[bb10adopter111]

I have a few charts that tell an interesting story. There are no huge surprises in this post, but I hope some of you find it interesting.

There are so many narratives about why BB10 failed and what might have been done differently by RIM/BlackBerry leaders. One of the pervasive messages is that BlackBerry failed due to poor marketing communications. The premise of that argument is that the market simply wasn't aware that BB10 had been released. I wanted to try to test that hypothesis based on a very basic marketing framework.

The framework is called AIDA, and it represents the stages that a consumer goes through before purchasing a product. It's an acronym for
Awareness
Interest
Desire
Action

When a new product is launched, marketers typically launch "awareness" communications campaigns to make potential buyers aware of a product. After that, some potential buyers become interested in the product and begin doing research (online, visiting a store, etc.). Along the way, some of those folks develop a desire for the product. Finally, price promotions, limited supplies and other techniques may be used to turn that desire into action (a purchase).

With a successful product, the initial awareness campaign leads to lots of interest, and that interest grows over time naturally by news stories and word of mouth. The easiest way to track interest among individuals is to use Google Trends. Here's the trend for the iPhone, which I think we can agree was a successful product launch:



What you can see is that the initial awareness campaign led to sustained and growing interest as the product resonated with potential buyers. The initial marketing campaign only "lit the match." Over time, each new version created a spike in interest, but that interest did not drop off when the marketing campaign ended, because the underlying interest was already there.

Contrast that with BB10 interest over time:


You can see that the initial awareness campaign did NOT lead to any sustained interest. There was significant bump in interest at launch, but most potential buyers lost interest pretty quickly. This is exactly what a the launch of a product with limited appeal looks like. It happens all the time. This is exactly what you'll see with movies that don't "open" well and quickly disappear from theaters.

For reference, let's look at the relative interest in Blackberry, iPhone, and the Android OS over the same period. The iPhone line is in rd, Android in yellow, and BlackBerry in Blue:



What's immediately obvious is the rise in interest in Android corresponded to slowing growth in Apple and declining interest in BlackBerry. Interest in Android passed interest in BlackBerry in November of 2010, 30 months before the introduction of the Z10.

In my opinion, this is pretty convincing evidence that BlackBerry was simply too late in launching a successor to its BBOS operating system, and that the failure of BB10 was primarily due to market timing, not marketing communications or product quality. BB10 at launch was 1000x better than Android at launch, but Android's timing was much better, and it was able to generate interest, desire and action while BlackBerry was busy collecting revenue from its legacy services.

Thoughts?

[TgeekB]

I have a few charts that tell an interesting story. There are no huge surprises in this post, but I hope some of you find it interesting.

There are so many narratives about why BB10 failed and what might have been done differently by RIM/BlackBerry leaders. One of the pervasive messages is that BlackBerry failed due to poor marketing communications. The premise of that argument is that the market simply wasn't aware that BB10 had been released. I wanted to try to test that hypothesis based on a very basic marketing framework.

The framework is called AIDA, and it represents the stages that a consumer goes through before purchasing a product. It's an acronym for
Awareness
Interest
Desire
Action

When a new product is launched, marketers typically launch "awareness" communications campaigns to make potential buyers aware of a product. After that, some potential buyers become interested in the product and begin doing research (online, visiting a store, etc.). Along the way, some of those folks develop a desire for the product. Finally, price promotions, limited supplies and other techniques may be used to turn that desire into action (a purchase).

With a successful product, the initial awareness campaign leads to lots of interest, and that interest grows over time naturally by news stories and word of mouth. The easiest way to track interest among individuals is to use Google Trends. Here's the trend for the iPhone, which I think we can agree was a successful product launch:



What you can see is that the initial awareness campaign led to sustained and growing interest as the product resonated with potential buyers. The initial marketing campaign only "lit the match." Over time, each new version created a spike in interest, but that interest did not drop off when the marketing campaign ended, because the underlying interest was already there.

Contrast that with BB10 interest over time:


You can see that the initial awareness campaign did NOT lead to any sustained interest. There was significant bump in interest at launch, but most potential buyers lost interest pretty quickly. This is exactly what a the launch of a product with limited appeal looks like. It happens all the time. This is exactly what you'll see with movies that don't "open" well and quickly disappear from theaters.

For reference, let's look at the relative interest in Blackberry, iPhone, and the Android OS over the same period. The iPhone line is in rd, Android in yellow, and BlackBerry in Blue:



What's immediately obvious is the rise in interest in Android corresponded to slowing growth in Apple and declining interest in BlackBerry. Interest in Android passed interest in BlackBerry in November of 2010, 30 months before the introduction of the Z10.

In my opinion, this is pretty convincing evidence that BlackBerry was simply too late in launching a successor to its BBOS operating system, and that the failure of BB10 was primarily due to market timing, not marketing communications or product quality. BB10 at launch was 1000x better than Android at launch, but Android's timing was much better, and it was able to generate interest, desire and action while BlackBerry was busy collecting revenue from its legacy services.

Thoughts?

I completely agree. It was timing, not marketing.

[Chuck Finley69]

I have a few charts that tell an interesting story. There are no huge surprises in this post, but I hope some of you find it interesting.

There are so many narratives about why BB10 failed and what might have been done differently by RIM/BlackBerry leaders. One of the pervasive messages is that BlackBerry failed due to poor marketing communications. The premise of that argument is that the market simply wasn't aware that BB10 had been released. I wanted to try to test that hypothesis based on a very basic marketing framework.

The framework is called AIDA, and it represents the stages that a consumer goes through before purchasing a product. It's an acronym for
Awareness
Interest
Desire
Action

When a new product is launched, marketers typically launch "awareness" communications campaigns to make potential buyers aware of a product. After that, some potential buyers become interested in the product and begin doing research (online, visiting a store, etc.). Along the way, some of those folks develop a desire for the product. Finally, price promotions, limited supplies and other techniques may be used to turn that desire into action (a purchase).

With a successful product, the initial awareness campaign leads to lots of interest, and that interest grows over time naturally by news stories and word of mouth. The easiest way to track interest among individuals is to use Google Trends. Here's the trend for the iPhone, which I think we can agree was a successful product launch:



What you can see is that the initial awareness campaign led to sustained and growing interest as the product resonated with potential buyers. The initial marketing campaign only "lit the match." Over time, each new version created a spike in interest, but that interest did not drop off when the marketing campaign ended, because the underlying interest was already there.

Contrast that with BB10 interest over time:


You can see that the initial awareness campaign did NOT lead to any sustained interest. There was significant bump in interest at launch, but most potential buyers lost interest pretty quickly. This is exactly what a the launch of a product with limited appeal looks like. It happens all the time. This is exactly what you'll see with movies that don't "open" well and quickly disappear from theaters.

For reference, let's look at the relative interest in Blackberry, iPhone, and the Android OS over the same period. The iPhone line is in rd, Android in yellow, and BlackBerry in Blue:



What's immediately obvious is the rise in interest in Android corresponded to slowing growth in Apple and declining interest in BlackBerry. Interest in Android passed interest in BlackBerry in November of 2010, 30 months before the introduction of the Z10.

In my opinion, this is pretty convincing evidence that BlackBerry was simply too late in launching a successor to its BBOS operating system, and that the failure of BB10 was primarily due to market timing, not marketing communications or product quality. BB10 at launch was 1000x better than Android at launch, but Android's timing was much better, and it was able to generate interest, desire and action while BlackBerry was busy collecting revenue from its legacy services.

Thoughts?

Agreed plus I believe that BB Executives were all well aware of this and knew BB10 wouldn’t succeed when QNX purchased.

[howarmat]

RIght I dont think anyone can say that BB is ahead of the game as most times they are always late with everything They did hit it big in the 2000-2010 range for sure with BBOS but were late from then on. Products were delayed by huge time measure of over a year and once delivered were very much not ready for prime time to take on the competitors. Had they launch BB10 alongside Android in say BB 10.3 in 2010 instead of 10.0-10.1 in early 2013 I suspect the landscape would be different today.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Assuming all of the mobile platforms were decent - and they were; none were especially bad - then ecosystem is the single biggest factor in the success of the platform. Timing and developer faith are huge parts of what drives ecosystem support, and obviously being 5 years late to the market means BB's (and Microsoft's) timing was terrible, but neither really had the faith of the developers either. BB was never a developer-friendly company, and by the time they realized they needed to be, and got to work on supporting developers, they were even further behind. During the big developer conference for BB10 in 2010, where BB was supposed to show developers their new development platform and APIs, the whole thing was a farce. There were 5 different languages (including Android's) and they were still asking developers what kind of APIs they should have. Many developers left the conference and immediately focused on iOS and Android and forgot all about BB10, which is the opposite of what the conference was for.

As far as user interest, without an ecosystem of apps, services, and aftermarket accessory support, you can't sustain, much less grow, consumer interest. Sure, BB's marketing was terrible and forgettable, but you can bet most potential buyers asked "does this thing have Netflix/Instagram/my favorite app?" and when told "no", they bought an Android or an iPhone instead. A competitive platform could have survived poor marketing, but even the best marketing would not have done much for such a limited platform.

[dangerousfen]

Assuming all of the mobile platforms were decent - and they were; none were especially bad - then ecosystem is the single biggest factor in the success of the platform. Timing and developer faith are huge parts of what dries ecosystem support, and obviously being 5 years late to the market means BB's (and Microsoft's) timing was terrible, but neither really had the faith of the developers either. BB was never a developer-friendly company, and by the time they realized they needed to be, and got to work on supporting developers, they were even further behind. During the big developer conference for BB10 in 2010, where BB was supposed to show developers their new development platform and APIs, the whole thing was a farce. There were 5 different languages (including Android's) and they were still asking developers what kind of APIs they should have. Many developers left the conference and immediately focused on iOS and Android and forgot all about BB10, which is the opposite of what the conference was for.

As far as user interest, without an ecosystem of apps, services, and aftermarket accessory support, you can't sustain, much less grow, consumer interest. Sure, BB's marketing was terrible and forgettable, but you can bet most potential buyers asked "does this thing have Netflix/Instagram/my favorite app?" and when told "no", they bought an Android or an iPhone instead. A competitive platform could have survived poor marketing, but even the best marketing would not have done much for such a limited platform.

Spot on. You nailed it there.

[anon(10387168)]

Well, all I can add is that at the time BB10 was launched I was with a major Corporation which was BlackBerry equipped since the beginning. Contract renewal and business acquisition departments were looking for a successor to our aging 9900's. BlackBerry 10 offered a slab first, no keyboard, no familiarity and no continuance! So they sourced the market and unfortunately for us signed on with Samsung, yet another slab at a cost savings, much to our dismay! So, had the Keyboard version Q10 been offered before the slab Z10 (only a month apart) things may have been different for this Corporation and perhaps others, perhaps they would not have been as tempted to shop around. One month apart but a world apart! Just my 2cents worth.

Posted via my Passport

[byex]

No point in beating a dead horse. You can use as many words or as little words, it all comes round to the same conclusion.


Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

Well, all I can add is that at the time BB10 was launched I was with a major Corporation which was BlackBerry equipped since the beginning. Contract renewal and business acquisition departments were looking for a successor to our aging 9900's. BlackBerry 10 offered a slab first, no keyboard, no familiarity and no continuance! So they sourced the market and unfortunately for us signed on with Samsung, yet another slab at a cost savings, much to our dismay! So, had the Keyboard version Q10 been offered before the slab Z10 (only a month apart) things may have been different for this Corporation and perhaps others, perhaps they would not have been as tempted to shop around. One month apart but a world apart! Just my 2cents worth.

Posted via my Passport

The Z intro first was partly to push the BB loyal to switch to VKB where the Storm and Torch failed. The Z10 was also carrier and retailer expected for same reasons. It’s the point when too many finally realized how the iconic PKB and BB were intertwined to point of detriment and disaster.

[idssteve]

Late to the game and still Barely Baked. That brief spark never lit a fire. Kindling was green and oxygen was starved. lol.

Consumer space success against Apple meant Z needed to be easier, more intuitive, and quicker for consumer newbies to learn than iOS. Too many potential consumers put the thing back down after trying it for about ten seconds. Spark extinguished.

Their next last hope was migrating legacy into something resembling an enthusiast's niche. Q was born too crippled to enthuse enthusiasts.

BB10 wasn't just a new OS. it was a new platform. Pretty much a new company! RIM just didn't command financial, talent and consumer experience resources for that spark to even ignite a "flash in the pan".

[idssteve]

Well, all I can add is that at the time BB10 was launched I was with a major Corporation which was BlackBerry equipped since the beginning. Contract renewal and business acquisition departments were looking for a successor to our aging 9900's. BlackBerry 10 offered a slab first, no keyboard, no familiarity and no continuance! So they sourced the market and unfortunately for us signed on with Samsung, yet another slab at a cost savings, much to our dismay! So, had the Keyboard version Q10 been offered before the slab Z10 (only a month apart) things may have been different for this Corporation and perhaps others, perhaps they would not have been as tempted to shop around. One month apart but a world apart! Just my 2cents worth.

Posted via my Passport

Pretty much mirror's my company's experience. We did jump in to Z with both feet. And Q, months later. Which proved even worse. Neither product was ready for market when launched. Migration was FAR from smooth, also.

Pretty sure I'd heard Mike had expressed misgivings about launching Z first? In any case, my department returned to 9900 after that first year of BB10. Most of the rest of the BIG company jumped to various droids. Our field service guys got stuck with an awful Casio of some sort for a while. lol. every last one of us would've been content with an updated 9900...

[idssteve]

Fascinating data, OP. I'd like to see finer x axis resolution but what can be made out of that first chart sure looks like "interest" peaked around Storm time...2008 ?? lol Any way to determine if that "interest" derived from positive expectations? Or from negative reaction?? lol

Those Apple spikes indicate a pretty regular cycle. Regular "awareness" activities on Apple's part? Each spike does eventually degrade between spikes. Even looks like quite a few were sloping negative just before the next spike lifts it up again. Just in time. Lift pulses resembling flapping of wings? If that makes sense. Pretty astutely timed, imo. Astuteness we've come to expect from Apple. lol. One can even sometimes, just before a few spikes, make out a slight anticipation period just before the next expected spike... Almost Pavlovian? lol

Interesting that Android doesn't illustrate so much spiked activity... Maybe Android activity is only part of the interested platform...?? I'd like superimpose and/or sum Samsung curves over Android curves... Hardware/software combo might per chance see more similarities to Apple's hardware/software combo??

BB's really looks pretty typical of consumer interest i'd expect out of a commercially oriented product. IMO. Would consumer interest charts look much different for commercial product names like Peterbilt, Starrett, Bridgeport, SnapOn, Linkbelt, etc... ??

Honda dwarfs Peterbilt production volume. And likely consumer interest levels. That doesn't automatically invalidate Peterbilt's commercially oriented niche. It only means that trying to sell consumer oriented Hondas to commercial oriented Peterbilt enthusiasts might not enjoy staggering success. lol. And THAT failure wouldn't automatically somehow "prove" that 18 wheel vehicles can't possibly achieve niche level sustainability. ? lol All academic at this point anyway.

[bb10adopter111]

Fascinating data, OP. I'd like to see finer x axis resolution but what can be made out of that first chart sure looks like "interest" peaked around Storm time...2008 ?? lol Any way to determine if that "interest" derived from positive expectations? Or from negative reaction?? lol

Those Apple spikes indicate a pretty regular cycle. Regular "awareness" activities on Apple's part? Each spike does eventually degrade between spikes. Even looks like quite a few were sloping negative just before the next spike lifts it up again. Just in time. Lift pulses resembling flapping of wings? If that makes sense. Pretty astutely timed, imo. Astuteness we've come to expect from Apple. lol. One can even sometimes, just before a few spikes, make out a slight anticipation period just before the next expected spike... Almost Pavlovian? lol

Interesting that Android doesn't illustrate so much spiked activity... Maybe Android activity is only part of the interested platform...?? I'd like superimpose and/or sum Samsung curves over Android curves... Hardware/software combo might per chance see more similarities to Apple's hardware/software combo??

BB's really looks pretty typical of consumer interest i'd expect out of a commercially oriented product. IMO. Would consumer interest charts look much different for commercial product names like Peterbilt, Starrett, Bridgeport, SnapOn, Linkbelt, etc... ??

Honda dwarfs Peterbilt production volume. And likely consumer interest levels. That doesn't automatically invalidate Peterbilt's commercially oriented niche. It only means that trying to sell consumer oriented Hondas to commercial oriented Peterbilt enthusiasts might not enjoy staggering success. lol. And THAT failure wouldn't automatically somehow "prove" that 18 wheel vehicles can't possibly achieve niche level sustainability. ? lol All academic at this point anyway.

It's possible to look at finer time slices. The iPhone interest spikes are correlated to the release of new devices. Android doesn't have the same synchronized release cycle, which is probably why there are fewer spikes.

The spike isn't the story. That can be manufactured by buying ads. It's the "organic" level of underlying interest that matters. Marketing can only light a match, it can't start a fire if there's no combustible material (an attractive product) or oxygen (available market niches to target). And that's what the BlackBerry chart shows.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[Chuck Finley69]

Fascinating data, OP. I'd like to see finer x axis resolution but what can be made out of that first chart sure looks like "interest" peaked around Storm time...2008 ?? lol Any way to determine if that "interest" derived from positive expectations? Or from negative reaction?? lol

Those Apple spikes indicate a pretty regular cycle. Regular "awareness" activities on Apple's part? Each spike does eventually degrade between spikes. Even looks like quite a few were sloping negative just before the next spike lifts it up again. Just in time. Lift pulses resembling flapping of wings? If that makes sense. Pretty astutely timed, imo. Astuteness we've come to expect from Apple. lol. One can even sometimes, just before a few spikes, make out a slight anticipation period just before the next expected spike... Almost Pavlovian? lol

Interesting that Android doesn't illustrate so much spiked activity... Maybe Android activity is only part of the interested platform...?? I'd like superimpose and/or sum Samsung curves over Android curves... Hardware/software combo might per chance see more similarities to Apple's hardware/software combo??

BB's really looks pretty typical of consumer interest i'd expect out of a commercially oriented product. IMO. Would consumer interest charts look much different for commercial product names like Peterbilt, Starrett, Bridgeport, SnapOn, Linkbelt, etc... ??

Honda dwarfs Peterbilt production volume. And likely consumer interest levels. That doesn't automatically invalidate Peterbilt's commercially oriented niche. It only means that trying to sell consumer oriented Hondas to commercial oriented Peterbilt enthusiasts might not enjoy staggering success. lol. And THAT failure wouldn't automatically somehow "prove" that 18 wheel vehicles can't possibly achieve niche level sustainability. ? lol All academic at this point anyway.

The fact that Chen did support BBOS hardware production showed there was possibility of reviewing previous decisions at least for sustainability. The move to BYOD has been the largest competition to BB anyway. Which did most small corporations begin supporting in 2007-2008 timeframe? By 2011-2012, larger corporations needing to cut expenses from 2008-2011, had at least partially migrated to BYOD platforms.

If the employer can get employees to pay more expenses as part of their job and be available more hours outside traditional norms, then how would BB corporate model succeed? Especially when carriers were also interested with cutting out BB and it’s business model? Just look at how VZW is willing to lose your business to AT&T since in the bigger picture, most just stay and switch hardware instead. How much hardware did VZW sell and service revenue keep compared to losing customers to AT&T keeping BIS extra year or two?

[bb10adopter111]

The fact that Chen did support BBOS hardware production showed there was possibility of reviewing previous decisions at least for sustainability. The move to BYOD has been the largest competition to BB anyway. Which did most small corporations begin supporting in 2007-2008 timeframe? By 2011-2012, larger corporations needing to cut expenses from 2008-2011, had at least partially migrated to BYOD platforms.

If the employer can get employees to pay more expenses as part of their job and be available more hours outside traditional norms, then how would BB corporate model succeed? Especially when carriers were also interested with cutting out BB and it’s business model? Just look at how VZW is willing to lose your business to AT&T since in the bigger picture, most just stay and switch hardware instead. How much hardware did VZW sell and service revenue keep compared to losing customers to AT&T keeping BIS extra year or two?

Yes. BYOD was a disaster for BlackBerry whose image had become the "uncool locked-down work phone" in the eyes of consumers.

There's still a strong security case to be made for locking down a phone's connections the way BBOS/BIS did, but it can now be done through other cloud-based services. Even a return to corporate-owned, locked-down devices wouldn't come close to creating an attractive space for BlackBerry devices in 2020.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[idssteve]

It's possible to look at finer time slices. The iPhone interest spikes are correlated to the release of new devices. Android doesn't have the same synchronized release cycle, which is probably why there are fewer spikes.The spike isn't the story. That can be manufactured by buying ads. It's the "organic" level of underlying interest that matters. Marketing can only light a match, it can't start a fire if there's no combustible material (an attractive product) or oxygen (available market niches to target). And that's what the BlackBerry chart shows.From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

Yep, poor chance of spontaneous combustion using green, or wet rotted, wood in still air at 30,000ft. Lol The stair step upward of Apple's post spike plateaus reasonably supports your conclusion that Apple's wood truly burned in consumer space. BlackBerry wood did not. It clearly choked on consumer "air".

Idk but assuming this data derived from Google's search engine data? Might such data possibly under represent non-consumer interest?

[bb10adopter111]

Yep, poor chance of spontaneous combustion using green, or wet rotted, wood in still air at 30,000ft. Lol The stair step upward of Apple's post spike plateaus reasonably supports your conclusion that Apple's wood truly burned in consumer space. BlackBerry wood did not. It clearly choked on consumer "air".

Idk but assuming this data derived from Google's search engine data? Might such data possibly under represent non-consumer interest?

Certainly. This is a measure of the relative number of Google searches, which I'm using as a proxy for consumer interest. A person calling BlackBerry or a carrier rep to order a batch of enterprise phones might not need a Google search to be a buyer.

But, I believe it's a great measure of the relative absolute numbers of INTERESTED individuals over time. Since one of the major ways that interested people proceed to learn more about products is with Web searches, there's no reason to believe the scale is drastically different for the different platforms.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[idssteve]

The fact that Chen did support BBOS hardware production showed there was possibility of reviewing previous decisions at least for sustainability. The move to BYOD has been the largest competition to BB anyway. Which did most small corporations begin supporting in 2007-2008 timeframe? By 2011-2012, larger corporations needing to cut expenses from 2008-2011, had at least partially migrated to BYOD platforms.

If the employer can get employees to pay more expenses as part of their job and be available more hours outside traditional norms, then how would BB corporate model succeed? Especially when carriers were also interested with cutting out BB and it’s business model? Just look at how VZW is willing to lose your business to AT&T since in the bigger picture, most just stay and switch hardware instead. How much hardware did VZW sell and service revenue keep compared to losing customers to AT&T keeping BIS extra year or two?

Well, in all fairness, since they're refusing to activate non-BIS cdma stuff also, sunset of VZW's CDMA is what's forcing retirement of our 9930s. BIS demise on VZW seems somewhat coincidental to that.

I DO, however, contend that VZW isn't shedding any tears watching BB et al sink. I recall seeking a 9650, back in about 2010? While travelling. Stopped in multiple stores, multiple States. Verbatim response at each store... "Why a Blackberry? They're going out of business...". And... "Here's some great droids...droid is the future!". Off script discussion inevitably revealed great animus over the Storm... Even at sales floor level. Who had to suffer thru that 100% return rate. Little surprise such animus might've also trickled down out of JB's "I can't write a check like that"... Etc? Possibly the sentence that cost RIM NA market? ? Lol... Fascinating to see the tallest spike on OP's first chart about where Storm might be... Lol.

By the time Chen was reintroducing 9900's, 2014, RIM (and no small few around here) had thrown BBOS under the bus so hard resurrection seemed inconceivable. Still is. BBOS never had the chance to die of natural causes.

Only wild conjecture might surmise if BB could've been WORSE off by now if they'd never done BB10? At least the WAY it was done??

Perhaps pumping a small portion of the $Billions burned on BB10 into some BBOS security & browser updates might've extended BIS revenues, at least ? Or, possibly migrate BIS out of carrier dependence?? Into a VPN model?? Or??? Idk. Just a shame for all. Imo fwiw.

[bb10adopter111]

Well, in all fairness, since they're refusing to activate non-BIS cdma stuff also, sunset of VZW's CDMA is what's forcing retirement of our 9930s. BIS demise on VZW seems somewhat coincidental to that.

I DO, however, contend that VZW isn't shedding any tears watching BB et al sink. I recall seeking a 9650, back in about 2010? While travelling. Stopped in multiple stores, multiple States. Verbatim response at each store... "Why a Blackberry? They're going out of business...". And... "Here's some great droids...droid is the future!". Off script discussion inevitably revealed great animus over the Storm... Even at sales floor level. Who had to suffer thru that 100% return rate. Little surprise such animus might've also trickled down out of JB's "I can't write a check like that"... Etc? Possibly the sentence that cost RIM NA market? ? Lol... Fascinating to see the tallest spike on OP's first chart about where Storm might be... Lol.

By the time Chen was reintroducing 9900's, 2014, RIM (and no small few around here) had thrown BBOS under the bus so hard resurrection seemed inconceivable. Still is. BBOS never had the chance to die of natural causes.

Only wild conjecture might surmise if BB could've been WORSE off by now if they'd never done BB10? At least the WAY it was done??

Perhaps pumping a small amount of the $Billions burned on BB10 into some BBOS security & browser updates might've extended BIS revenues, at least ? Or, possibly migrate BIS out of carrier dependence?? Into a VPN model?? Or??? Idk. Just a shame for all. Imo fwiw.

I think the managed VPN/Proxy model, distermediating the carriers for BIS, was the right strategy. They would have had to stand up a huge amount of bandwidth capacity, but it would have been cheaper than BB10 and they could have kept many of their best security-minded accounts with a network operation that neither Apple nor Android wanted to build. Lots of enterprises (and not a few sophisticated small businesses and individuals) would have been happy to pay a per seat cost for that amount of security. It would have been a perfect companion to their UEM services.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[bb10adopter111]

I think the managed VPN/Proxy model, distermediating the carriers for BIS, was the right strategy. They would have had to stand up a huge amount of bandwidth capacity, but it would have been cheaper than BB10 and they could have kept many of their best security-minded accounts with a network operation that neither Apple nor Android wanted to build. Lots of enterprises (and not a few sophisticated small businesses and individuals) would have been happy to pay a per seat cost for that amount of security. It would have been a perfect companion to their UEM services.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

For comparison, look at Cisco Umbrella and Cloudflare's offerings. It's a very important and profitable space.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[bb9900user2018]

Just out of curiosity, would you know the units of the y-axis (interest)? I'd like to know how Google Trends performs these calculations - the graph looks right but what is 100 - 100% interest, 100 searches, 100 clicks, 100k clicks, 100M clicks?

[bb10adopter111]

Just out of curiosity, would you know the units of the y-axis (interest)? I'd like to know how Google Trends performs these calculations - the graph looks right but what is 100 - 100% interest, 100 searches, 100 clicks, 100k clicks, 100M clicks?

100 is basically the peak interest.. Thinking of it like a percentage of the maximum for that particular search. So, 75 is 75x greater than 1, but 75 could be 100 or 1 billion searches.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[bb9900user2018]

100 is basically the peak interest.. Thinking of it like a percentage of the maximum for that particular search. So, 75 is 75x greater than 1, but 75 could be 100 or 1 billion searches.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

I think you're describing a log scale. I think it's something else linear however. And I don't think Google want to disclose what they're measuring, although it limits it's use in board room type meetings where that question will inevitably come up, but a very interesting tool - I can find some uses for it. Thanks.


Posted via CB10

[bb10adopter111]

I think you're describing a log scale. I think it's something else linear however. And I don't think Google want to disclose what they're measuring, although it limits it's use in board room type meetings where that question will inevitably come up, but a very interesting tool - I can find some uses for it. Thanks.


Posted via CB10

No, it's not a log scale. It's definitely Linear. The maximum value is set to 100, with the other values set as a percentage of that number.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[fanisk]

Totally agreed with your point of view .
Definitely BlackBerry 10 came out too late , it was a completely new platform and had to compete with the already established platforms of IOS and Android.
On top they didn't have the financial and probably technological resources of their competitors.
I believe that they had still the chances to succeed but they have delivered a product high priced , with very poor cameras while the camera start to be a critical point for the purchase of a phone for most of the people.
On top ,although the OS system was really nice , simple and fast ,it was half baked and with enormous problems until the first major upgrade done in the summer.
I will never forget the overheating , frozen screens and continual pull outs of the battery to keep my Z10 working .
Even while traveling had to pull out the battery otherwise the phone didn't recognize the roaming network.
I know many people that have initially supported the BlackBerry 10 but facing all these problems had returned the devices and buy something different.
This resulted poor sales ,less support by the carriers and also less support and interest from the developers for the app ECO system , all these result a downturn spiral in the sales.