Built for Business - Learn more about BlackBerry KEY2
12-31-16 04:29 PM
26 12
tools
  1. tomasgabe's Avatar
    Hi there. Maybe someone can help me understand why they can't offer lower price phone for good specs? While oneplus company can do so low and very high specs phone.
    12-25-16 03:13 AM
  2. Ment's Avatar
    1) OnePlus is owned by a larger company that makes the phones for them.
    2) OnePlus operates on very low margins, in the beginning less than $10 per device
    3) Good luck speaking to anyone at OnePlus, communication is electronic.
    4) Security and certification for security is expensive
    5) Slab phones are cheaper to design and make than PKB.
    6) BB supports its phones with updates longer than OnePlus.

    Some of the above have been taken care of by the agreement with TCL but BB would never sell a phone for less than $10 profit, thats barely enough to keep the lights on.

    Blackberry cost structure is more like Sony than a lean company like OnePlus. Sony, a relative low volume phone maker, also has high priced phones.
    Last edited by Ment; 12-25-16 at 04:55 AM.
    glwerry likes this.
    12-25-16 04:43 AM
  3. iUser's Avatar
    Sony does not sell phones only. And it is suicide for Blackberry for having the almost same cost structure. The old Blackberry devices were simply overpriced in comparison to iPhone- or high priced Android phones. At least for consumers. And honestly, not even 1% of potential customers know about "special security" feature of Blackberry.
    veved likes this.
    12-25-16 06:09 AM
  4. idssteve's Avatar
    Volume.
    fschmeck, TgeekB and LuckyMies like this.
    12-25-16 12:02 PM
  5. fschmeck's Avatar
    Volume.
    ^This.

    Apple has volume but charges more "because they can". BlackBerry charges what they can because they have to.

    That said, the TCL devices have dropped pretty quickly, as do all Androids.

    Posted via CB10
    12-25-16 04:52 PM
  6. stlabrat's Avatar
    iUser, apple reuse its platform and format, but not BB. none of them, Z10, 30, PP, Q10, classic, Priv are similar form factor... you can not share the tooling and test jig (at least you need to modify it). That is one of the reason people get new phone all the time in the past.. The reliability (antenna and reciver at low signal - when you have wifi, bluetooth, 2G, 3G, LTE all on at once), audio quality and KB, that all add cost...(my comment not including handset after PP, such as dtek). I guess you like iphone? same format since you are iUser... that is one of the profit making for apple. as for the rest of Driod, regardless the cost structure, price, MFG in house or contract out, including Google, they all not making any profit... to discuss cost structure for driod is meaningless... someone still need to make case HOW to make money on driod phone...I am still waiting to see that in a business case study... (has been waiting for few years, a lot of case studies for the one that go down with a flame, but no success, except BLU, suit by BB and support by Amazon ads). Tell me something new if you have new info regarding the profitability and cost base (or cost cutting) of ANY droid story.
    veved likes this.
    12-25-16 06:54 PM
  7. app_Developer's Avatar
    Sony does not sell phones only. And it is suicide for Blackberry for having the almost same cost structure. The old Blackberry devices were simply overpriced in comparison to iPhone- or high priced Android phones. At least for consumers. And honestly, not even 1% of potential customers know about "special security" feature of Blackberry.
    You're right that is was slow suicide. This is why BB is now licensing their software and brand to others like TCL who have a much better chance at competing in the current phone market. Smartphones have become a commodity. BlackBerry simply cannot compete in a commodity market.

    Fortunately the board recognized that and this is why they have transitioned to software, where they feel they can compete.
    Last edited by app_Developer; 12-25-16 at 09:27 PM.
    DrBoomBotz likes this.
    12-25-16 07:07 PM
  8. z10Jobe's Avatar
    1) OnePlus is owned by a larger company that makes the phones for them.
    2) OnePlus operates on very low margins, in the beginning less than $10 per device
    3) Good luck speaking to anyone at OnePlus, communication is electronic.
    4) Security and certification for security is expensive
    5) Slab phones are cheaper to design and make than PKB.
    6) BB supports its phones with updates longer than OnePlus.

    Some of the above have been taken care of by the agreement with TCL but BB would never sell a phone for less than $10 profit, thats barely enough to keep the lights on.

    Blackberry cost structure is more like Sony than a lean company like OnePlus. Sony, a relative low volume phone maker, also has high priced phones.
    Good answers.... also.... Oneplus is headquartered in China. BlackBerry is headquartered in Canada. Opposite ends of the cost overhead spectrum.

    Posted via CB10
    12-25-16 11:50 PM
  9. KNEBB's Avatar
    I pondered this same question many a day :

    First, One Plus is existing in a marketing system where the government (China) will subsidize a company for gaining market share. Because one of the government's chief goals is to have an increased share of the Global Market. Being subsidized allows them to sell high spec devices at rock bottom prices. Why is that a problem for you? Many low price phones coming from that region has been said to possess Data Mining Software. So in essence companies who have this practice have a secondary profit structure in place, at the expense of your data. Not to say other smartphone manufacturers don't do the same.
    Here's what a NYTIME article states:
    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/16...INGD&A=results

    Now being a BlackBerry Lover and Consumer, I've pondered about BlackBerry pricing. Saying, if you have a quality product that you essentially don't advertise but sell at a premium price point in a Market that heavily advertises, how well will your product sell? And what's the justification for your asking price in comparison to the Market , (because relatively speaking; Advertising Expense isn't one of them in the U.S.).

    Although there is investment in software, BlackBerry has also lessen their overall Device Design Expense, and more recently with newer devices, lessened Manufacturing Expense. So it looks as though much of the justification for the price point is profit sharing or reinvestment based,not so much related to the "sales" of these products.


    A BlackBerry Fan!!!
    Last edited by KNEBB; 12-26-16 at 06:29 AM.
    12-26-16 06:17 AM
  10. thecsman's Avatar
    I'm still waiting for the Priv to be around CAD$400 so I can give it a shot.

    Posted via CB10
    12-26-16 08:38 PM
  11. hobgoblin1961's Avatar
    Wonder why Apple iPhones are not supposed being overpriced... just a thought compare to BlackBerry devices?
    BlackBerry devices got more to offer on practical level instead of a livestyle price tag.
    We know Droid devices are cheapish so that don't count for comparing.

    Posted via -Passport -Classic / OS-10.3.++ is all you need
    12-27-16 12:03 PM
  12. chain13's Avatar
    Blackberry needs money. That's it.
    12-27-16 07:50 PM
  13. nohope4me's Avatar
    Bloated "have been" company milking a niche segment with blind fans. But as you can see they could only survive under that strategy for so long.
    12-28-16 04:17 PM
  14. TgeekB's Avatar
    Wonder why Apple iPhones are not supposed being overpriced... just a thought compare to BlackBerry devices?
    BlackBerry devices got more to offer on practical level instead of a livestyle price tag.
    We know Droid devices are cheapish so that don't count for comparing.

    Posted via -Passport -Classic / OS-10.3.++ is all you need
    While i agree partially, they have proven they can sell them at that price. Go figure.
    12-28-16 05:03 PM
  15. hobgoblin1961's Avatar
    While i agree partially, they have proven they can sell them at that price. Go figure.
    Yep that's what I'm on about ;-)
    Because Apple doesn't sell apples to eat they're selling livestyle apples, like Gwyneth Paltow offering bog rolles for $100 per roll or "fur oil" to let you feel good :-P
    Amazing how easy people can be fooled to open there wallet.

    Posted via -Passport -Classic / OS-10.3.++ is all you need
    Last edited by hobgoblin1961; 12-29-16 at 06:14 AM.
    12-29-16 05:59 AM
  16. bakron1's Avatar
    Yep that's what I'm on about ;-)
    Because Apple doesn't sell apples to eat they're selling livestyle apples, like Gwyneth Paltow offering bog rolles for $100 per roll or "fur oil" to let you feel good :-P
    Amazing how easy people can be fooled to open there wallet.

    Posted via -Passport -Classic / OS-10.3.++ is all you need
    It's no different then Samsung selling the S7 and Note series devices for 600-800 dollars, its about offering a product the consumer has asked for and having good value for the hard earned money they have spent buying it.

    These are basic business concepts that every successful company has used for the past 150 years and will continue to use. The faithful are quick to forget that Blackberry once had over 50% of the US market and the founding fathers are still millionaires several times over because of it.
    Elephant_Canyon likes this.
    12-29-16 08:31 AM
  17. hobgoblin1961's Avatar
    It's no different then Samsung selling the S7 and Note series devices for 600-800 dollars, its about offering a product the consumer has asked for and having good value for the hard earned money they have spent buying it.

    These are basic business concepts that every successful company has used for the past 150 years and will continue to use. The faithful are quick to forget that Blackberry once had over 50% of the US market and the founding fathers are still millionaires several times over because of it.
    Agree with most what you're saying but I thing this days it's rather the other way around most of the time, big companies don't ask what peoples want but rater tell people now what they suppose to need and let them begging for it to get their hand on it and justify any excuse for that overpriced gimmicks (no wonder the advertising issue count so much), that way big business make a even bigger profit on anything that's emotional create a kick or is declared as must have by the ones who are not questioning if they may need that new toy or just want it because of prestige and attention grabbing purchase.
    No wonder the big data hype became so valuable even if companies not even own there office space they operate on, but rather use it on a leased contract to reduce any tax payment which in turn creates more profit.

    As a practical sample:
    In around 2005, IBM had several properties in Scotland used as service and call center for European customers. This properties where then sold and put on a lease contract at the same day to be continued to be used, but because this former property created better means of reducing operational tax payment.
    In the old day's a company's wealth used to be established by compiling material value like production property and machinery, this days big companies are valued in a virtually way like shares value and how popular or famous they are not what they actual present in real value.
    So for big companies it's now vital important to keep up a misty smokescreen around them rather than a fence or brick wall.

    Posted via -Passport -Classic / OS-10.3.++ is all you need
    Last edited by hobgoblin1961; 12-29-16 at 11:48 AM.
    12-29-16 10:33 AM
  18. hobgoblin1961's Avatar
    There is a telling about values for what ever you want to sell:
    "A thing is only as valuable as you can find a tosser who is prepared to pay for what ever it is"
    So a valuable item that once used to be very popular and expensive can drop down as only be as valuable as an slice of dry bread if you can't sell it, or your buyer wouldn't pay more for it.
    In return a material low valuable piece of crap can suddenly shoot up sky high in price, if there are a considerable amount of tossers coming together who are prepared to give everything they can afford and stay in competition with other tossers (on ebay for instant) at that stage it gets stupid but that's how modern value is counting on, specifically if the amount of availability is rare to get the madness rolling.

    The status of overpriced or cheap is relative!
    Pure capitalism at it's best.

    Posted via -Passport -Classic / OS-10.3.++ is all you need
    Last edited by hobgoblin1961; 12-29-16 at 12:02 PM.
    TgeekB likes this.
    12-29-16 10:46 AM
  19. Tsepz_GP's Avatar
    iUser, apple reuse its platform and format, but not BB. none of them, Z10, 30, PP, Q10, classic, Priv are similar form factor... you can not share the tooling and test jig (at least you need to modify it). That is one of the reason people get new phone all the time in the past.. The reliability (antenna and reciver at low signal - when you have wifi, bluetooth, 2G, 3G, LTE all on at once), audio quality and KB, that all add cost...(my comment not including handset after PP, such as dtek). I guess you like iphone? same format since you are iUser... that is one of the profit making for apple. as for the rest of Driod, regardless the cost structure, price, MFG in house or contract out, including Google, they all not making any profit... to discuss cost structure for driod is meaningless... someone still need to make case HOW to make money on driod phone...I am still waiting to see that in a business case study... (has been waiting for few years, a lot of case studies for the one that go down with a flame, but no success, except BLU, suit by BB and support by Amazon ads). Tell me something new if you have new info regarding the profitability and cost base (or cost cutting) of ANY droid story.
    Samsung are making Billions Q-on-Q, and Huawei are also seeing returns now.
    12-29-16 02:20 PM
  20. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    Agree with most what you're saying but I thing this days it's rather the other way around most of the time, big companies don't ask what peoples want but rater tell people now what they suppose to need and let them begging for it to get their hand on it and justify any excuse for that overpriced gimmicks (no wonder the advertising issue count so much), that way big business make a even bigger profit on anything that's emotional create a kick or is declared as must have by the ones who are not questioning if they may need that new toy or just want it because of prestige and attention grabbing purchase.
    How is it that these same consumers, that are supposedly so stupid that they can be so easily tricked and fooled (again and again, as most have bought multiple Apple/Android phones) were the same consumers that were somehow smart enough to buy BB phones in 2008?

    Even BB themselves have publicly accepted the blame for THEIR OWN FAILURE to keep up with the times and to move as fast as their competitors. It's an incredibly weak argument to try to blame consumers, who, overall, are pretty smart (even when you happen to disagree with their choices).
    12-29-16 03:13 PM
  21. stlabrat's Avatar
    Samsung are making Billions Q-on-Q, and Huawei are also seeing returns now.
    wrong. samsung is making Billions on components, not on handset.. as for huawei, no comment on the rev number. the cost structure of huawei is different compare to any non-chinese company, HTC, sony, others included.. huawei also got network business. I believe that is the bread and butter for them (like you got carrier on your back). If google fiber start work (after the initial heavy cost of laid out of network- if not going to be shut down by the new CFO), with pixel, that would be fair comparison... meanwhile, the two example you have sited not really relevant. exclude samsung 2016 data (17 B write off on note 7), you can see the shipping is more less not change much, but double digit growth for the components (vendor for mobile...). their mobile division included both components and handset...
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...les-worldwide/
    Last edited by stlabrat; 12-29-16 at 04:20 PM.
    12-29-16 04:02 PM
  22. Tsepz_GP's Avatar
    wrong. samsung is making Billions on components, not on handset.. as for huawei, no comment on the rev number. the cost structure of huawei is different compare to any non-chinese company, HTC, sony, others included.. huawei also got network business. I believe that is the bread and butter for them (like you got carrier on your back). If google fiber start work (after the initial heavy cost of laid out of network- if not going to be shut down by the new CFO), with pixel, that would be fair comparison... meanwhile, the two example you have sited not really relevant. exclude samsung 2016 data (17 B write off on note 7), you can see the shipping is more less not change much, but double digit growth for the components (vendor for mobile...). their mobile division included both components and handset...
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...les-worldwide/
    Wrong, Samsung Mobile even with the Note 7 debacle made a profit, although a huge 95% drop vs. Previous due to the recall:
    http://m.gsmarena.com/samsungs_q3_re...ndroid-samsung

    In Q2 2016 Samsung MOBILE made just over $3.6billion alone thanks largely to S7 and S7 Edge sales:
    http://www.theverge.com/platform/amp...ndroid-samsung

    That is JUST SAMSUNG MOBILE. Their fabrication unit reports separately.
    Here, as components:

    https://news.samsung.com/global/sams...r-results-2016

    Huawei Mobile Business also reports profits:

    http://www.cnbc.com/amp/2016/03/31/h...ndroid-samsung

    Vivo and OPPO also seeing profits

    http://www.androidauthority.com/repo...3-2016-731302/

    Sorry, the whole BS story that Android is not profitable is utterly rubbish and has been proven invalid.

    People must find another straw to clutch on now.
    12-29-16 05:11 PM
  23. stlabrat's Avatar
    I guess I just have to spell it out on samsung case: BOM - is majority in house, that have the advantage of low cost: little or no overhead, marketing, etc. much better to utilize the roadmap based on the in house chip run and yield, which is not broadcasted to external. strategically, you can make release of components based on timing and quantity to the external to gain competitive advantage.. etc. etc. you can also use components as leverage to gain partnership in favorable term, etc.etc. depend upon which way you look at it, with components supply in house, it is a different ball game. As for the other view, you choice what ever you want to believe.. compete with samsung on same playground? I dont' think so. (however, BB10 license to samsung, might be... they want badly their own OS... with little to show for it.. off topic... - i better stop, before i got called "troll" ;-).
    12-29-16 07:05 PM
  24. Tsepz_GP's Avatar
    I guess I just have to spell it out on samsung case: BOM - is majority in house, that have the advantage of low cost: little or no overhead, marketing, etc. much better to utilize the roadmap based on the in house chip run and yield, which is not broadcasted to external. strategically, you can make release of components based on timing and quantity to the external to gain competitive advantage.. etc. etc. you can also use components as leverage to gain partnership in favorable term, etc.etc. depend upon which way you look at it, with components supply in house, it is a different ball game. As for the other view, you choice what ever you want to believe.. compete with samsung on same playground? I dont' think so. (however, BB10 license to samsung, might be... they want badly their own OS... with little to show for it.. off topic... - i better stop, before i got called "troll" ;-).
    That is the whole point of Vertical Intergration, to lower production costs, and boost profit, which Samsung do a great job of.

    LG and Huawei are trying to follow this model to.
    12-31-16 01:01 AM
  25. TCB on Z10's Avatar
    Maybe because BlackBerry fans have been willing to pay more just like some will pay more, and get less, with Toyota. However, BlackBerrys are"on the road" longer without screens cracking, bending, i- touch disease, exploding batteries etc.

    BB, Still the One
    12-31-16 02:06 PM
26 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-19-18, 03:27 PM
  2. Dear TCL & BlackBerry (An Open Letter)
    By Reaney in forum BlackBerry KEYone
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 01-03-17, 07:48 PM
  3. Replacing Blackberry Passport Battery
    By Walter Rubin in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-03-17, 06:01 PM
  4. Why is my GPS not working on my Priv
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-28-16, 02:13 AM
  5. Why I cant instal any .apk anymore??
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-24-16, 11:56 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD