[kolowosh]

Let me share with you guys my analysis of the situation of Blackberry. It is based on information available on the internet. I came to the conclusion that Android killed Symbian, kills BBOS and is killing IOS.

My findings :
� It is necessary to separate mobile markets : low-end market ( 0 - $ 199 ) , middle-end market ($ 200 - $ 399 ) and high end market ( + $ 400) , if one wants to compare Blackberry / Apple market and Android one, because Android operates in those three markets.
� In 2007, the high end market was dominated by Windows -Mobile and BBOS around 20 %, while the low and middle end market were the market for Symbian at 65 %.
� The arrival of IOS in 2007 resulted, contrary to what is said, RIM to increase its market share from 8 % to 20 % until the first quarter of 2010.
� Appeared in 2009, Android has taken the mobile market by surprise, its market share increased in 2010 from 8% to 30 % at the expense of Symbian and BBOS who have lost 22% and 7% respectively.
� From there, the descent into hell began for RIM who saw its share of the market tumbled 20 % in early 2010 to 3% in 2013
� The growth of Android has continued to be surprising and dramatic , 20% for the year 2011 , another 20 % in 2012 and 10 % in the first half of 2013.

Why Android has been so successful and what is the impact on the mobile market? What should be the strategy of RIM?
The Android operating system developed by Google, is free, open to all manufacturers and available in different markets: low-end, middle-end and high-end. In addition, Google Android copied what was the best of the Apple and Microsoft OS. This will have a serious financial impact on some mobile manufacturers like RIM and Apple. They have not only to develop new softwares, but also to design new hardwares, while others, like Samsung, have only to ensure the compatibility of their hardware with the Android version chosen. Another impact on the mobile market is that �anyone� can now manufacture a smartphone. That�s why we assist to the explosion of low-end or low-cost phone . They are eroding the share of high-end market: Blackberry experience it and now it is the Apple turn.

RIM's strategy (I do not blame him because I would have done the same) was to make a new phone and develop a new operation system in order to stay in the competition. This phone should be more oriented to mass consumption instead of being elitist as before. This is understandable. Thus was born the new generation Z and Q. But it could not achieve this goal and the main reason is the rapid growth of over 70 % of Android in less than three years (Samsung) has overtaken RIM and did not leave him time to develop its new BB10 operating system , rethink its new phone system and market it.

The question everyone asks is: what is the future of Blackberry? Blackberry will never hold 20% market share it had in 2009. The reason is very simple: it cannot compete directly with the $ 200 billion in assets of Samsung Electronics and Apple. However, it has a base of 60 million to 70 million users and several other manufacturers would like to have.

That said, I understand the current strategy of BB management which is to return to a phone for the elites or " prosumer ", to keep alive the brand name " BBM " through BBM4ALL (why not a desktop version) and popularize the feature "Channel" . To this strategy, I would add a low-cost strategy with BB7 phone. In its latest financial report, Blackberry has reported that strong sales of BB7 phones. It is a market not to be ignored. The reason is that the BB7 phones have become more affordable to the users of the emerging countries and they would rather buy a BB ( more prestigious ) than a Chinese " Xizolo " for example. So I will continue to promote BB7 at two levels: through low prices and through low cost carriers in all those countries.

In terms of perspective, Blackberry will get another chance, if it lives long enough, that is the ability to reposition itself after the implosion of Android. Sooner or later, Samsung will completely get rid of Android because it has become too powerful financially to depend exclusively on Android. It has already started with its new operating system called " Tizen " .

That's my opinion, as we say in French " mon grain de sel".

[fearmantis]

LOL You are funny.

BB Z10 Rocks!

[undone]

Samsung plans on using Tizen in its next gen TVs. Only a matter of time for them to push that to all there other devices.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

No denying that Android is king these days and that is has disposed several other OS contenders. But the truth is Symbian and BBOS were not good enough for the modern smartphone market and needed to make room for more advanced operating systems. I do think that Android devices are hurting the chances of iOS being dominate.. but Apple's sales are still growing ever quarter. And while I don't like the restrictiveness of the platform, I do find many apps on iOS that have a much higher quality than what can be found on Android.

[kolowosh]

LOL You are funny.

BB Z10 Rocks!

Ah! Ah! Ah!

You think! Thank you

[kolowosh]

No denying that Android is king these days and that is has disposed several other OS contenders. But the truth is Symbian and BBOS were not good enough for the modern smartphone market and needed to make room for more advanced operating systems. I do think that Android devices are hurting the chances of iOS being dominate.. but Apple's sales are still growing ever quarter. And while I don't like the restrictiveness of the platform, I do find many apps on iOS that have a much higher quality than what can be found on Android.

I agree if we are talking about the BBOS7. Regarding to BBOS10, I am not ashamed to show my Z10 in public.

This graph shows that Apple lost almost 9% of its market share (from 21% to 13%) . With the sales of the new Iphone 5s, their market share will go up and down as usual, as illustrated in the chart.

[Rootbrian]

I'm not afraid to rock my 9900, playbook or miniDV camcorder in public either, or my 1988 GE 9810 VHS HD camcorder either.

Technology moves really REALLY fast, but it never stops working, it just puts more tech into the world's abusers (and lovers) of it.

Sent from my BlackBerry Bold Touch 9900 using Tapatalk

[TGR1]

Nice graph but really should include sources for data.

[MarsupilamiX]

Nice graph but really should include sources for data.

It should be from Wikipedia.
I used the same graph in some threads.
There you have the source numbers as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_...m#Market_share

Posted via CB10

[MarsupilamiX]

You missed the most critical point of Android; Apple and BlackBerry have to run their own Infrastructure. Android phone makers don't. Google does that for them. The cost savings to those phone makers is enormous. Which is why the barrier for entry in to the Android market is very low. Ergo, you will have dozens of uber-cheap Androids competing on cost. I.E., the classical commodity market.

The idea that BlackBerry (and Apple and Microsoft) should attempt to compete in the consumer market is ludicrous. They have to go after the so called prosumer because these are the people (like me) who want a secure, high quality, high capability device. Just like I want a DSLR camera instead of a point and shoot. I want a Lexus instead of a Ford. I'm the definition of the prosumer.

The second item I disagree with in your analysis is the idea that emerging market consumers what BlackBerry (BBOS based) because it is considered prestigious This is based on an old idea. Prestige these days is iPhone and maybe, Samsung Galaxy. The real reason these emerging markets still buy classic BlackBerry is because they use much less data and bandwidth is still expensive in those markets.

Mostly agreed.
Only the part with:
" Apple & MS should not try to compete in the consumer market" seems very wrong.

Since the iPod, they became a company that sells especially to the consumer (with a little bit more money).
The iPhone and the iPad are part of that as well.
Apple is incredibly successful in the consumer sector, therefore I do not understand that point.

MS is/was incredibly successfull with their desktop offerings for the consumer as well.

The rest of your analysis seems very correct, therefore I would appreciate it, if you could explain this point in particular, again.

Posted via CB10

[Wiki Cydia]

You missed the most critical point of Android; Apple and BlackBerry have to run their own Infrastructure. Android phone makers don't. Google does that for them. The cost savings to those phone makers is enormous. Which is why the barrier for entry in to the Android market is very low. Ergo, you will have dozens of uber-cheap Androids competing on cost. I.E., the classical commodity market.

You missed a critical counter-point: despite Android's activation success, the only truly profitable Android OEM is Samsung. Samsung, coincidentally, is allegedly spending $13 billion this year in marketing. (Samsung expected to spend over $13 billion in marketing this year) Compare that to Apple's 2012 marketing budget of $1 billion (Google to Spend $500 Million Marketing their Moto X Phone, Half of Apple’s Entire Budget - Gadget Review), and you realize that marketing is a huge cost for the lone profitable Android phone OEM that may completely eliminate any advantage in infrastructure costs. (And yes, I recognize that this is $13 billion on marketing for the entire company. But I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for a Samsung product other than the Galaxy, Note, etc.)

On balance, even the original analysis in this thread ignores both "marketing" as a cost and "profit" as a factor in market success, which to me calls the the entire analysis into question. As demonstrated, marketing can be a huge expense (big enough to buy BBRY 2.5 times in Samsung's case), and profit is relevant in the market analysis because Google is the first tech company I can remember to own 70% of a market, yes is dwarfed in profit not just by a player with just 13% of the market, but also by one of its own OEMs.

[Erik Lehman]

Let me share with you guys my analysis of the situation of Blackberry. It is based on information available on the internet. I came to the conclusion that Android killed Symbian, kills BBOS and is killing IOS.

My findings :
� It is necessary to separate mobile markets : low-end market ( 0 - $ 199 ) , middle-end market ($ 200 - $ 399 ) and high end market ( + $ 400) , if one wants to compare Blackberry / Apple market and Android one, because Android operates in those three markets.
� In 2007, the high end market was dominated by Windows -Mobile and BBOS around 20 %, while the low and middle end market were the market for Symbian at 65 %.
� The arrival of IOS in 2007 resulted, contrary to what is said, RIM to increase its market share from 8 % to 20 % until the first quarter of 2010.
� Appeared in 2009, Android has taken the mobile market by surprise, its market share increased in 2010 from 8% to 30 % at the expense of Symbian and BBOS who have lost 22% and 7% respectively.
� From there, the descent into hell began for RIM who saw its share of the market tumbled 20 % in early 2010 to 3% in 2013
� The growth of Android has continued to be surprising and dramatic , 20% for the year 2011 , another 20 % in 2012 and 10 % in the first half of 2013.

Why Android has been so successful and what is the impact on the mobile market? What should be the strategy of RIM?
The Android operating system developed by Google, is free, open to all manufacturers and available in different markets: low-end, middle-end and high-end. In addition, Google Android copied what was the best of the Apple and Microsoft OS. This will have a serious financial impact on some mobile manufacturers like RIM and Apple. They have not only to develop new softwares, but also to design new hardwares, while others, like Samsung, have only to ensure the compatibility of their hardware with the Android version chosen. Another impact on the mobile market is that �anyone� can now manufacture a smartphone. That�s why we assist to the explosion of low-end or low-cost phone . They are eroding the share of high-end market: Blackberry experience it and now it is the Apple turn.

RIM's strategy (I do not blame him because I would have done the same) was to make a new phone and develop a new operation system in order to stay in the competition. This phone should be more oriented to mass consumption instead of being elitist as before. This is understandable. Thus was born the new generation Z and Q. But it could not achieve this goal and the main reason is the rapid growth of over 70 % of Android in less than three years (Samsung) has overtaken RIM and did not leave him time to develop its new BB10 operating system , rethink its new phone system and market it.

The question everyone asks is: what is the future of Blackberry? Blackberry will never hold 20% market share it had in 2009. The reason is very simple: it cannot compete directly with the $ 200 billion in assets of Samsung Electronics and Apple. However, it has a base of 60 million to 70 million users and several other manufacturers would like to have.

That said, I understand the current strategy of BB management which is to return to a phone for the elites or " prosumer ", to keep alive the brand name " BBM " through BBM4ALL (why not a desktop version) and popularize the feature "Channel" . To this strategy, I would add a low-cost strategy with BB7 phone. In its latest financial report, Blackberry has reported that strong sales of BB7 phones. It is a market not to be ignored. The reason is that the BB7 phones have become more affordable to the users of the emerging countries and they would rather buy a BB ( more prestigious ) than a Chinese " Xizolo " for example. So I will continue to promote BB7 at two levels: through low prices and through low cost carriers in all those countries.

In terms of perspective, Blackberry will get another chance, if it lives long enough, that is the ability to reposition itself after the implosion of Android. Sooner or later, Samsung will completely get rid of Android because it has become too powerful financially to depend exclusively on Android. It has already started with its new operating system called " Tizen " .

That's my opinion, as we say in French " mon grain de sel".

Blah blah blah blah

Posted via SEGA master system

[kolowosh]

You missed the most critical point of Android; Apple and BlackBerry have to run their own Infrastructure. Android phone makers don't. Google does that for them. The cost savings to those phone makers is enormous. Which is why the barrier for entry in to the Android market is very low. Ergo, you will have dozens of uber-cheap Androids competing on cost. I.E., the classical commodity market.

The idea that BlackBerry (and Apple and Microsoft) should attempt to compete in the consumer market is ludicrous. They have to go after the so called prosumer because these are the people (like me) who want a secure, high quality, high capability device. Just like I want a DSLR camera instead of a point and shoot. I want a Lexus instead of a Ford. I'm the definition of the prosumer.

The second item I disagree with in your analysis is the idea that emerging market consumers what BlackBerry (BBOS based) because it is considered prestigious This is based on an old idea. Prestige these days is iPhone and maybe, Samsung Galaxy. The real reason these emerging markets still buy classic BlackBerry is because they use much less data and bandwidth is still expensive in those markets.

I don't think I miss something. We are on the same boat. My quote is:
"This will have a serious financial impact on some mobile manufacturers like RIM and Apple. They have not only to develop new softwares, but also to design new hardwares, while others, like Samsung, have only to ensure the compatibility of their hardware with the Android version chosen".

Again, we meet again. My quote is:
"That said, I understand the current strategy of BB management which is to return to a phone for the elites or " prosumer ".

Finally we disagree. Iphone and high-end Samsung are prestigious for those who can afford them. In my country, a Samsung S4 costs $970.00, with plan $800.00), while a BB7 is prestigious for those who can afford a low cost one. (BB Curve costs $300.00, with plan $150.00).

[kolowosh]

You missed a critical counter-point: despite Android's activation success, the only truly profitable Android OEM is Samsung. Samsung, coincidentally, is allegedly spending $13 billion this year in marketing. (Samsung expected to spend over $13 billion in marketing this year) Compare that to Apple's 2012 marketing budget of $1 billion (Google to Spend $500 Million Marketing their Moto X Phone, Half of Apple’s Entire Budget - Gadget Review), and you realize that marketing is a huge cost for the lone profitable Android phone OEM that may completely eliminate any advantage in infrastructure costs. (And yes, I recognize that this is $13 billion on marketing for the entire company. But I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for a Samsung product other than the Galaxy, Note, etc.)

On balance, even the original analysis in this thread ignores both "marketing" as a cost and "profit" as a factor in market success, which to me calls the the entire analysis into question. As demonstrated, marketing can be a huge expense (big enough to buy BBRY 2.5 times in Samsung's case), and profit is relevant in the market analysis because Google is the first tech company I can remember to own 70% of a market, yes is dwarfed in profit not just by a player with just 13% of the market, but also by one of its own OEMs.

My goal was to illustrate to anyone what's happened in the mobile market during those 6 years in order to be indulgent toward BBRY. As you mentioned, it's David against Goliath. BBRY is a small company ($12B assets) facing $230B Samsung Electronics or $200B Apple.

The marketing battle is already lost by BBRY, but the fight goes on....

[Kendosis]

Nothing competes with android's customization, until someone makes an OS that is equally customizable it will continue to rain supreme. At first glance Tizen doesn't seem to be anything special so if it's as locked down as iOS I foresee it flopping big time. The only thing keeping iOS alive is marketing and the existence of public jail breaks lol.

[sinsin07]

History will attribute the demise of Blackberry and death of WebOS to Apple, just like the death of mobile Flash.

Whether that is true or not won't make a difference.

The story will become myth, the myth will become fact.

Google's endgame is ChromeOS, not Android. Once that occurs you will see them slowly withdraw from Android.

As the withdrawal occurs, Google services will slowly be ChromeOS centric, meaning certain features will only be ChromeOS available.

Once that occurs, there will be a scrambling of Android handset manufacturers to stay relevant.
Samsung will try to match Google services, but won't make it in the western world, but will have moderate success in the Asian markets.

Apple will release a larger screen phone n 2014. They are already working on it.
This will take some of the steam out of the other manufacturers.

[Cashgap]

... clipped to save space ...

Very reasonable and rational. Not much I can argue. Very insightful re: Android/Chrome.

[LordOfFreedom]

The discussions about market share have always bothered me for a couple of reasons: when you're comparing OS's, you're in effect comparing single manufacturers (BlackBerry or Apple) with an entity that's composed of several different manufacturers (Samsung, HTC, LG, Huawei, Motorola, etc), which isn't really a fair comparison; and more importantly, the whole discussion around market share is ultimately a vain one. What ultimately matters is two (2) things:

1. How good the final product(s) is (are);
2. If the company is making enough profit to continue developing and improving their phones.

Anything after that is little more than a silly horse race about who's "winning". It's only natural that several different manufacturers, each catering to different markets and price ranges, each with varied access to different markets around the globe, be able to outproduce and outsell any individual company. What matters a lot more is how happy each person is in using their phone, so I say let Android focus on mass market share - this works for Google since their goal is to secure more eyeballs for advertising on their services, but this s not inherently useful for anyone else - and let Blackberry and others focus their efforts on a targeted audience who will buy their phones because it works best for them.

If I may make a crude analogy, it's like countries annexing territory: some countries have a goal of acquiring as much land as possible, but the land won't do anything by itself (especially if it's barren and infertile) except show that you have a lot of territory. Meanwhile other countries focus more on supporting their citizens and making more efficient use of what they have, expanding only because people are so amazed that they move there. Basically Apple is the West, BlackBerry is Greenland, and Android is Russia, except that Russia has also taken over Asia, Africa, and South America (I don't even know where to put Windows Phone, probably Australia or something). Android has gotten so massive because it's decentralized enough for each region to control itself autonomously. It would never had succeeded otherwise. BlackBerry should focus on being Canada and Switzerland: popular enough to be viable, but focus on making phones that are excellent for a certain type of user, instead of trying to be everything to everyone, kind of like how Canada and Switzerland have typically focused on quality of life instead of being the largest or most powerful... okay I'm done my analogy now lol

[dejanh]

Let me share with you guys my analysis of the situation of Blackberry. It is based on information available on the internet. I came to the conclusion that Android killed Symbian, kills BBOS and is killing IOS.

My findings :
• It is necessary to separate mobile markets : low-end market ( 0 - $ 199 ) , middle-end market ($ 200 - $ 399 ) and high end market ( + $ 400) , if one wants to compare Blackberry / Apple market and Android one, because Android operates in those three markets.
• In 2007, the high end market was dominated by Windows -Mobile and BBOS around 20 %, while the low and middle end market were the market for Symbian at 65 %.
• The arrival of IOS in 2007 resulted, contrary to what is said, RIM to increase its market share from 8 % to 20 % until the first quarter of 2010.
• Appeared in 2009, Android has taken the mobile market by surprise, its market share increased in 2010 from 8% to 30 % at the expense of Symbian and BBOS who have lost 22% and 7% respectively.
• From there, the descent into hell began for RIM who saw its share of the market tumbled 20 % in early 2010 to 3% in 2013
• The growth of Android has continued to be surprising and dramatic , 20% for the year 2011 , another 20 % in 2012 and 10 % in the first half of 2013.

Why Android has been so successful and what is the impact on the mobile market? What should be the strategy of RIM?
The Android operating system developed by Google, is free, open to all manufacturers and available in different markets: low-end, middle-end and high-end. In addition, Google Android copied what was the best of the Apple and Microsoft OS. This will have a serious financial impact on some mobile manufacturers like RIM and Apple. They have not only to develop new softwares, but also to design new hardwares, while others, like Samsung, have only to ensure the compatibility of their hardware with the Android version chosen. Another impact on the mobile market is that “anyone” can now manufacture a smartphone. That’s why we assist to the explosion of low-end or low-cost phone . They are eroding the share of high-end market: Blackberry experience it and now it is the Apple turn.

RIM's strategy (I do not blame him because I would have done the same) was to make a new phone and develop a new operation system in order to stay in the competition. This phone should be more oriented to mass consumption instead of being elitist as before. This is understandable. Thus was born the new generation Z and Q. But it could not achieve this goal and the main reason is the rapid growth of over 70 % of Android in less than three years (Samsung) has overtaken RIM and did not leave him time to develop its new BB10 operating system , rethink its new phone system and market it.

The question everyone asks is: what is the future of Blackberry? Blackberry will never hold 20% market share it had in 2009. The reason is very simple: it cannot compete directly with the $ 200 billion in assets of Samsung Electronics and Apple. However, it has a base of 60 million to 70 million users and several other manufacturers would like to have.

That said, I understand the current strategy of BB management which is to return to a phone for the elites or " prosumer ", to keep alive the brand name " BBM " through BBM4ALL (why not a desktop version) and popularize the feature "Channel" . To this strategy, I would add a low-cost strategy with BB7 phone. In its latest financial report, Blackberry has reported that strong sales of BB7 phones. It is a market not to be ignored. The reason is that the BB7 phones have become more affordable to the users of the emerging countries and they would rather buy a BB ( more prestigious ) than a Chinese " Xizolo " for example. So I will continue to promote BB7 at two levels: through low prices and through low cost carriers in all those countries.

In terms of perspective, Blackberry will get another chance, if it lives long enough, that is the ability to reposition itself after the implosion of Android. Sooner or later, Samsung will completely get rid of Android because it has become too powerful financially to depend exclusively on Android. It has already started with its new operating system called " Tizen " .

That's my opinion, as we say in French " mon grain de sel".

Fast analysis but quite good. Proliferation of the Android OS in every tier of the smartphone market and the ability as you say for *anyone* to manufacture a phone has really changed the mobile competitive landscape. I actually agree with you that Android is a very serious threat to everyone, iOS included. The only reason why Apple is still doing as well as it is is because of its cult-like following and the fact that they have carved out a so-far-untouched ultra-high niche in the market. Their brand looks and feels premium. If their followers every wake up from this coma Apple will lose market share against Android even faster than today. However, there is one interesting thing you mention...Samsung may step away from Android. If they do that, Android could collapse. Now that would be something to see...

[srzjumper]

You're comparing apples to blackberries

Posted via CB10