[stlabrat]

Blackberry marketed the hell out of the Z10. The biggest problem is that they released BB10 way too late. No amount of marketing was going to get people to buy a Blackberry. The name was already far too tarnished. Not to mention that 10.0 was beta software at best. All of the marketing in the whole world isn't going to sell a product that offered no reason for anyone to buy it.

spend more money is not consider good marketing (check marcom spending vs R&D back in z10 days in financial statement...). get someone to market your phone but uses iphone in public is not effective but counter productive. BB10 was so new at the time, you would expect someone to handheld customer at carrier site as support... few carrier sales guys knew how to turn it on (by swipe from bottom or top switch) was very trouble some... I wouldn't say "market the hell out of z10. Sorry.

[PantherBlitz]

100% marketing. It was crammed down the public's throats and revisions/updates pumped out rapidly.

More like 100% engineering. When the iphone was released it had capabilities and potential found nowhere else.
Companies wanted to write apps for it because of the potential of what it could do. The public wanted to buy it because it made everything else look obsolete. The halo effect from those years still carries over despite their technology gap with their competitors having closed.

[MikeX74]

Marketing is what you say when you don't want to admit that a product is actually better. At this point, iPhone users are into their third or more devices. Is that really marketing? What's the difference between thinking you want something and wanting it? Eventually, there will be about two dozen guys left on CrackBerry who think that everyone else has been fooled by marketing.

As I've said often, effective marketing may lead a customer to BUY something, but it can't convince someone to KEEP a product that's defective or doesn't suit their needs, or to become a repeat buyer of said product. The iPhone has the customer retention and satisfaction rates it does for a reason, and it isn't great marketing.

I guess it makes some folks feel better to believe that iPhone users are simply dumb sheep that've been brainwashed by splashy marketing campaigns, rather than admit to themselves that someone could choose an iPhone(or something other than a BlackBerry, let's be honest,) on its merits.

[Breuklen]

The BB users I know that abandoned the platform for the iPhone did so because of the simplicity and the rep of Apple. They don't trust Android and because most of them just love the hardware. Those few that went to the Android side (again, only those that were BB users) did so only because of price and they are super users that look for the latest specs.

[DJ BigToe]

That's a very narrow definition of "innovative". Sounds more like you are talking "inventive". To take something existing and finding a good way to repurpose can also be innovative.

OT: those self-referential dictionary definitions drive me batsy!

Are you saying Apple created a processor that does more than just processes?

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

The BB users I know that abandoned the platform for the iPhone did so because of the simplicity and the rep of Apple. They don't trust Android and because most of them just love the hardware. Those few that went to the Android side (again, only those that were BB users) did so only because of price and they are super users that look for the latest specs.

And liked to fiddle.... but the locked boot rom on the BlackBerry devcies, kinda prohibits that. Many of the power apps like TASKER really work better if they have root access. So your typical "power user" isn't going to be happy with a BlackBerry. Which just leaves you with the specs and features of the phone. But I've been comparing a Droid Turbo 2 and A Galaxy S7 to my wife's iPhone 6S.... I don't know if it is how developers make their apps or if it is the hardware. But iOS seems to be able to handle most graphic or database intensive application much better - this is visible in screen reaction time and battery life (and device heating). My Droid Turbo has almost twice the battery mAh, but doesn't last twice as long.

[cgk]

That's a very narrow definition of "innovative". Sounds more like you are talking "inventive". To take something existing and finding a good way to repurpose can also be innovative.

OT: those self-referential dictionary definitions drive me batsy!

Yep - innovation is often used in this way, product improvement is innovation - it's not simply "completely new" as people often misunderstand the concept.

Are you saying Apple created a processor that does more than just processes?

It doesn't have to do more than process to be innovative. The design of the customer controller represents innovation. In a market sense, you know you have innovation because you have attempts at replication. Notice how many people are copying the (oft claimed here) innovative keyboard phones of BB10?

No me neither.

[DJ BigToe]

Marketing is what you say when you don't want to admit that a product is actually better. At this point, iPhone users are into their third or more devices. Is that really marketing? What's the difference between thinking you want something and wanting it? Eventually, there will be about two dozen guys left on CrackBerry who think that everyone else has been fooled by marketing.

Most of the iphone users I know are on to their 2nd or 3rd, 4th device as well. They buy a new one every year and pass the old one onto their kids. I guess after a year, the phone wasn't living up to expectations. That, or they just want the newest iphone, no matter what. But I'm guessing if they didn't know there was a new one, they wouldn't be standing in line to get one.

[TGR1]

Are you saying Apple created a processor that does more than just processes?

They created the first commercially available 64-bit processor for a smartphone that allows access to more RAM and faster, increased number of calculations. They have pushed GPU uses to complement the CPU in ways beyond traditional uses. Both of these have had significant impact on the industry as a whole. Their chip group has also created specialized Mx and Wx chips that offload functions from the main CPU as well as allowing increased functionality. These are all just processors on paper but would you truly not call them innovative in their use?

[DJ BigToe]

They created the first commercially available 64-bit processor for a smartphone that allows access to more RAM and faster, increased number of calculations. They have pushed GPU uses to complement the CPU in ways beyond traditional uses. Both of these have had significant impact on the industry as a whole. Their chip group has also created specialized Mx and Wx chips that offload functions from the main CPU as well as allowing increased functionality. These are all just processors on paper but would you truly not call them innovative in their use?

I wouldn't say innovative, simply because 64bit chips for computers have been around for awhile. Although we are talking cell phones, so taking something that exists already, and making it smaller to do another job, sounds more like "technical evolution". Is that a word?

[thurask]

He asked about the A10 processor, so I stayed on topic and talked about processors. Long story short, as you just pointed out, processors are over 45 years old, not innovative if you make one now..

So nothing happened in car development between Karl Benz and now.

[stlabrat]

I wouldn't say innovative, simply because 64bit chips for computers have been around for awhile. Although we are talking cell phones, so taking something that exists already, and making it smaller to do another job, sounds more like "technical evolution". Is that a word?

low power processor would be innovation... it is very hard to keep power low for mobile application. give it try yourself by starving for 3 days and run Olympic race track... "it is look easy, it is not... if it look hard, it almost damn impossible.".. when you do it on your own...

[Joao Oliveira]

Because there is a sucker born every minute willing to overpay and many people have selective tolerances for corporate greed and transgressions.

You have no idea what perceived value is about.

[Joao Oliveira]

There's some truth to what a lot of people are saying in here regarding the iPhone. Advertising? Sure. But all the advertising in the world isn't going to make people continually purchase a phone. People need to accept that Apple makes a quality product that works extremely well.

Exactly. There's a reason why there are a significant amount iphone users that switched to Android, but ended up going back to iOS.

Both iOS and Android have advantages and disvantages, and when that happens, different products will suit different users

[app_Developer]

So nothing happened in car development between Karl Benz and now.

I was going to bring up the same thing. Enzo Ferrari, Ferdinand Porsche, Colin Chapman and Elon Musk have apparently wasted a lot of time.

I wonder if the current crop of Formula 1 teams cry themselves to bed at night when they realize all their cars do is go around a race track. Just like cars did 100 years ago, right? No innovation in F1 at all.

[TGR1]

I wouldn't say innovative, simply because 64bit chips for computers have been around for awhile. Although we are talking cell phones, so taking something that exists already, and making it smaller to do another job, sounds more like "technical evolution". Is that a word?

I would say it is an apt description and equivalent to innovation.

[thurask]

I was going to bring up the same thing. Enzo Ferrari, Ferdinand Porsche, Colin Chapman and Elon Musk have apparently wasted a lot of time.

I wonder if the current crop of Formula 1 teams cry themselves to bed at night when they realize all their cars do is go around a race track. Just like cars did 100 years ago, right?

Why race cars when you can race chariots? Same thing, really.

[donnation]

See the problem is, in a way they didn't. Maybe in the PHONE business, BlackBerry had an edge. But general computer hardware, consumer interfaces.... Apple had the edge. And that might be the real issue, BlackBerry's focus wasn't on the consumer or the usage of the phones. It was on the hardware and the business need for security.

All Apple really did was merge their popular media player, the iPod with a phone. Becuase of the limits of the market back then and cost of data... App were a better solution than searching and browsing the internet. And we already knew that, as we BlackBerry users were using apps. Just not to the level that Apple allowed nor with the refinement that they were able to achieve in a short period of time.

So I don't really think that BlackBerry had some huge advantage over Apple... other than userbase for a short while.

I'd disagree. The iPod before the iPhone was simply a music player. Granted they did launch the iPod touch, but it wasn't like the iPod touch existed and Apple said "hey let's include a phone with it!" It came along after the iPhone and was still a step up from the previous iPods before it.

[TGR1]

Why race cars when you can race chariots? Same thing, really.

I seriously wonder which is more dangerous/an adrenaline rush O_o

[Esgetn2hoT]

im starting to think it's really as simple an answer as .... a combination of steve jobs and those morons running blackberry back in 2007...for nothing more than excellent decision making on apple's part, and extremely poor decision making on blackberry's part... say what you will...

imagine steve was ceo of blackberry in 2007 and lazariduz and whats his face were ceos of apple

sometimes the simplest answer is the truth...

[thurask]

I seriously wonder which is more dangerous/an adrenaline rush O_o

[blackmass]

im starting to think it's really as simple an answer as .... a combination of steve jobs and those morons running blackberry back in 2007...for nothing more than excellent decision making on apple's part, and extremely poor decision making on blackberry's part... say what you will...

imagine steve was ceo of blackberry in 2007 and lazariduz and whats his face were ceos of apple

sometimes the simplest answer is the truth...

Blackberry had the opportunity.
There were touch phones by htc at that time. Had only bb recognized the opportunity at the right time and packaged the touch screen with their worked up os, they wud be selling like hot cakes.
BUT bb was drunk with success & took the customer for granted.

[Esgetn2hoT]

Blackberry had the opportunity.
There were touch phones by htc at that time. Had only bb recognized the opportunity at the right time and packaged the touch screen with their worked up os, they wud be selling like hot cakes.
BUT bb was drunk with success & took the customer for granted.

i agree, and I need to correct myself, I don't mean to rag all over blackberry CEOs at the time; I would say there's an argument to be made that when they started RIM, regardless of their resumes and skillsets as CEOs... i don't think their experience or intentions were the same as Jobs'.

Maybe they were too arrogant or drunk with power... maybe not.... but from everything I've seen ... I just don't think their ambitions or intentions from the start were the same as Jobs'. I think they started a company with a particular intent in mind, and it evolved into something bigger than they ever thought.... whereas with Jobs... he knew exactly what he wanted from the start, and had a clear vision/extremely powerful drive/discipline to get there...

history reflects this clearly... i tip my hat to both groups as companies... but i do think it is clearly evident where blackberry faltered, and where apple capitalized.

[StephanieMaks]

My dad told me once, the big secret to being successful in business:

Make a product that people want. And sell it at a price that people are willing to pay.

[cgk]

Blackberry had the opportunity.
There were touch phones by htc at that time. Had only bb recognized the opportunity at the right time and packaged the touch screen with their worked up os, they wud be selling like hot cakes.
BUT bb was drunk with success & took the customer for granted.

I'd argue the one who really had it all and through it away was Nokia - it's pretty amazing what was happening there at this point at time. There were multiple teaming working independently on the same technology and there was absolutely no co-ordination between divisions. they also had this idea (which superficially sounds good) of teams based around components that would be slapped together in multiple configurations with no real idea of product. You also had phones that weren't released with the best features that Nokia has become that feature was 'controlled' by a rival profit centre in the company. Furthermore ever decision had to go multiple levels of agreement - rather than a Steve Jobs with a singular vision.

My dad told me once, the big secret to being successful in business:

Make a product that people want. And sell it at a price that people are willing to pay.

Which is where BBRY went wrong - they had a product that a group wanted (keyboard and security) but as the market changed got stuck in this loop until it was too later of providing something the market no longer wanted (in any volume).