[i_plod_an_dr_void]

The very fact that Nokia was going to include an Android runtime is evidence that they knew that they weren't going to get important native apps - but history also clearly shows that if your OS depends on another platform's apps, it's only a matter of time before your users end up on that platform instead, so they can run those apps natively.

History? You mean like when MS-DOS included an emulator/ability for CP/M applications to run, way back at its inception? The emulator guy eventually won that battle.

BlackBerry did not make a mistake adding an android run-time, the only mistake was running out of cash before the red door turned to black (queue the rolling stones). It was the right thing to do. If only we could have a real alternative to Huwei and Xiomi (segwey) problems, and Android in general (goes without saying ios too- cause its just not BB10), like a new bb10 device on a multi-core device. Adding a runtime is a two-way street, it could also have meant users might eventually end up on your system instead.

Just because I haven't listened to the tune lately....Paint it Black!

[BurningPlatform]

The very fact that Nokia was going to include an Android runtime is evidence that they knew that they weren't going to get important native apps.

They were going to include it for as simple reason as that Myriad (an independent software company) created it and offered it to them. It wasn't made or ordered by Nokia themselves, so I don't think your assumptions are valid.

As for native apps, as I said, the first Symbian version fully based on Qt, the Symbian ^3, only came out in Q4 2010 (Elop seriously delayed the launch of the N8 and then - even more - the E7), and was killed merely a few months later. It wasn't given ANY time to see if it would get massive developer support or not, so it's just assumptions. Neither Nokia nor anyone else could know without even trying, whereas Symbian was killed right when the first Symbian^3 (Qt) devices only STARTED shipping.

All I can say is that being developer myself, at that time I didn't have ANY reasons to complain about my revenue and I would have stayed with those platforms FOREVER if they existed. Apps in the Ovi store were getting the biggest number of downloads of all at that time, many times more than iOS and Android, despite lower number of them. It was a developer's heaven, actually - less competitors, much more downloads. Who'd expect more?

All that is known is that 1,5 million people downloaded the Qt SDK and around 400,000 new developers signed in to Forum Nokia (developer site) since the Qt SDK was released in 2010. It didn't look like an upcoming disaster, did it?

https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/18/no...ion-ovi-users/

and after Symbian^3 came out the numbers nearly DOUBLED

https://www.computerworlduk.com/it-v...loads-3273868/

https://techcrunch.com/2011/01/07/di...pp-store-boom/

Development for pre-Qt Symbian was really painful and required learning all the proprietary stuff, which was the biggest obstacle. Qt brought it to a completely different level of simplicity. Whether that - alongside with Symbian still having been the biggest platform at that time - would or would not be enough to attract developers will always remain unknown. And the same for the planned transition to MeeGo (a fully Linux based OS with integrated Qt) which would make every Linux developer on Earth 100% familiar with it.

The Nokia N9 (MeeGo Harmattan) UI was really revolutionary (see videos above) and it was going to appear across all devices, both Symbian and MeeGo. We don't know what level of popularity those platforms would get if that UI was ever pushed to the masses and promoted. If it was, and hundreds of millions of people loved it and bought those devices, I do not think that developers would resist to support it.

The moment in which Elop killed Symbian/MeeGo wasn't accidental - he had to do it BEFORE the wholly new OS and MeeGo's revolutionary UI could possibly conquer the market. That's why he did it so soon despite knowing that Windows Phone devices would not be ready until 2012 and Nokia would end up with nothing to sell until then. So, for the last time, any speculations about developer support without ever being able to know if those new Symbian and MeeGo devices wouldn't be selling in hundreds of millions of units (if Elop didn't kill them), are just pure assumptions. The only hard fact is that the N8 and E7 alone managed to sell in around 8 million units within a few months left until Elop finished it off, and that since the Qt SDK was released literally hundreds of thousands of new developers signed in to Ovi and Forum Nokia.

Anyway, please kindly note how everything I write here I do care to always confirm with solid numbers, links and other data, while you guys keep repeating what you THINK WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, which makes this discussion kind of pointless, so I think that's it from me.

[conite]

They were going to include it for as simple reason as that Myriad (an independent software company) created it and offered it to them. It wasn't made or ordered by Nokia themselves, so I don't think your assumptions are valid.

As for native apps, as I said, the first Symbian version fully based on Qt, the Symbian ^3, only came out in Q4 2010, already under Elop, and was killed merely a few months later. It wasn't given ANY time to see if it would get massive developer support or not, so it's just assumptions. Neither Nokia nor anyone else could know without even trying, whereas Symbian was killed right when the first Symbian^3 (Qt) devices only STARTED shipping.

All I can say is that being developer myself, at that time I didn't have ANY reasons to complain about my revenue and I would have stayed with those platforms FOREVER if they existed. Apps in the Ovi store were getting the biggest number of downloads of all at that time, many times more than iOS and Android, despite lower number of them. It was a developer's heaven, actually - less competitors, much more downloads. Who'd expect more?

All that is known is that 1,5 million people downloaded the Qt SDK and around 400,000 new developers signed in to Forum Nokia (developer site) since the Qt SDK was released in 2010. It didn't look like an upcoming disaster, did it?

https://techcrunch.com/2010/11/18/no...ion-ovi-users/

and after Symbian^3 came out the numbers nearly DOUBLED

https://www.computerworlduk.com/it-v...loads-3273868/

https://techcrunch.com/2011/01/07/di...pp-store-boom/

Development for pre-Qt Symbian was really painful and required learning all the proprietary stuff, which was the biggest obstacle. Qt brought it to a completely different level of simplicity. Whether that - alongside with Symbian still having been the biggest platform at that time - would or would not be enough to attract developers will always remain unknown. And the same for the planned transition to MeeGo (a fully Linux based OS with integrated Qt) which would make every Linux developer on Earth 100% familiar with it.

The Nokia N9 (MeeGo Harmattan) UI was really revolutionary (see videos above) and it was going to appear across all devices, both Symbian and MeeGo. We don't know what level of popularity those platforms would get if that UI was ever pushed to the masses and promoted. If it was, and hundreds of millions of people loved it and bought those devices, I do not think that developers would not resist to support it.

The moment in which Elop killed Symbian/MeeGo wasn't accidental - he had to do it BEFORE the wholly new OS and MeeGo's revolutionary UI could possibly conquer the market. That's why he did it so soon despite knowing that Windows Phone devices would not be ready until 2012 and Nokia would end up with nothing to sell until then. So, for the last time, any speculations about developer support without ever being able to know if those new Symbian and MeeGo devices wouldn't be selling in hundreds of millions of units (if Elop didn't kill them), are just pure speculations. The only hard fact is that the N8 and E7 alone managed to sell in around 8 million units within a few months left until Elop finished it off, and that since the Qt SDK was released literally hundreds of thousands of new developers signed in to Ovi and Forum Nokia.

Anyway, please kindly note how everything I write here I do care to always confirm with solid numbers, links and other data, while you guys keep repeating what you THINK WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, which makes this discussion kind of pointless, so I think that's it from me.

None of your "numbers" bear any particular relevance in my opinion - beyond some loose notion of linkage with Symbian where I don't believe one exists.

[BurningPlatform]

None of your "numbers" bear any particular relevance in my opinion - beyond some loose notion of linkage with Symbian where I don't believe one exists.

Your disbelieves are your problem, not mine.

[conite]

Your disbelieves are your problem, not mine.

I could say the same things about your delusions.

In any event, actual history seems to be working against you.

[BurningPlatform]

I could say the same things about your delusions.

Fine. And so what? You clearly didn't come here to have any serious discussion on the topic other than telling me that I have "delusions that for you do not bear any relevance", so why bother to communicate with you on such a pitiful level?

It's not the first time that I notice that on this site people expressing different opinion than "ambassadors" and "trusted members" always end up being made fool of by those aforementioned ones, and it's something really exceptional. With such "ambassadors", no wonder this whole thing ended up how it did. Your connections with anything an "ambassador" could be associated with (i.e. diplomacy) are just untraceable.

Now kindly excuse me but talking with you in such a manner is the last thing I'd want to spend this otherwise quite pleasant night on. Good bye.

[conite]

Fine. And so what? You clearly didn't come here to have any serious discussion on the topic other than telling me that I have "delusions that for you do not bear any relevance", so why bother to communicate with you on such a pitiful level?

It's not the first time that I notice that on this site people expressing different opinion than "ambassadors" and "trusted members" always end up being made fool of by those aforementioned ones, and it's something really exceptional. With such "ambassadors", no wonder this whole thing ended up how it did. Your connections with anything an "ambassador" could be associated with (i.e. diplomacy) are just untraceable.

Now kindly excuse me but talking with you in such a manner is the last thing I'd want to spend this otherwise quite pleasant night on. Good bye.

You have long ago essentially ignored my, and any other, rebuff to your argument. You continue to stand alone in your beliefs. Feel free of course.

[TrumpetTiger]

You have long ago essentially ignored my, and any other, rebuff to your argument. You continue to stand alone in your beliefs. Feel free of course.

He's not alone.

[conite]

He's not alone.

You believe ported Symbian apps in 2012/2013 would have saved BB10 too? Gotcha.

[TrumpetTiger]

You believe ported Symbian apps in 2013 would have saved BB10 too? Gotcha.

I believe apps in general would have saved BB10. But since you believe it would have had to have come out in 2006, before the iPhone itself was launched....I think the ability to have a reasoned debate on this topic long since fled Crackberry.

[conite]

I believe apps in general would have saved BB10. But since you believe it would have had to have come out in 2006, before the iPhone itself was launched....I think the ability to have a reasoned debate on this topic long since fled Crackberry.

My post:

"BB10 had to have been be launched no later than 2009 to have had even the smallest hope - and that's assuming they could have even come close to the massive spending/investments/development by Google and Apple in the OS and related ecosystem."

The ecosystem war was looooong over by 2013, and a bunch of ported Symbian apps wouldn't have changed a thing - those were far from the apps people were longing for, as Play Store and AppStore had already set the expectations.

[TrumpetTiger]

He's not alone.

To more accurately express my sentiments, starting at 2:18 since CB does not respect the direct URL:

[Chuck Finley69]

Fine. And so what? You clearly didn't come here to have any serious discussion on the topic other than telling me that I have "delusions that for you do not bear any relevance", so why bother to communicate with you on such a pitiful level?

It's not the first time that I notice that on this site people expressing different opinion than "ambassadors" and "trusted members" always end up being made fool of by those aforementioned ones, and it's something really exceptional. With such "ambassadors", no wonder this whole thing ended up how it did. Your connections with anything an "ambassador" could be associated with (i.e. diplomacy) are just untraceable.

Now kindly excuse me but talking with you in such a manner is the last thing I'd want to spend this otherwise quite pleasant night on. Good bye.

Your position falls apart based on assumptions that former Symbian users supported future Nokia OS as if original choice was voluntary. The OS people chose and still choose is what they’re pushed to choose from by the “system” made up of OEM, retailer and/or carrier partners. It was in this system that Nokia was put to sleep by other actors who changed the business model to change the paradigm from original players to Android/IOS with different OEM lineup and revenue arrangements.

[Chuck Finley69]

I believe apps in general would have saved BB10. But since you believe it would have had to have come out in 2006, before the iPhone itself was launched....I think the ability to have a reasoned debate on this topic long since fled Crackberry.

I believe I’m the one that makes that argument. Strictly based on the fact that BB never had the economic resources to ever be a serious threat regarding sheer magnitude of Apple/Google/Microsoft positive cash flow operationally...

[BurningPlatform]

You continue to stand alone in your beliefs. Feel free of course.

As long as the rules of this forum do not (yet) forbid having and expressing own opinions which are in contrast with yours, please kindly stand somehow that I will continue to write what I think and not what you think, and that I won't be changing my opinions when you consider them delusions.

As for "beliefs", I'd say it is actually you guys who plant some kind of new religion here, with Chen being the Savior, BB10 the Original Sin, Android the Resurrection, and so on. Hallelujah!

Your position falls apart based on assumptions that former Symbian users supported future Nokia OS

And you repeat it ad nauseam based solely on your assumptions, i.e. without ever indicating in any reliable way that they wouldn't, which is simply unknown without knowing how the new Symbian and MeeGo platforms would sell, what decisions Nokia would have made otherwise, what licencing models would they offer, and so on. Your only argument is what happened IN EFFECT of publicly discontinuing Symbian by Elop (naturally a migration of users and developers to other platforms), which obviously wasn't the cause but the result of it. Until the very day of Elop's memo - let me repeat it for the 5th time - the new Symbian ^3 based N8 and E7 were selling the best in Symbian's history - and that's ALL we know.

You also tend to drop the arguments that you cannot defend, e.g. the "lack of good UI" when shown that the N9 had an amazingly beautiful and responsive fully gesture-controlled UI (which was going to be used across all platforms) that in 2011 had no equivalent and even today appears modern and competitive, and that BB10 was actually strongly based on.

The OS people chose and still choose is what they’re pushed to choose from by the “system” made up of OEM, retailer and/or carrier partners. It was in this system that Nokia was put to sleep by other actors who changed the business model to change the paradigm from original players to Android/IOS with different OEM lineup and revenue arrangements.

So I told you that the giant Nokia had a multitude of ways to make carriers and others support their platforms. Like the aforementioned dependency on Nokia NSN supplies of network infrastructure to majority of carriers worldwide. Or tens of thousands of patents they owned, related to countless things in mobile and wireless technology used by literally everyone else at that time. Or its role in the GSM Association (GSMA) that was still very strong at that time, where it was in direct touch (and in multiple relations) with every single important player doing business in the mobile industry. Intel would also be helpful with its relations (as it would be their mutual business), if the MeeGo partnership (that Intel really relied on) was continued and treated seriously, rather than what Elop instantly did with it.

They DID have many tools to assure support for their platforms, but (at least since 2010) they were NOT using any of them because their new management's goal was completely OPPOSITE to giving their own platforms any chance to succeed.

And BTW, arguments that Nokia knew what they were doing are really funny because they just couldn't have chosen any worse - literally nothing else could destroy the whole giant company within one year and allow it to be bought cheaper than Skype. Even if they stayed with Symbian and it eventually failed and MeeGo didn't work either, it would have taken several years to reach halfway of where Elop took it in a few months, and still preserved a chance to go Android as the last resort.

[conite]

As long as the rules of this forum do not (yet) forbid having and expressing own opinions which are in contrast with yours, please kindly stand somehow that I will continue to write what I think and not what you think, and that I won't be changing my opinions when you consider them delusions.

As for "beliefs", I'd say it is actually you guys who plant some kind of new religion here, with Chen being the Savior, BB10 the Original Sin, Android the Resurrection, and so on. Hallelujah!

Re-read posts 154 and 155 again. I think it was you who was dismissive of my opinion - not the other way around. I just responded in kind.

In any event, I never suggested you should be censored - even the post you quote confirms that.

I am actually very dispassionate in my posts regarding BB10. I look at it only as an interesting business case-study. The fact that I liked it, and used it for years is irrelevant to me.

The company is here today as a direct consequence of the Prem/Chen/BoD decision to dump BB10 and pivot to end-point security software.

BlackBerry Android is not an alternative to BB10 - it's and alternative to nothing at all (in mobile).

[Chuck Finley69]

As long as the rules of this forum do not (yet) forbid having and expressing own opinions which are in contrast with yours, please kindly stand somehow that I will continue to write what I think and not what you think, and that I won't be changing my opinions when you consider them delusions.

As for "beliefs", I'd say it is actually you guys who plant some kind of new religion here, with Chen being the Savior, BB10 the Original Sin, Android the Resurrection, and so on. Hallelujah!




And you repeat it ad nauseam based solely on your assumptions, i.e. without ever indicating in any reliable way that they wouldn't, which is simply unknown without knowing how the new Symbian and MeeGo platforms would sell, what decisions Nokia would have made otherwise, what licencing models would they offer, and so on. Your only argument is what happened IN EFFECT of publicly discontinuing Symbian by Elop (naturally a migration of users and developers to other platforms), which obviously wasn't the cause but the result of it. Until the very day of Elop's memo - let me repeat it for the 5th time - the new Symbian ^3 based N8 and E7 were selling the best in Symbian's history - and that's ALL we know.

You also tend to drop the arguments that you cannot defend, e.g. the "lack of good UI" when shown that the N9 had an amazingly beautiful and responsive fully gesture-controlled UI (which was going to be used across all platforms) that in 2011 had no equivalent and even today appears modern and competitive, and that BB10 was actually strongly based on.



So I told you that the giant Nokia had a multitude of ways to make carriers and others support their platforms. Like the aforementioned dependency on Nokia NSN supplies of network infrastructure to majority of carriers worldwide. Or tens of thousands of patents they owned, related to countless things in mobile and wireless technology used by literally everyone else at that time. Or its role in the GSM Association (GSMA) that was still very strong at that time, where it was in direct touch (and in multiple relations) with every single important player doing business in the mobile industry. Intel would also be helpful with its relations (as it would be their mutual business), if the MeeGo partnership (that Intel really relied on) was continued and treated seriously, rather than what Elop instantly did with it.

They DID have many tools to assure support for their platforms, but (at least since 2010) they were NOT using any of them because their new management's goal was completely OPPOSITE to giving their own platforms any chance to succeed.

And BTW, arguments that Nokia knew what they were doing are really funny because they just couldn't have chosen any worse - literally nothing else could destroy the whole giant company within one year and allow it to be bought cheaper than Skype. Even if they stayed with Symbian and it eventually failed and MeeGo didn't work either, it would have taken several years to reach halfway of where Elop took it in a few months, and still preserved a chance to go Android as the last resort.

Industry regulations in most developed countries forbid tying network equipment with any type of mobile OS or phone OEM support requirements under multiple antitrust laws. Blaming Elop for Nokia dumping mobile is like blaming Chen for BB dumping mobile.

Nokia, like BB, failed to recognize that Android/IOS was getting support from existing consumers and new consumers through forced carrier and retailer demand. The massive user numbers you present for Nokia are correct just like BB had massive user numbers still in 2012 timeframe.

Senior management in both companies realized the significance of Android/IOS, regarding the restructuring of the relationships between carriers, OEMs and first party app development for social media platforms and entertainment media like movies and television.

You’re describing the mobile OS as the “war” but it was really just a “weapon” in the mobile telecom wars.

The decisions made by Nokia, at time, is why the company faired much better than BB, at time, and continues to be a far larger company.

In essence, in the 80s-00s, the mobile hardware OEMs with proprietary and mobile OS, licensed for profit, built a business model that restricted their carrier and retailer partners. Android/IOS just allowed those partners to change the paradigm of power. Look how even Microsoft has successfully emerged while abandoning their own mobile OS instead partnering with Android/IOS now.

Even if Symbian users had wanted to all migrate to successor platform, the industry network carriers and retailers weren’t going to let that happen. Everybody from consumers to providers viewed the Android/IOS business model as the best for self interested reasons.

What better anything, did Nokia or BB offer that would convince the consumers to switch from the business arrangement Android/IOS provides between the consumers and corporations now?

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Nokia, like BB, failed to recognize that Android/IOS was getting support from existing consumers and new consumers through forced carrier and retailer demand. The massive user numbers you present for Nokia are correct just like BB had massive user numbers still in 2012 timeframe.

?

I do think that carrier's were afraid of not having more choices.... notable I think Apple's power really scared a few of them - especially Verizon. Which is why BlackBerry got so much support here when they launched BB10. And even why those Nokia Windows phones got "some" support even as poor a showing as they offered.

But in the end Carrier's want to attract users and make money... you only do that by offering what consumers are buying. And that was one of the two Operating Systems that had laid out their foundations early and had the support of commercial developers.

I don't get why BurningPlatform doesn't get that the BlackBerry and Symbian massive userbases in 2011, 2012... meant nothing really, as those users wanted new devices that offered what the more ingrained Android and iOS ecosystems had. They didn't want something still in development with almost no support from those commercial app developers. For Nokia or BlackBerry to have succeeded.... the need the foundation of a platform by 2009 at the latest. Then they could slowly then build their ecosystem up and mature their operating system, so that when consumer smartphone sales started to really take off in 2011, 2012.... they would have had a stable and complete product to offer.

BB10 was terrible in 2013 when it launched, the Z10 was a beta product that was under powered (battery), and there was no ecosystem. And the Q10 was no real BlackBerry - no toolbar, no frets, no keyboard shortcuts....

Instead of his wishing for BB10's launch in 2012, might as well wish for it to have been launched with BB10.2 and Cobalt's "hack" preinstalled with the Classic and Leap being the launch devices with the Passport and PRIV (BB10 version) close behind. And of course with the writ-down prices builtin on the front side of things....

[Bbnivende]

Remember "Snap " - Life was good for a while.

[Chuck Finley69]

I do think that carrier's were afraid of not having more choices.... notable I think Apple's power really scared a few of them - especially Verizon. Which is why BlackBerry got so much support here when they launched BB10. And even why those Nokia Windows phones got "some" support even as poor a showing as they offered.

But in the end Carrier's want to attract users and make money... you only do that by offering what consumers are buying. And that was one of the two Operating Systems that had laid out their foundations early and had the support of commercial developers.

I don't get why BurningPlatform doesn't get that the BlackBerry and Symbian massive userbases in 2011, 2012... meant nothing really, as those users wanted new devices that offered what the more ingrained Android and iOS ecosystems had. They didn't want something still in development with almost no support from those commercial app developers. For Nokia or BlackBerry to have succeeded.... the need the foundation of a platform by 2009 at the latest. Then they could slowly then build their ecosystem up and mature their operating system, so that when consumer smartphone sales started to really take off in 2011, 2012.... they would have had a stable and complete product to offer.

BB10 was terrible in 2013 when it launched, the Z10 was a beta product that was under powered (battery), and there was no ecosystem. And the Q10 was no real BlackBerry - no toolbar, no frets, no keyboard shortcuts....

Instead of his wishing for BB10's launch in 2012, might as well wish for it to have been launched with BB10.2 and Cobalt's "hack" preinstalled with the Classic and Leap being the launch devices with the Passport and PRIV (BB10 version) close behind. And of course with the writ-down prices builtin on the front side of things....

I agree from technology and consumer perspective. BB was doomed regardless because it could never develop a replacement for SAF revenues from app ecosystem and devices. Apple/iOS with iPods and music revenue or Google/Android with search engine and data mined ad revenue was growing exponentially faster. The mobile phone was just another way to get consumers to buy additional songs and search more on the go and to act on the ads more. Both Android/IOS models fed the mobile OS revenue machine of their owners at exponentially faster rate than BBOS fed BB at time from non SAF origins. The carriers wanted to dump BBOS hardware since Android/IOS consumed more data and the revenue wasn’t shares with anyone. BB played the BBOS card right and should have just exited hardware in 2012-2013 if no BBAndroid was ready. BBAndroid should have started at time of QNX purchase and QNX should have been left to it’s current development uses.

BB was always hampered by it’s size once the big three got involved. Nokia, OTOH, played it’s cards much better selling it’s mobile operations to Microsoft and I think Elop was actually part of that with both companies quietly allowing him to be “hired” so he could evaluate the mobile division internally. The public version of his leaving and joining each company was done to camouflage the real mission for both companies. No reason to panic the markets or the employees. Ultimately, Nokia received good value for what ended up for Microsoft purchase.

The carriers weren’t afraid of the Android/IOS duopoly since I believe the carriers had more control from the beginning and have shaped the landscape to industry goals and objectives.

[BurningPlatform]

Re-read posts 154 and 155 again. I think it was you who was dismissive of my opinion - not the other way around. I just responded in kind.

Good that you point it out, because post 154 was actually my REPLY to your quite dismissive comment 153 (the one about my "numbers" not bearing any relevance, i.e. suggesting that I trump up what I write here), and not the other way around.

Nevermind.

The company is here today as a direct consequence of the Prem/Chen/BoD decision to dump BB10 and pivot to end-point security software.

I guess we all know that we can't change what happened, but I don't think that there's anything wrong in discussing the reasons (which were quite complex, not as simple as some keep saying). Especially that I have never seen anyone else discussing it so far from the Symbian perspective, so I thought it'd be worth mentioning.

It is a fact that in early 2011 hundreds of millions of Symbian users (still the biggest platform at that point) were suddenly forced to start looking for a new platform. And that Symbian/Qt developers suddenly had to find themselves a new platform to develop for, and a Qt-based platform might have been a desirable choice for them (just like it was for me), not requiring to learn everything from scratch and reducing the workload with porting apps to minimum.

BB10 might have been the choice for many of them, if it came out AT THAT POINT (2011), and not two years later when they all were already gone. IMO, BlackBerry could have done more than they did to make it possible, e.g. by quickly hiring those extremely experienced Qt developers whom Elop fired just then from Nokia, and who could have seriously accelerated the development of BB10. They proved their skills by making Sailfish OS from scratch within a year or so (and that they were doing it probably indicates that they didn't get any other serious offer), so I guess that they would have helped to finish BB10 much, much earlier.

That's all I wanted to say. Whether it'd be enough or not, I don't know, and I don't think anyone can know now. But it definitely was a chance, and actually the LAST one. Not taken advantage of at all.

[conite]

It is a fact that in early 2011 hundreds of millions of Symbian users (still the biggest platform at that point) were suddenly forced to start looking for a new platform. And that Symbian/Qt developers suddenly had to find themselves a new platform to develop for, and a Qt-based platform might have been a desirable choice for them (just like it was for me), not requiring to learn everything from scratch and reducing the workload with porting apps to minimum.

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.

[BurningPlatform]

Industry regulations in most developed countries forbid tying network equipment with any type of mobile OS or phone OEM support requirements under multiple antitrust laws.

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.

Blaming Elop for Nokia dumping mobile is like blaming Chen for BB dumping mobile.

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.

The massive user numbers you present for Nokia are correct just like BB had massive user numbers still in 2012 timeframe.

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.

[BurningPlatform]

I don't get why BurningPlatform doesn't get that the BlackBerry and Symbian massive userbases in 2011, 2012... meant nothing really, as those users wanted new devices that offered what the more ingrained Android and iOS ecosystems had. They didn't want something still in development with almost no support from those commercial app developers. For Nokia or BlackBerry to have succeeded.... the need the foundation of a platform by 2009 at the latest. Then they could slowly then build their ecosystem up and mature their operating system, so that when consumer smartphone sales started to really take off in 2011, 2012.... they would have had a stable and complete product to offer.

What are you talking about? Symbian existed since 2001 (everywhere else but the US), it was a fully established and feature rich OS, and it was the world's biggest platform until the very moment that Elop killed it. The switch to Qt only meant changes (MUCH easier development) for developers, it was transparent to users. I don't get it at all what "still in development" or "slowly building the ecosystem" you're talking about when it comes to Symbian.

Symbian in 2011 was actually MUCH more mature and much more feature rich than totally unstable, insecure and messy Android 2.x (and then not much less 4.x), or stable and secure but still EXTREMELY dumbed-down (other than eye-candy that Symbian users didn't care too much about) iOS. Their ONLY (I don't mean unimportant, I mean single) advantage for a Symbian user was the number of 3rd party apps, but DEFINITELY not the quality, stability or functionality of the OS itself.

And even if the switch to Qt didn't soon enough result in sufficient availability of native apps, whether that single advantage (availability of apps on Android and iOS) would be enough to make Symbian users want to switch to Android if in 2011 they got the Alien Dalvik Android runtime letting them use all Android apps on their Symbian phones (i.e. keep the security, stability and functionality of Symbian OS while at the same time take advantage of 130,000 of Android apps) will remain unknown.

BB10 was terrible in 2013 when it launched, the Z10 was a beta product that was under powered (battery), and there was no ecosystem. And the Q10 was no real BlackBerry - no toolbar, no frets, no keyboard shortcuts....

That's EXACTLY why I wrote that BBRY should have instantly hired those extremely skilled OS/Qt developers fired by Elop from Nokia, who would have made BB10 much better and finished it much quicker. The time in which they created Sailfish OS, and the quality of it, fully proves that they were fully capable of doing it. And those were the very same persons who earlier created Maemo, MeeGo and that amazing UI of the Nokia N9. Then killing their time making Saiflish, apparently due to no better offers.

Instead of his wishing for BB10's launch in 2012, might as well wish for it to have been launched with BB10.2 and Cobalt's "hack" preinstalled with the Classic and Leap being the launch devices with the Passport and PRIV (BB10 version) close behind. And of course with the writ-down prices builtin on the front side of things....

Let's repeat it once again: if those skilled developers were quickly hired by BBRY rather than left alone to kill their time making Sailfish OS, BB10 would have been ready much sooner and done much better.

[conite]

Let's repeat it once again: if those skilled developers were quickly hired by BBRY rather than left alone to kill their time making Sailfish OS, BB10 would have been ready much sooner and done much better.

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

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.

It would take only 20 more months to deliver a full-fledged mobile OS, together with hardware, global certifications, and international carrier support.

Not bad. The problem was that they needed to have begun the process in 2006 in order to have had a product to deliver in 2009.

They should have been co-developing the modern OS while they were developing the 9300 Curve and 9780 Bold.