[JR A]

EDIT: To make myself more clear, I think the message RIM is trying to get across with this whole "not a spec race" comment is that they're not going to dish out a phone with 8GB of RAM or 3.0Ghz Quad Core CPU just to say that they have 8GB RAM and 3.0Ghz Quad Core CPU...

I know I give Thor some crap about his Rock n Roll remarks, but I'm totally in agreement with him on this.

It's not about the super-duper specs. If the phone experience is great, people will love it.

And for those that say "Consumers want specs," or "RIM needs cutting edge tech to shut up the naysayers" etc...

It is true that RIM needs to stay current with the times, but I see nothing that will hold them back with their current (leaked) spec offerings, even when released Q1 2013. The people saying these things must have all of their friends in the technology circle and don't really know many people "on the outside"...

The real fact of the matter is that REAL-WORLD consumers don't even know specs of their phone. After spending time over the weekend with family and close friends (gathering of about 50+) and spending time with dozens of "average Americans" on a daily basis, I've come to the conclusion that a very small-single-digit percentage of them even know what's under the hood of their phone. The only ones who do are the techies like us, yet we represent a niche.

Don't believe me?

Go out right now and ask 20 random people with an iPhone or Android and ask them which CPU/SoC does their phone have; what the clock rate is; which GPU their phone uses, how much memory it has, which screen technology it utilizes; what the screen resolution is; whats the battery capcity; etc.

^ All of these things are stuff that WE techies/geeks look at, but majority of "normal" people don't know or don't care. If you do take this little survey you'll get answers like "I don't know, my battery lasts me long enough til I get home from work," or "I think it uses the new dual core Intel chips," or "What's a S-Oh-C?" or "GPU? Don't you mean CPU?!" or "I'm not sure, but my phone is faaaaasssttt," or "I have a REALLY good screen. It's HD quality," or "I think this thing has 16GB of RAM..."

They don't know the specs nor really care. They just know their phone does _______ for them.

The whole point is that the masses gravitate to a phone that they think will fulfill some sort of void or can provide some sort of experience that they're looking for. Yes, some people use it as a status symbol, but the brand gets established that way over time (from millions of users personal experiences). Again, the masses get a phone because they feel it can do XYZ for them.

[DenverRalphy]

While I understand the argument... There are some of us who heard the same as well a few years back, and for the most part, we (the users) agreed. Unfortunately it dragged to the point of BBs becoming so incredibly behind in specs, it showed in overall performance (spinning hourglasses became synonymous with BB).

Like it or not.. In the tech industry, it's imperative to stay competitive in the spec race. Simply because there will be occasional jumps in the tech industry that will make devices that are not future-proof become obsolete overnight. RIM has already been hit with this. I'm actually surprised to hear a Lazaridis era opinion come back to haunt the new regime.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[Mister-E]

It is true that nobody cares about specs, but the specs have to be good enough to make the GUI fluid and apps load quickly. Plus, it should be able to power three years of OS upgrades. The screen and camera also has to be comparable with the rest of the market. People might not care about the specs, but you need the specs to deliver the experience.

[JR A]

While I understand the argument... There are some of us who heard the same as well a few years back, and for the most part, we (the users) agreed. Unfortunately it dragged to the point of BBs becoming so incredibly behind in specs, it showed in overall performance (spinning hourglasses became synonymous with BB).

And we've heard this argument before.

RIM's downfall was not because it didn't have the latest whiz-bang specs.

It's downfall was that they couldn't fulfill a certain demand. Consumers wanted a "consumer" device and RIM only catered to enterprise users. Thus, it left many Angry Bird addicts, and Fruit Ninja fiends and the like hanging, while Apple and Android came to these consumers' salvation.

It was the fact that users could not EXPERIENCE media, games, content, etc., the way they wanted and Apple/Android gave filled that void. Again, not specs.

[Thunderbuck]

Whenever I hear an exec say that specs aren't important, my first thought is "which corners are they cutting"?

I may be wrong in this case, and I hope I am. Certainly, the leaks we've seen so far look okay for mid-range phones (the "Aristo" is another matter--but we're unlikely to see it for close to a year). I'll also say, what I know of BB10 to this point suggests that it will provide an excellent, distinctive user experience.

So... we'll see.

[jafrul]

People might not care about the specs, but you need the specs to deliver the experience.

+10,000

Sent from my torchy Torch 9800 using Tapatalk

[Mister-E]

While I understand the argument... There are some of us who heard the same as well a few years back, and for the most part, we (the users) agreed. Unfortunately it dragged to the point of BBs becoming so incredibly behind in specs, it showed in overall performance (spinning hourglasses became synonymous with BB).

Like it or not.. In the tech industry, it's imperative to stay competitive in the spec race. Simply because there will be occasional jumps in the tech industry that will make devices that are not future-proof become obsolete overnight. RIM has already been hit with this. I'm actually surprised to hear a Lazaridis era opinion come back to haunt the new regime.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

RIM has not been doing a good job in delivering their message. There was confusion whether RIM would release a BB 10 QWERTY phone, and that they would focus only the business market with the "BlackBerry is for those who do". I think what Thorsten should say is that the phones have great hardware, but it is the experience that BB 10 brings which makes the device so great.

[JR A]

Yeah, you need specs to deliver the experience.

But we're not disputing that here.

What Thor was saying is that this isn't a spec race in the sense that RIM is not going to put out a BB10 device with 8GB of RAM in 2013 "just cuz".

[JR A]

RIM has not been doing a good job in delivering their message. There was confusion whether RIM would release a BB 10 QWERTY phone, and that they would focus only the business market with the "BlackBerry is for those who do". I think what Thorsten should say is that the phones have great hardware, but it is the experience that BB 10 brings which makes the device so great.

Yes, people just took his statement as RIM rolling over and dying.

RIM will stay competitive, but again, they're not going to dish out a phone with 8GB of RAM just so they can say it has 8GB of RAM...

[Masahiro]

The original poster jranciano already mentioned that it's important to stay "current" with the specs. That's different than falling behind, like with the legacy BlackBerrys, and is therefore not the point.

Staying ahead is important if you manufacture phones for Android. How else do you differentiate yourself from the competition other than minor UI changes?

I'm not saying I wouldn't like to have the best hardware on the market. I just don't think it's as important as the actual user experience. Besides, it's just not realistic to try to compete with many other Android OEMs in the spec race, especially against a giant like Samsung.

[DenverRalphy]

And we've heard this argument before.

RIM's downfall was not because it didn't have the latest whiz-bang specs.

It's downfall was that they couldn't fulfill a certain demand. Consumers wanted a "consumer" device and RIM only catered to enterprise users. Thus, it left many Angry Bird addicts, and Fruit Ninja fiends and the like hanging, while Apple and Android came to these consumers' salvation.

It was the fact that users could not EXPERIENCE media, games, content, etc., the way they wanted and Apple/Android gave filled that void. Again, not specs.

And what was a major contributing factor in users not being able to EXPERIENCE media, games, content, etc..? Hint: It wasn't marketing or media bias. The hardware simply wouldn't provide it.

You don't have to have the latest whiz-bang specs. But the specs do need to be competitive. And how do you ensure that you're always competitive? Pack as much in as possible. Otherwise you'll find yourself once again in the same predicament.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[raino]

What Thor was saying is that this isn't a spec race in the sense that RIM is not going to put out a BB10 device with 8GB of RAM in 2013 "just cuz".

And on the flip side, just having superior hardware (than competitors or even previous generations of one's own products) does not guarantee improved user experience. You know who I'm talking about.

[JR A]

And what was a major contributing factor in users not being able to EXPERIENCE media, games, content, etc..? Hint: It wasn't marketing or media bias. The hardware simply wouldn't provide it.

You know what you're right... hardware's exactly the reason why I couldn't play Angry Birds for over a year on my touch-screen 1.2Ghz CPU Bold 9900 nor on my 1Ghz dual-core PlayBook, even though it works on my old Nexus S with half the RAM...

[Raestloz]

Hardware is an important factor, but is hardly the only reason for the absence of Angry Birds.

BlackBerry 7's hardware is enough to run Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja, the only problem is that the "official" developers simply haven't made them for BlackBerry, while the knock offs have flooded the BlackBerry market (see: Pandas vs Ninjas for Angry Birds, and I think Fruit Ninja is available in BlackBerry)

[Masahiro]

And what was a major contributing factor in users not being able to EXPERIENCE media, games, content, etc..? Hint: It wasn't marketing or media bias. The hardware simply wouldn't provide it.

It may also have something to do with the BlackBerry OS that was designed and coded long before even Apple had considerations for 3rd party applications...

[JR A]

Hardware is an important factor, but is hardly the only reason for the absence of Angry Birds.

BlackBerry 7's hardware is enough to run Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja, the only problem is that the "official" developers simply haven't made them for BlackBerry, while the knock offs have flooded the BlackBerry market (see: Pandas vs Ninjas for Angry Birds, and I think Fruit Ninja is available in BlackBerry)

Yup, and a big part of the reason was that RIM wasn't catering to these Devs, which is of course not hardware related.

It may also have something to do with the BlackBerry OS that was designed and coded long before even Apple had considerations for 3rd party applications...

Yeah.

[missing_K-W]

RIM doesn't need the absolute cutting edge chips. Lets face it. The NDK allows for PURE (symmetrical multiprocessing, Bound multi processing, multithreading ,assymetrical processing and FULL hardware acceleration ,audio etc)....Theres no other platform that even remotely allows devs the access to hardware as BB10 will. Android doesn't even allow devs native hardware accesss for audio.

Allowing devs full access and the ability to control hardware goes a long way.

[Rello]

I dont need a quad core, but i do want my specs competitive. I was listening to the crackberry podcast and really was agreeing with what Kevin had to say. If you think about it, the PlayBook has a near 2 year old chip inside it, yet i cant think of a time in which i desired more power. I really cant and this is what has me so excited for the potential of BB10. A new dual core 1.5 ghz S4 snapdragon is going to have these devices absolutely flying. Im expecting much more optimization than what is offered in the Tablet OS as well. If RIM really is focused on the experience, then us as consumers are really in for a treat with these new devices.

[DenverRalphy]

You know what you're right... hardware's exactly the reason why I couldn't play Angry Birds for over a year on my touch-screen 1.2Ghz CPU Bold 9900 nor on my 1Ghz dual-core PlayBook, even though it works on my old Nexus S with half the RAM...

You're referencing too far ahead in the BB time-line. You're referencing a BB7 device which had finally managed to play catch up hardware wise; but the damage had already been done. Prior to BB7 devices, BB's were woefully behind the times. It was that severe deficit in hardware specs that initially brought about the mass exodus away from BBs from both consumers and developers. But perhaps you haven't been around long enough to recall that.

[BlackBerry Guy]

Specs matter to the extent that it improves user experience. Equally important is the software being optimized to run on the hardware. You can have as many cores or ghz that you want, but if the ui is stuttering and the os lagging all over the place, your specs won't matter much.

It's like having a car with a high power engine. Looks great on paper, but if you don't have the right type of fuel, the proper suspension, tires, gearing etc to put all that to use, then it won't do much good.

[Laura Knotek]

Everyone is mentioning games and hardware. Even for folks who don't play games, the hardware coupled with the old OS is the cause of the lagging and spinning clock hourglass.

BB10 should end that issue. However, it has caused folks who aren't interested in games to switch to other devices.
Sent from my Lumia 900 using Board Express

[JR A]

You're referencing too far ahead in the BB time-line. You're referencing a BB7 device which had finally managed to play catch up hardware wise; but the damage had already been done. Prior to BB7 devices, BB's were woefully behind the times. It was that severe deficit in hardware specs that initially brought about the mass exodus away from BBs from both consumers and developers. But perhaps you haven't been around long enough to recall that.

So what if I'm referencing "too far ahead" with BB7. You're missing the point.

It took a YEAR after the release of an UP-TO-DATE piece of HARDWARE to get a major app that has been widely available on inferior hardware.

That just proves RIMs downfall has nothing to do with the hardware itself. It was largely due to a lack of ecosystem that could provide the consumer with an experience they desired.

Not sure how you're missing that.

But perhaps you've been around too long to notice that.

[omniusovermind]

Seriously why would he even say that in the first place? He should have not even mentioned it at all. What's he going to do for an encore? "Ahem.. just so you all know, I like women. No seriously I do. Yup."

[amjass12]

i agree with this 100 percent. however, having said that.. the specs do have to be quite good so that it does stand out, and also future updates of bb10 will work without a new handset having to be released with each major update...

Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk

[Tre Lawrence]

It's what we have been saying from the start: specs matter, but experience matters more.

Check it... iOS wins, IMHO, on experience. Even Android gets by on experience. Those cheap phones that really propagate the OS don't have awesome specs, but they do have the promise of a powerful ecosystem.

But, I am kinda with Thunderbuck... I can't help but wonder: what is RIM scrimping on? Everyone knew it wasn't going to be the Starship Enterprise of smartphones, so what gives? I don't like these preemptive concession points.