[BurningPlatform]

Yes, I understood your hypothesis the first time.

My response is the same as before - BB10 didn't just need MORE apps, it needed specific apps that other users already had on the two well-established ecosystems.

Google Maps, FlipBoard, Instagram, Zinio, Paper, Chrome, Spotify, Tumblr, Pinterest, Draw Something, Google Drive, Pocket, Shazam, Voxer, Flixster, Google Music, SnapChat, etc.

Fully understood. It's just that I don't think that one contradicts the other. On the contrary, I think that if BBRY managed to intercept those masses of former Symbian users and developers, which might have resulted in a considerably (possibly multiple times) bigger platform in terms of marketshare and app availability, it would have helped, and definitely not disturbed, to make BB10 a platform that at least some of those big fish you listed considered worth supporting. And if some of them did it, others might then follow.

Or, alternatively, if suppliers of those services you listed noticed, that even just initially unofficial, third party clients of their services made by ordinary developers were giving their services enough hits/visits (which would have been the case if there were enough users of the platform), then they might consider it worth doing an official, own client.

And so on.

There were many possibilities if there were enough users. And none if there weren't, as it was the case.

[BurningPlatform]

And once again, lack of developers and apps were not the problem. Lack of specific, popular apps available on the other established platforms was.

In what you're referring to, I wasn't talking about app developers but about OS developers.

Plus, BlackBerry only acquired QNX at the end of the summer in 2010. They already had 5000 developers working on it within a year, and delivered the PlayBook OS by the Spring of 2011. There was no lack of expertise - they just needed time.

From what I've learned so far, it wasn't QNX what took so much work. It was adding the Qt layer on top of it and creating everything from the Qt layer up, i.e. the APIs and the UI. Which is exactly what those former Nokia devs did in Sailfish - they also took the EXISTING core OS (Mer) and all the important work was above it, i.e. Qt, all the APIs and the UI.

As I said, they created it within one year. Moreover, they initially made it based on Qt 4.8 and then changed their mind and re-created everything almost from scratch based on Qt 5 (which took them some additional 8-9 months).

I can't see why it would have taken them any longer with QNX.

So yes, I think that their expertise was incomparably higher. Among them were those who actually made Qt (that Nokia owned until Elop), so I can't imagine who else might have known it better than them.

[conite]

In what you're referring to, I wasn't talking about app developers but about OS developers.



From what I've learned so far, it wasn't QNX what took so much work. It was adding the Qt layer on top of it and creating everything from the Qt layer up, i.e. the APIs and the UI. Which is exactly what those former Nokia devs did in Sailfish - they also took the EXISTING core OS (Mer) and all the important work was above it, i.e. Qt, all the APIs and the UI.

As I said, they created it within one year. Moreover, they initially made it based on Qt 4.8 and then changed their mind and re-created everything almost from scratch based on Qt 5 (which took them some additional 8-9 months).

I can't see why it would have taken them any longer with QNX.

So yes, I think that their expertise was incomparably higher. Among them were those who actually made Qt (that Nokia owned until Elop), so I can't imagine who else might have known it better than them.

Even if you had shrunk the development time from 28 months to, say 20 months, I can't see it making any difference. This thing was over in 2009 - not 2012.

In fact, Windows Phone was released in 2010, and they spent billions going after the big name developers I listed above. They didn't get very far then either. This just confirms that the race was certainly over by 2011.

[Chuck Finley69]

No one (and certainly not I) said anything about tying or requiring. I only said that getting better deals in the network infrastructure layer (which is a huge part of every carrier's business) might have encouraged them to "voluntarily" have a more enthusiastic approach to supporting Nokia platforms, if the profits/savings resulting from it turned out to be considerably higher than costs of providing such support. If that was ever discussed with them of course, which is what Elop obviously never did, as his intention for a single second wasn't to support Symbian.



That's entirely wrong. Elop for a single second didn't want to dump mobile. Elop only dumped Nokia OS'es and wanted to REPLACE them with Windows Phone OS. Nokia was supposed to still make phones like it did, only with cr*ppy Microsoft OS onboard instead of Symbian/MeeGo. Nothing to do with what Chen did at all. The opposite of it, I'd say.



Only that Nokia's numbers (everywhere else but the US) were 10-fold higher. And how they'd be changing past 2011, if not what Elop did, simply remains unknown if we don't know what Nokia would have done instead.

Management before Elop started the ball rolling to exit mobile. Symbian devices were past tense with all of the carriers and retailer and those same carriers and retailers were already in successful relationships with Android/IOS in 2010-2011 and the long term relationships were committed to beginning in 2007-2008 at platforms introduction. The duopoly was given favored status and consumers embraced and were leaving as contracts expired. The business problem for Nokia at time, was that partners weren’t including Nokia in long term plans. The only thing carriers and retailers wanted going forward were Android/IOS OEM hardware. Nokia HMD strategy would have probably been very successful back then.

At no time when technology matures, do we see more than A-B choice. For Nokia OS to succeed, Android would have to fail and that wasn’t ever going to happen.

[BurningPlatform]

In fact, Windows Phone was released in 2010, and they spent billions going after the big name developers I listed above. They didn't get very far then either. This just confirms that the race was certainly over by 2011.

Windows Phone wasn't considered usable even when the first Lumia devices shipped from Nokia in 2012, and not even the next year. Those Lumias had a really decent hardware, very nice design and fantastic cameras that everyone really enjoyed, but the OS was just a no-go to most people. It lacked the most basic features that Symbian users were so much used to and as if it wasn't enough it looked like ****. People on our forums were making lists of the most important things it lacked compared to Symbian, which were multipage long. The most active thread was called "101 features missing from Windows Phone", and it actually quite quickly surpassed the number in the title.

So I just can't imagine how crippled it must have been in 2010 and 2011, clearly below a prototype phase quality considering its untraceable sales that only Nokia devices shifted to (still niche in 2012) levels.

So I insist that in case of Windows Phone the reasons were much more complex and its pitiful quality played a very important (quite possibly key) part. By the time it eventually got acceptable experience, which I'd say happened only around 2014 when 8.1 version came out, it was indeed very much too late.

If it came out from Nokia directly after Elop announced ditching Symbian and not almost a year later and offered a decent user experience right then, I suspect that things might have looked quite different because Nokia customers were very loyal and highly valued the quality of their hardware, so many of them might decide to give it a try. But the quality of the OS simply REPELLED most of them, despite good hardware that they were really starving for after a year.

If Windows Phone was able to intercept majority of Symbian users, it would have given it a marketshare twice bigger than iOS and comparable to Android (which only those Symbian users nearly doubled). But it just wasn't possible with such hopeless and feature-less OS that they introduced on the Lumias in 2012. That's where Microsoft totally scr*wed up.

[conite]

Windows Phone wasn't considered usable even when the first Lumia devices shipped from Nokia in 2012, and not even the next year. Those Lumias had a really decent hardware, very nice design and fantastic cameras that everyone really enjoyed, but the OS was just a no-go to most people. It lacked the most basic features that Symbian users were so much used to and as if it wasn't enough it looked like ****. People on our forums were making lists of the most important things it lacked compared to Symbian, which were multipage long. The most active thread was called "101 features missing from Windows Phone", and it actually quite quickly surpassed the number in the title.

So I just can't imagine how crippled it must have been in 2010 and 2011, clearly below a prototype phase quality considering its untraceable sales that only Nokia devices shifted to (still niche in 2012) levels.

So I insist that in case of Windows Phone the reasons were much more complex and its pitiful quality played a very important (quite possibly key) part. By the time it eventually got acceptable experience, which I'd say happened only around 2014 when 8.1 version came out, it was indeed very much too late.

If it came out from Nokia directly after Elop announced ditching Symbian and not almost a year later and offered a decent user experience right then, I suspect that things might have looked quite different because Nokia customers were very loyal and highly valued the quality of their hardware, so many of them might decide to give it a try. But the quality of the OS simply REPELLED most of them, despite good hardware that they were really starving for after a year.

If Windows Phone was able to intercept majority of Symbian users, it would have given it a marketshare twice bigger than iOS and comparable to Android (which only those Symbian users nearly doubled). But it just wasn't possible with such hopeless and feature-less OS that they introduced on the Lumias in 2012. That's where Microsoft totally scr*wed up.

If Windows Phone had had Instagram and Google apps, no one would have cared about its teething problems.

The 2011 Lumia 800 had decent reviews.

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/ph...1039101/review

[BurningPlatform]

Is Windows Phone had had Instagram and Google apps, no one would have cared about its teething problems.

I do not remember a single Symbian user having listed it as major issue, even though we've had 150,000 registered users and 2 million guests. I remember everyone commonly criticizing the unusability of the OS. So I'm repeating what I've witnessed myself.

[conite]

I do not remember a single Symbian user having listed it as major issue, even though we've had 150,000 registered users and 2 million guests. I remember everyone commonly criticizing the unusability of the OS. So I'm repeating what I've witnessed myself.

Well, we all know what drove the market. Hindsight is 20/20. BBOS users didn't complain much about not having Instagram either, until they switched platforms to get it.

[BurningPlatform]

Management before Elop started the ball rolling to exit mobile.

Yeah, sure. And that's certainly why that management before Elop acquired Qt, transferred the whole Symbian to Qt, developed telephony support for Maemo's kernel that was missing from former Maemo releases (to be then used in MeeGo), was actively developing Symbian ^4, entered the MeeGo partnership with Intel, worked hard on Meltemi (cut-down MeeGo for feature phones to replace Nokia's S40 feature phone platform) and so on. Multi-billion investments in total. And all that in order to exit mobile, with no doubt :-) And the N9's MeeGo Harmattan OS and UI were surely developed (and the N9 device itself created) in 2010 as a goodbye gift

The only thing carriers and retailers wanted going forward were Android/IOS OEM hardware.

And that's why Nokia went Windows Phone hardware and OS?

For Nokia OS to succeed, Android would have to fail and that wasn’t ever going to happen.

At the time you're talking about the "Nokia OS" had bigger market share than Android and 2,5 times bigger than iOS. So what "in order to succeed" you are talking about? At the point of time you're referring to, no one else yet has EVER achieved the marketshare that Symbian OS *had* at that time, and in 2010 it shipped on twice more devices than Android and 3 times more than iOS (see the Gartner report table I posted on page 6).

https://forums.crackberry.com/attach...w-why-dims.jpg

So if in 2010 it shipped on TWICE more devices than Android then at that time its dominance was further increasing and not falling, right?

In the upcoming years the actual problem was to SUSTAIN its leadership and growth (which definitely WAS a tough thing to do and I do not intend to deny it), but certainly not "to succeed".

As for all the rest, you just keep repeating the same over and over, so there's no use in arguing with it yet another time.

So let's simply agree to disagree.

[BurningPlatform]

Well, we all know what drove the market. Hindsight is 20/20. BBOS users didn't complain much about not having Instagram either, until they switched platforms to get it.

There's a point (a certain number of users) at which it starts being profitable for a certain vendor to support a platform. The problem is to reach that point. How many users it takes, I don't know, quite possibly it varies from app/sevice to app/service. But I don't think that for vendors of such apps/services anything else matters than certain number of users a platform would deliver them. So the key problem was to have that number of users. And all I know is that in 2011 there were more Symbian users than Android users (and twice more than iOS), and they all suddenly had to find themselves a new platform, so intercepting as many of them as possible could have delivered a sufficient user base. And probably nothing else past that could have done it. And that's what I've been trying to say here for three days, i.e. that intercepting those users leaving Symbian was probably BB10's last chance. I'm NOT saying guarantee, I'm saying chance. They missed that opportunity by almost two years.

[Bbnivende]

I do not think it was in the DNA , ambition, skill set , history , managerial capacity and customer driven focus of RIM to become the maker of mass market handsets and phone operating systems. RIM developed from a pager and really the 9900 was the probably the final chapter of the business oriented texting email device. BlackBerry now and then valued their role as providing services and products for business and enterprise customers.

Google and Apple came to the mobile phone market with Internet and personal computing backgrounds. Microsoft certainly could have taken over the market position previously held by Nokia but too were content with their lot in life.

With hindsight, BlackBerry had a huge asset with BBM that was squandered. Their focus was still on carriers as the potential customer rather end users and BlackBerry lost out.

Essentially RIM was in the right place but they were never going to be the right company to benefit from their market position.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

There's a point (a certain number of users) at which it starts being profitable for a certain vendor to support a platform. The problem is to reach that point. How many users it takes, I don't know, quite possibly it varies from app/sevice to app/service. But I don't think that for vendors of such apps/services anything else matters than certain number of users a platform would deliver them. So the key problem was to have that number of users. And all I know is that in 2011 there were more Symbian users than Android users (and twice more than iOS), and they all suddenly had to find themselves a new platform, so intercepting as many of them as possible could have delivered a sufficient user base. And probably nothing else past that could have done it. And that's what I've been trying to say here for three days, i.e. that intercepting those users leaving Symbian was probably BB10's last chance. I'm NOT saying guarantee, I'm saying chance. They missed that opportunity by almost two years.

Perception... in 2011 Symbian was over with and Android was a rising star. Didn't matter how many users Symbian or BBOS had, what matter is they were both dying.

I do wonder about the numbers... at best most were saying BlackBerry would be lucky to sell 20 million units in 2013. That's nothing in today's market. But would that 20 Million have been enough, when paired with the perception that BB10 had a future and would grow?

But the perception around BB10 quickly turned sour, and the rest is history.

[Bbnivende]

BlackBerry put itself up for sale in August 2013. Up to that point BlackBerry was still selling old BBOS devices, writing down their over production of Z10’s and the Q10 was DOA. I have read here of an estimate of about 12 million units of BB10 sold for all years. Anyway, perception became the reality after about six months.

[BurningPlatform]

in 2011 Symbian was over with and Android was a rising star. Didn't matter how many users Symbian or BBOS had, what matter is they were both dying.

As I already told you, the way you just keep repeating it like a mantra makes any further discussion pointless, because no matter what I'd write, you'd just repeat the same. An utter waste of time.

[saint300]

I want to thank BurningPlatform for all this inside information about Symbian demise. I used to be a dedicated Symbian user back in the day, starting with the legendary Nokia 7650, and then moving on to a couple more Nokia devices before I went the Sony Ericsson way, namely the P1i and the W 960i (the famous Walkman phone...).

A few years later down the road I got a company issued iPhone, the original version in 2007 and next year I got my first Blackberry, the Bold 9000, which was again a company issued phone, but with a data sim card, so only meant for email use. Fast forward to 2019, when I re-united with Blackberry devices via the Classic; and as I said in my introductory post, I have been really happy with my device ever since. However, I also did say that I really had to have the Passport experience, so I was on the lookout ever since! And roughly a week ago, I found an "as new" (again) device, this time from Greece, which I bought for an amazing price!

And please let me say, that although all this discussion regarding Symbian is very interesting indeed, it seems like it has gone off-topic, since the actual question was about the Passport being usable in 2019. And to that end, allow me to say that this is the most awesome device I have ever used in my life, and I have used a whole lot of phones!!

Also, while I really welcome all well-meant made comments, I honestly cannot understand why there are certain people here that always try to make those people sticking to BB OS 10 feel bad....And let me also note that comments like "enjoy it while it lasts" or something similar, is only meant to make users of BB 10 feel worse. Not good....

I don't need any "Ambassador" or "Trusted Member" to tell me what to do or offer fake sympathy, until I decide to go to Android (again!!!).

So, as of my two cents regarding the original question, yes, I do believe that the Passport is a great device to have in 2009!

I could elaborate on that, but a bunch of other people here have stated the reason why, and I wholeheartedly agree with them all!

Thank you all and once more, it's great to be in this community!

[conite]

I don't need any "Ambassador" or "Trusted Member" to tell me what to do or offer fake sympathy, until I decide to go to Android (again!!!).

The only response I gave to the OP in this thread was post 7 as follows:

"Ride it out as long as it works for you.

Just make sure you choose the right device for your workflow, and not the other way around."

I would say the same thing regarding any EOL product - whether it be BB10, BBOS, WebOS, Windows Phone, or others.

[the_boon]

So, as of my two cents regarding the original question, yes, I do believe that the Passport is a great device to have in 2009!

Yes, I do agree that the Passport would be an amazing device to have in 2009!

Lol

[BBHermes]

Many thanks to everyone, especially @BurningPlatform, for a fascinating and informed discussion re the early prospects of success for BB10. For what little it's worth, in my view BurningPlatform won the debate hands down: No one provided a *cogent* rebuttal to his main thesis. In any case, I learned from everyone's contribution, including that of @conite. At the same time, BurningPlatform's contribution could have been treated less dismissively and more respectfully by some of the senior members of this forum.

Re the OP: As I have asked in other contexts, is anyone aware of any prospective paradigm shift on the horizon - even if a couple of years away - that might eventually provide an alternative to the duopoly, if not succeed it?

Posted via CB10

[conite]

is anyone aware of any prospective paradigm shift on the horizon - even if a couple of years away - that might eventually provide an alternative to the duopoly, if not succeed it?

Posted via CB10

I think the next paradigm shift is the elimination of mobile devices completely.

With super highspeed networks, the need to have a local CPU to process things becomes unnecessary.

Whether that becomes smartglass, smartplastic, AR glasses (or contacts) is hard to know.

[conite]

For what little it's worth, in my view BurningPlatform won the debate hands down:

With all due respect to those who participated, I do not think this discussion ever truly rose to the level of a debate.

There was no real corroborating evidence advanced with the hypothesis - it was only a "gut" feel that it MAY have worked out differently had BB10 come out 1 or 2 years earlier - as opposed to the more mainstream view that it had to be at least 4 years earlier.

Either way, BB10 came out in 2013 - too late regardless of the position one takes in this discussion.

[anon(5597702)]

With all due respect to those who participated, I do not think this discussion ever truly rose to the level of a debate.

There was no real corroborating evidence advanced with the hypothesis.

He never claimed otherwise. He kept highlighting words like "chance" and "maybe". I agree with the earlier poster; y'all were pretty dismissive of BP's points. Was refreshing to read a different point of view here.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

He never claimed otherwise.

I never said he did.

[Chuck Finley69]

As I already told you, the way you just keep repeating it like a mantra makes any further discussion pointless, because no matter what I'd write, you'd just repeat the same. An utter waste of time.

I believe that was me you said it to.

[Chuck Finley69]

Many thanks to everyone, especially @BurningPlatform, for a fascinating and informed discussion re the early prospects of success for BB10. For what little it's worth, in my view BurningPlatform won the debate hands down: No one provided a *cogent* rebuttal to his main thesis. In any case, I learned from everyone's contribution, including that of @conite. At the same time, BurningPlatform's contribution could have been treated less dismissively and more respectfully by some of the senior members of this forum.

Re the OP: As I have asked in other contexts, is anyone aware of any prospective paradigm shift on the horizon - even if a couple of years away - that might eventually provide an alternative to the duopoly, if not succeed it?

Posted via CB10

The debate was over and won in real life so long ago by Android/IOS just in case you missed that.

It amazes me that many forget that we’re all BBMo fans here but just being realistic. I just dropped almost $300 on what just may be a paperweight. The reality is that it’s still more usable than my four year old Passport for almost everything.

[Chuck Finley69]

I want to thank BurningPlatform for all this inside information about Symbian demise. I used to be a dedicated Symbian user back in the day, starting with the legendary Nokia 7650, and then moving on to a couple more Nokia devices before I went the Sony Ericsson way, namely the P1i and the W 960i (the famous Walkman phone...).

A few years later down the road I got a company issued iPhone, the original version in 2007 and next year I got my first Blackberry, the Bold 9000, which was again a company issued phone, but with a data sim card, so only meant for email use. Fast forward to 2019, when I re-united with Blackberry devices via the Classic; and as I said in my introductory post, I have been really happy with my device ever since. However, I also did say that I really had to have the Passport experience, so I was on the lookout ever since! And roughly a week ago, I found an "as new" (again) device, this time from Greece, which I bought for an amazing price!

And please let me say, that although all this discussion regarding Symbian is very interesting indeed, it seems like it has gone off-topic, since the actual question was about the Passport being usable in 2019. And to that end, allow me to say that this is the most awesome device I have ever used in my life, and I have used a whole lot of phones!!

Also, while I really welcome all well-meant made comments, I honestly cannot understand why there are certain people here that always try to make those people sticking to BB OS 10 feel bad....And let me also note that comments like "enjoy it while it lasts" or something similar, is only meant to make users of BB 10 feel worse. Not good....

I don't need any "Ambassador" or "Trusted Member" to tell me what to do or offer fake sympathy, until I decide to go to Android (again!!!).

So, as of my two cents regarding the original question, yes, I do believe that the Passport is a great device to have in 2009!

I could elaborate on that, but a bunch of other people here have stated the reason why, and I wholeheartedly agree with them all!

Thank you all and once more, it's great to be in this community!

Welcome to CB!!! Enjoy whichever BB device or BB OS for as long as you can.