues are you referring? And what sales figures?

Without details, your post means nothing.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[RLeeSimon]

Unsupported assertions not based on facts in evidence. Also, a false equivalence of two completely different organizations.

In the first paragraph, to which phones are you referring? BBOS devices made by BlackBerry? BB10 made by BlackBerry? BB10 made by Foxconn? Android made by Foxconn? Android made by TCL?

In the second paragraph, about a complete different company, to which phones and what quality issues are you referring? And what sales figures?

Without details, your post means nothing.

Posted with my trusty Z10

I have only had the Passport BB10 made in maquiladora (sold not much, I got it just after launch, they gave $100 off almost right away), Priv android made in Mexico (great device with mismatched components crippling utility), and KEYᴼᴺᴱ via TCL with improved functionality but downmarket display and toylike feel)... NONE were marketed practically at all in the US and seldom even displayed or stocked by carriers... Marketing is a skill available on the job marketplace... BlackBerry ＆ TCL should Shop for that...

[RLeeSimon]

I pine for a Priv2 all spiffed up but Conite and Bla1ze say it's not gonna be... drat !!

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

When BlackBerry made Phones they were good at making them, but poor (very) at selling them...

Now, as BlackBerry Mobile (TCL), they are neither good at making nor good at selling them...

So...

With BIS... they sold themselves. All day battery, instant emails.... Back then Apps and even web browsing was not really something you did on a 2G connection.

What BlackBerry was always focused on was enterprise, and for a short while that overlapped into the consumer world. But no they never were really good at the consumer market, which is why they are no longer relevant.

BBMo.... it is what it is.

[Troy Tiscareno]

The thing is that by here is no economic incentive to grow the BlackBerry brand at a lower price point. If BB's "special sauce" of the BlackBerry brand, launcher/software, security, durability, practical design and long battery life aren't worth a premium over other phones with the same hardware specs, then BlackBerry Mobile will and should fold up shop and look for a different market altogether.

The only profits in Android will be made by value-added niche producers, like BlackBerry is trying to be, and the highest volume producers in the high and low ends of the market.

That's the business reality. Differentiate or die.

That's exactly right. And no one is "owed" a place in the market - only brands that can make a profit are going to stick around.

Smartphone growth in the US has essentially flattened out, and when that happens in any competitive market, it starts putting pressure on all manufacturers, because investors are no longer willing to tolerate losses (losses are tolerated if the market is growing and the brand is trying to grow marketshare). What results from that pressure is that some brands get bought out, some leave that market and do something else, and some go bankrupt - with only a handful of profitable brands remaining.

That's what happened with PCs and with HDTVs, for two relatively recent examples.

[Bbnivende]

That's exactly right. And no one is "owed" a place in the market - only brands that can make a profit are going to stick around.

Smartphone growth in the US has essentially flattened out, and when that happens in any competitive market, it starts putting pressure on all manufacturers, because investors are no longer willing to tolerate losses (losses are tolerated if the market is growing and the brand is trying to grow marketshare). What results from that pressure is that some brands get bought out, some leave that market and do something else, and some go bankrupt - with only a handful of profitable brands remaining.

That's what happened with PCs and with HDTVs, for two relatively recent examples.

The Android value added niche is a result of the BlackBerry proprietary physical keyboard and BlackBerry KEYone design. There might be value added by virtue of the “skin” and security features but that is very unlikely. Regardless, the USA market is not really free when the carriers have already decided they cannot sell the Motion at such a high price point and have effectively barred its sale.

TCL could sell a phone with the same hardware as the Motion running stock Android and sell it at a profit for around $300 in the USA . That is what they should do. Their House of Brands strategy is not really helping them in the USA slab phone market .

Currently, Huawei is on a no fly list in the USA. Perhaps they might succeed though the adoption of BlackBerry chip hardening. BlackBerry wants to sell BlackBerry Secure to another brand and there is more room to make a profit on a Huawei flagship vs a TCL low to mid range phone.

[co4nd]

Obviously.

The point of the post is to show that even Google struggle to move a significant volume supported by the sheer size and name recognition they have and therefore in order for a company like BlackBerry to move a significant volume they need to be unique in more ways than selling a PKB device supported by their name and recognition that we all know is somewhat lost at this point.

The point I contend is that if Google needed to sell phones, and were more focused on it, I think they would easily be able to. Google isn't even really trying.

[bb10adopter111]

The point I contend is that if Google needed to sell phones, and were more focused on it, I think they would easily be able to. Google isn't even really trying.

Agreed. Google's approach to mobile is to exert sufficient pressure to keep the Android ecosystem as a whole healthy. Their Google Fi program is another example, where they can exert pressure on carriers to keep data rates low enough for their services.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

The point I contend is that if Google needed to sell phones, and were more focused on it, I think they would easily be able to. Google isn't even really trying.

Phone business isn't what Google is interested in.... it's the eyeballs.

But I don't think they are really happy about Samsung domination of the US Android smartphone market, or the market in general. I think Google would like to see several OEM's competing against each other. A dominate Samsung, might scare Google a little... especially as they keep trying to take over some of the features that Google wants to control.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Yup. And that's one of the reasons why Google makes phones at all, and why they want a backup plan in case Samsung goes rogue. Hence the acquisition of HTC's engineers.

[stlabrat]

"how can BB?" one way is work with tesla to ensure the phone key app works on BB K1 and motion without glich... It appear have problem with Sammy or google phone alike (iphone appear to be OK). https://forums.tesla.com/en_CA/node/93381
as for why google get into the phone business - without software/hardware integration, the further improvement of performance are limited (apple iphone have software/hardware utilization using swift - hardware enhanced short cut that embedded in the program language, using such as LUT... with AI down to the road soon, stand alone software just going to slow things down a lot, unless big memory, super fast processor, high price, crappy battery performance, etc.etc. like some of monster handsets showed up in far east).