[AmritD]

Heh, not even close to the numbers needed.

Chen said he needed annual sales of 10M BB10 devices merely to break-even on the costs.

Hadn't that no. Come down till 3 million? (including android handsets I believe)

Z30STA100-2/10.3.2.2876

[JeepBB]

Hadn't that no. Come down till 3 million? (including android handsets I believe)

Yes, it had come down, but not in a useful way for BB.

10M was the break-even volume for profitability with BB10 stated by Chen.

For Android phones in the mix, Chen stated that hardware profitability would come from sales of only 5M devices. Though, you might be right that Chen later revised that break-even point down to 3M.

It doesn't really matter what those exact break-even numbers were frankly, because BB sales were always several million short of the profitability level. Hence Chen's very public warning many months ago that he would exit hardware in September if it remained unprofitable... a decision which he duly took, in September.

[sorinv]

Sorry but I don't believe that at all. Blackberry still had money and personnel back then. The BB version of Android would have been something to behold with 5 years worth of maturity. Plus the brand name still had some relevance back then. Now it's a toxic brand, synonymous with failure.

The brand name was already toxic in 2010. Young people would not want to be associated with it.
The future decline was there for everyone with a bit of vision and understanding of high tech to see.
Nothing they would have done would have mattered.
The brand was tarnished and not cool.
Even if they released an iphone it would not have sold, just like apps and Google Play failed for them later.

[Joao Oliveira]

There is no benefit in going from BB OS10 to android. Anyone disagree?

what you mean with "no benefict"?. I understand, BB10 has plenty of advantages over Android, but Android as tones of advantages too! Where should I start?

[JeepBB]

what you mean with "no benefict"?. I understand, BB10 has plenty of advantages over Android, but Android as tones of advantages too! Where should I start?

He's stuck at "bargaining"... best to let him work through it.

[AmritD]

The brand name was already toxic in 2010. Young people would not want to be associated with it.
The future decline was there for everyone with a bit of vision and understanding of high tech to see.
Nothing they would have done would have mattered.
The brand was tarnished and not cool.
Even if they released an iphone it would not have sold, just like apps and Google Play failed for them later.

I'd like to disagree with that
In 2010 the teenagers found it cool because of BBM
It was far from tarnished in 2010
Infact in December 2012 it saw its peak (in terms of no. Of subscribers - 80 Million!)

Z30STA100-2/10.3.2.2876

[ssbtech]

Well android ducks and no one really wants to be connected to Google advertising company Inc.

Sent from a Silver Passport.

Android really ducks.

I wouldn't say that nobody wants to be connected to Google advertising company Inc. Look at how many people use it. The issue is out of sight, out of mind. People don't directly see how their data is being used and abused.

Remember, it's all fun and games until someone sees your di*k pics...

[Troy Tiscareno]

Well android ducks and no one really wants to be connected to Google advertising company Inc.

...you say, oblivious of the fact that Android owns 83% of the global smartphone market and activates more than 1 billion devices per year (more per day than BB sells across all platforms in a quarter).

[anon(9733642)]

I'd like to disagree with that
In 2010 the teenagers found it cool because of BBM
It was far from tarnished in 2010
Infact in December 2012 it saw its peak (in terms of no. Of subscribers - 80 Million!)

Z30STA100-2/10.3.2.2876

You're looking at the numbers wrong. May have seen "it's peak" in 2012 but that was 95%+ already existing devices. Here are the numbers for handsets sold in 2012...clearly not at any peak.

[conite]

no one really wants to be connected to Google advertising company Inc.

Sent from a Silver Passport.

I sure do. Getting targeted advertising is a small price to pay (and in some instances it's actually a benefit) for all of the services one gets from Google - email hosting, cloud storage, backups, maps, Google Now, Voice Assistant, device manager, Allo, etc, etc, etc, etc.

[ssbtech]

I sure do. Getting targeted advertising is a small price to pay (and in some instances it's actually a benefit) for all of the services one gets from Google - email hosting, cloud storage, backups, maps, Google Now, Voice Assistant, Allo, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It's not the targeted advertising that's the issue, it's the data collection, tracking and monetization that's going on to produce those targeted ads.
Of course you can get most of that from Microsoft without anywhere near the same level of privacy invasion. I've never had one email ad from Microsoft show up in my inbox.

I find it quite comical when friends open up apps on their Android phones with ads for Candy Crush flashing away at the bottom. Actually, it's sad and irritating seeing ads dance around on the screen.

[conite]

It's not the targeted advertising that's the issue, it's the data collection, tracking and monetization that's going on to produce those targeted ads.

You can't have targeted ads without data collection.

I feel that Google has better firewalls, privacy policies, and security governance than any government, bank, or medical practitioner that I deal with.

[DenverRalphy]

It's not the targeted advertising that's the issue, it's the data collection, tracking and monetization that's going on to produce those targeted ads.
Of course you can get most of that from Microsoft without anywhere near the same level of privacy invasion. I've never had one email ad from Microsoft show up in my inbox.

I find it quite comical when friends open up apps on their Android phones with ads for Candy Crush flashing away at the bottom. Actually, it's sad and irritating seeing ads dance around on the screen.

Oh pluhleaze...

You're greatly over exaggerating. Email adds don't show up in gmail inboxes either (unless you specifically activate the Promotion tab, and that tab is optional and designed for promotional material). Android doesn't show adds at the bottom of the screen. Only poorly designed apps do (and those are never popular installs). Oh, and yes, Microsoft posts their advertisements through Google Adservice.

Apps might display adds, but that's not an Android issue. Seriously, you really need to get off the kneejerk ill-informed bandwagon. If your friends are being inundated with adds flashing at the bottom, then that's because they were silly enough to install apps that provide them. 99.99% of Android users don't bother with those apps because there are plenty of ad-free alternatives.

[ssbtech]

You can't have targeted ads without data collection.

I feel that Google has better firewalls, privacy policies, and security governance than any government, bank, or medical practitioner that I deal with.

I'm not worried about Google getting hacked via a weak firewall, I'm more concerned with the massive profiles of user activity they build, package and sell to advertisers.

The problem with privacy is that people rarely ever value it - until it's too late and their data is in someone else's hands.

When Google bought the advertising network DoubleClick in 2007, Google founder Sergey Brin said that privacy would be the company's "number one priority when we contemplate new kinds of advertising products."

And, for nearly a decade, Google did in fact keep DoubleClick's massive database of web-browsing records separate by default from the names and other personally identifiable information Google has collected from Gmail and its other login accounts.

But this summer, Google quietly erased that last privacy line in the sand - literally crossing out the lines in its privacy policy that promised to keep the two pots of data separate by default. In its place, Google substituted new language that says browsing habits "may be" combined with what the company learns from the use Gmail and other tools.

[...]

http://www.osnews.com/story/29451/Go...e_web_tracking

[conite]

I'm not worried about Google getting hacked via a weak firewall, I'm more concerned with the massive profiles of user activity they build, package and sell to advertisers.

The problem with privacy is that people rarely ever value it - until it's too late and their data is in someone else's hands.

The Google terms of service clearly state that no identifying information is provided to ANY third party.

[Jonas Hagglund]

I think that Android is a great operating system but BB10 does have its benefits. I haven't used a Blackberry phone yet but I really want to because I have seen some impressive features.

[donnation]

It's not the targeted advertising that's the issue, it's the data collection, tracking and monetization that's going on to produce those targeted ads.
Of course you can get most of that from Microsoft without anywhere near the same level of privacy invasion. I've never had one email ad from Microsoft show up in my inbox.

I find it quite comical when friends open up apps on their Android phones with ads for Candy Crush flashing away at the bottom. Actually, it's sad and irritating seeing ads dance around on the screen.

You should familiarize yourself with Blackberry's terms of service. They can and do collect your data for targeted advertising.

Here's just one excerpt:

"In certain situations where you purchase or use a Third Party Offering (e.g. paid content subscription service, downloaded application), BlackBerry may share certain information with the third party for purposes of providing you with the product, service or software and your information will then be subject to the third party's privacy policy. We encourage all our users to learn about the privacy practices of such third parties before agreeing to purchase or obtain their products, services or software."

[ssbtech]

That excerpt makes no reference to advertising directly.

It makes sense that if you're using a third party app for example, and that app needs access to your data to operate, then you'd have to permit the sharing of your data to that app.

[cribble2k]

Android really ducks.

I wouldn't say that nobody wants to be connected to Google advertising company Inc. Look at how many people use it. The issue is out of sight, out of mind. People don't directly see how their data is being used and abused.

Remember, it's all fun and games until someone sees your di*k pics...

Actually, Google is quite transparent with how the data is used.

https://privacy.google.com/#

Note how they clearly state that they Don't sell your information?

[ssbtech]

^But they still collect it, and make it hard for you to prevent that...

Delete Google Maps? Go ahead, says Google, we'll still track you ? The Register

[Nguyen1]

Android really ducks.

I wouldn't say that nobody wants to be connected to Google advertising company Inc. Look at how many people use it. The issue is out of sight, out of mind. People don't directly see how their data is being used and abused.

Remember, it's all fun and games until someone sees your di*k pics...

That will be my new slogan for the week. Android really ducks!

Sent from my BlackBerry Passport SE

[jimmy zamalot]

I like Android, I just happen to like the BlackBerry form factors their phones had, if installing android on the passport was an option, then I would take route

[sorinv]

I'd like to disagree with that
In 2010 the teenagers found it cool because of BBM
It was far from tarnished in 2010
Infact in December 2012 it saw its peak (in terms of no. Of subscribers - 80 Million!)

Z30STA100-2/10.3.2.2876

Not in North America. In 2010, in North America, most people were switching to Iphones. BlackBerry was growing in Indonesia and Africa but slipping elsewhere, even as they were still growing in overall numbers.
The writing was on the wall.

[sorinv]

Actually, Google is quite transparent with how the data is used.

https://privacy.google.com/#

Note how they clearly state that they Don't sell your information?

They use your information to make money on ads. That means they make money on your data without telling you how much they make on it and without paying you royalties and without you having a say on how much your data is worth.

[conite]

They use your information to make money on ads. That means they make money on your data without telling you how much they make on it and without paying you royalties and without you having a say on how much your data is worth.

Nor does Google put a value on the myriad of apps and services they provide you with. The end user decides what they are worth to him / her.

Feel free to stop using Google if you please.

Or, feel free to purchase Google shares and participate in the income stream from their business model.