[matt4pack]

No one has denied that they were tech heavyweights. Its just been refuted that they got successful because they had unlimited resources, that isnt the case. Microsoft had all the same attributes as Apple and probably even more money than them at the time but they didnt have the idea or execution.

Apple is pretty much the reason today why we have a smartphone market like it currently is.

And I already explained why Microsoft failed. They had the resources but were behind because they had a legacy OS (WindowsCE) to continue supporting which hurt them. Windows Phone 8 which was the first to use the NT kernel was released only a couple months before BB10 in 2012. Anyway Microsoft is starting to get their revenge now with the surface product lines.

Apple should get credit for being the first with a modern OS on a phone and I was one of those who supported that as I had an iphone before I had ever seen anyone else in public with one like in 2008. But just because they were the first doesn't mean it was better then what the competition came along with later.

[TGR1]

And as I've said that's a whole lot easier when you don't have to worry about any legacy users and pretty much unlimited money to fund your new endeavor or as you call it fresh ideals. Sorry but Google and Apple were never the little guys unless you're going back to like 1999. They were already tech heavyweights by the the mid 2000's. They were both much larger and with many more resources and their hands in much more.

They were also complete newbies to the cellular market, facing an absolute sea of hostile, experienced incumbents firmly under the grasp of the carrier warlords. Neither had the kind of bank accounts they do now. From what I have read the iPhone was as big a gamble for the company as the iMac was.

The mind still boggles that you are completely dismissing Microsoft's strong history in mobile. Plus like Apple they have just a wee bit of PC history. Why did A & G succeed in the platform wars? It wasn't big pockets or pure marketing. Both companies truly each had their vision and the incumbents didn't; I suspect the burden of legacy surely didn't help. But Apple changed the rules for what a smartphone could really be so that the non-business type could say "hey, now that works for me" while Google made a personal computer reachable to just about anyone. And neither has stopped pushing. Give credit where it is due.

[matt4pack]

They were also complete newbies to the cellular market, facing an absolute sea of hostile, experienced incumbents firmly under the grasp of the carrier warlords. Neither had the kind of bank accounts they do now. From what I have read the iPhone was as big a gamble for the company as the iMac was.

The mind still boggles that you are completely dismissing Microsoft's strong history in mobile. Plus like Apple they have just a wee bit of PC history. Why did A & G succeed in the platform wars? It wasn't big pockets or pure marketing. Both companies truly each had their vision and the incumbents didn't; I suspect the burden of legacy surely didn't help. But Apple changed the rules for what a smartphone could really be so that the non-business type could say "hey, now that works for me" while Google made a personal computer reachable to just about anyone. And neither has stopped pushing. Give credit where it is due.

I gave them credit for what they originally did but I can also give credit when someone else comes along later and does some things better. There is a reason the former head of WebOS is now the head of Android and the former head of BB10 is the head of IOS. Apple and Google recognized what they had built was very good even if it couldn't get the traction to stay around. And it was all the ones before who made remote email and messaging reachable to just about anyone so how about giving them some credit too if you only want to go by who does something first.

I don't really care who does something first if someone else comes along and does parts better. That has pretty much been Apple's motto forever except for the original iphone where they were actually first. Although it's debatable whether that's still true when their iphone can't even plug into their new laptops.

Yeah neither has stopped pushing except they've been releasing mediocre products lately. Google Home, Apple Watch, new Macbook Pro and so on while Microsoft is putting out actual innovative products like the surface studio these days.

[donnation]

Whatever dude. All I said is it was never a level playing field. It doesn't matter that Palm, HTC, Nokia, and Blackberry were once the dominant players in mobile. They had legacy OS's to support and no money coming in from other businesses like Apple and Google. Also Blackberry was one of the last in mobile to outsource production out of the West.

Some of you people have no critical thinking abilities. But keep loving the mega corps with hundreds of billions and who starting the outsourcing of everything to China. You see the result now.

In 2007 it was a level playing field. Blackberry's answer to the iPhone was to keep churning out BBOS devices, a rushed out Blackberry Storm, a tablet that should have never seen the light of day, and to essentially laugh off the iPhone. When they decided to finally do something and purchased QNX and create BB10 then yes, it was no longer a level playing field because people had moved away from Blackberry because they refused to adapt to iOS and Android and were completely jaded towards the BlackBerry brand.

[babugaru1]

Simplicity, simplified OS

[matt4pack]

In 2007 it was a level playing field. Blackberry's answer to the iPhone was to keep churning out BBOS devices, a rushed out Blackberry Storm, a tablet that should have never seen the light of day, and to essentially laugh off the iPhone. When they decided to finally do something and purchased QNX and create BB10 then yes, it was no longer a level playing field because people had moved away from Blackberry because they refused to adapt to iOS and Android and were completely jaded towards the BlackBerry brand.

Apple had a modern desktop OS they could port over, slave labor in China to make their stuff, billions more in the bank, a monopoly in the music player market which was huge back then, and no legacy OS to move people from.

The others didn't have that. You guys are just looking at everything so one dimensionally so their is no hope in changing your views which would require critical thinking. It's just oh Apple made this so they were so much better then everyone else without actually looking underneath to see why they were able to do what they did and why the others were never going to come out on top in this.

[z10Jobe]

Apple had a modern desktop OS they could port over, slave labor in China to make their stuff, billions more in the bank, a monopoly in the music player market which was huge back then, and no legacy OS to move people from.

The others didn't have that. You guys are just looking at everything so one dimensionally so their is no hope in changing your views which would require critical thinking. It's just oh Apple made this so they were so much better then everyone else without actually looking underneath to see why they were able to do what they did and why the others were never going to come out on top in this.

I think some points you make are lost on the others you are debating with. Yes BlackBerry was slow to change and they paid the price but it is difficult to introduce radical changes when your existing clientele is used to your current products.

BlackBerry started making their pagers ( phones) out of basically a garage with no other revenue stream. Apple and Google were already basically multi billion dollar monopolies (itunes and internet search engine) when they introduced their phone products.

Plus with iTunes, Apple had their 'paid customers ecosystem' already set up. Just add apps and continue to outsource hardware to China.

The iPhone was launched with huge fan fare from the Apple marketing machine and media support even before the first phone was available. The publicity would not have been there if they were unknowns and had started making their phones from a garage and there would not have been the ability to wrestle the carrier cellular bandwidth requirements for their products.

Google had a bunch of leading phone manufacturers on their team. Nuff said there.





Posted via CB10

[donnation]

Apple had a modern desktop OS they could port over, slave labor in China to make their stuff, billions more in the bank, a monopoly in the music player market which was huge back then, and no legacy OS to move people from.

The others had none of that. You guys are just looking at everything so one dimensionally so their is no hope in changing your views which would require critical thinking. It's just oh Apple made this so they were so much better then everyone else without actually looking underneath to see why they were able to do what they did and why the others were never going to come out on top in this.

Why is moving people from a legacy OS more difficult than moving people to an entirely new OS? Blackberry had a huge base of loyal users hey could have used, but they destroyed that goodwill with he Storm. Having a built in core base of users could have been an advantage if done properly.

You claim Apple had a monopoly in the music business that helped them. Why was Blackberrys huge user base not helpful to them? People were fiercely loyal to them and that loyalty could have and should have helped them.

You can prattle on and on about how they never stood a chance but in reality they had many chances. They blew them with the Storm, PlayBook, and year long delay of BB10, which was then released unfinished and with a wasteland of an App Store. Blackberry was and is a Billion Dollar business, not some Mom and Pop store run on a street corner.

[babugaru1]

There is a difference between watching a movie in a movie theater and multiplex

Iphone is like multiplex

Movie is same but experience is different!

[matt4pack]

Why is moving people from a legacy OS more difficult than moving people to an entirely new OS? Blackberry had a huge base of loyal users hey could have used, but they destroyed that goodwill with he Storm. Having a built in core base of users could have been an advantage if done properly.

You claim Apple had a monopoly in the music business that helped them. Why was Blackberrys huge user base not helpful to them? People were fiercely loyal to them and that loyalty could have and should have helped them.

You can prattle on and on about how they never stood a chance but in reality they had many chances. They blew them with the Storm, PlayBook, and year long delay of BB10, which was then released unfinished and with a wasteland of an App Store. Blackberry was and is a Billion Dollar business, not some Mom and Pop store run on a street corner.

You under estimate how hard it is to move people over. Apple had made OS X but it was over 2 years until it was the default OS as every Mac still came with MacOS 9 by default. People were never fiercely loyal to Blackberry and it was just a means communicate as I never even had used a blackberry until bb10.

Nothing Blackberry put out would have won the war with Apple or Google let alone Microsoft. Except for the Storm those were decent products but with little marketing behind them and the market already moving to the top 2 there wasn't a chance

[matt4pack]

Why is moving people from a legacy OS more difficult than moving people to an entirely new OS? Blackberry had a huge base of loyal users hey could have used, but they destroyed that goodwill with he Storm. Having a built in core base of users could have been an advantage if done properly.

You claim Apple had a monopoly in the music business that helped them. Why was Blackberrys huge user base not helpful to them? People were fiercely loyal to them and that loyalty could have and should have helped them.

You can prattle on and on about how they never stood a chance but in reality they had many chances. They blew them with the Storm, PlayBook, and year long delay of BB10, which was then released unfinished and with a wasteland of an App Store. Blackberry was and is a Billion Dollar business, not some Mom and Pop store run on a street corner.

You under estimate how hard it is to move people over. Apple had released OS X but it was over 2 years after the release before it was the default OS. Every Mac unitl then still came with MacOS 9 by default. Most people were never fiercely loyal to Blackberry. It was just a means to communicate as I never had even used a blackberry until bb10. People just loved the ability to communicate it provided for them.

Nothing Blackberry put out would have won the war with Apple or Google let alone Microsoft with the marketing power they all had behind them and them having the headstart in the era of modern phone os's.

Heck even being first doesn't guarantee anything. Sega was first with the Dreamcast but once Microsoft released the Xbox it was over for them even though the Dreamcast was pretty great.

[early2bed]

I'm pretty sure that most people who bought iPhones used and still use Windows PCs.

[donnation]

You under estimate how hard it is to move people over. Apple had released OS X but it was over 2 years after the release before it was the default OS. Every Mac unitl then still came with MacOS 9 by default. Most people were never fiercely loyal to Blackberry. It was just a means to communicate as I never had even used a blackberry until bb10. People just loved the ability to communicate it provided for them.

Nothing Blackberry put out would have won the war with Apple or Google let alone Microsoft with the marketing power they all had behind them and them having the headstart in the era of modern phone os's.

Heck even being first doesn't guarantee anything. Sega was first with the Dreamcast but once Microsoft released the Xbox it was over for them even though the Dreamcast was pretty great.

People were't fiercely loyal to BlackBerry? You are aware that the site we are on is called CrackBerry right? And lol because you didn't use a Blackberry until BB10 means that others didn't use and love them? There were plenty of other ways to communicate besides using a BlackBerry, but they were by far the most popular and mainstream choice.

Your other points don't make much sense to me. Moving people over doesn't have anything to do with anything. People left BB. They didn't leave them because it was too painful or difficult to move to BB10. They moved away from them because BB10 was too late, plain and simple. By the time it came out people were already gone. They didn't wait for it and wait for it and then say "You know what, this is going to be too difficult to move from BBOS to BB10, so I'm going to go to a completely different OS and choose Android or iOS." Your point would be valid if people didn't leave BBOS for Android and iOS, but they did.

[matt4pack]

They left because the so called loyalty never really existed except for a small portion of the user base. People loved the communication they provided and that is it for most.

Just because this site exists doesn't mean anything. It was made mostly for us tech geeks. Webos nation existed as well for the same type of people.

Posted via CB10

[donnation]

They left because the so called loyalty never really existed except for a small portion of the user base. People loved the communication they provided and that is it for most.

Just because this site exists doesn't mean anything. It was made mostly for us tech geeks. Webos nation existed as well for the same type of people.

Posted via CB10

Not the site, the name of the site, CrackBerry, because that's what they were called because people were so addicted to them.

[matt4pack]

Not the site, the name of the site, CrackBerry, because that's what they were called because people were so addicted to them.

They were addicted to the communication they provided. Once others came along there was never any real loyalty to the company itself except for the minority of folks who come to sites like this which was a small portion of the overall userbase.

[Soulstream]

You under estimate how hard it is to move people over. Apple had released OS X but it was over 2 years after the release before it was the default OS. Every Mac unitl then still came with MacOS 9 by default. Most people were never fiercely loyal to Blackberry. It was just a means to communicate as I never had even used a blackberry until bb10. People just loved the ability to communicate it provided for them.

Nothing Blackberry put out would have won the war with Apple or Google let alone Microsoft with the marketing power they all had behind them and them having the headstart in the era of modern phone os's.

Heck even being first doesn't guarantee anything. Sega was first with the Dreamcast but once Microsoft released the Xbox it was over for them even though the Dreamcast was pretty great.

Even in 2010, BB was losing marketshare in western markets, but was continuing to sell BBOS phones in developing markets due to low prices. It was not that it was hard for them to transition to something, there was nothing to transition to.

When BB10 came out, most customers in the western markets had already long transitioned to something else and for customers in the developing markets, the price was just too big.

BB10 was a solution for a problem very few had.