[Tim Heard]

Granted, BlackBerry is no longer staking their success on how well they do in the device market. Still,
news of their already minuscule and still declining market is really about all the general public pays attention
to.

BlackBerry’s share of smartphone market rapidly diminishing

It's great that they have released the Z3 recently, but they really need to step on the gas and get the Classic and
Windermere out. While they're at it, why not a slider, and what ought to be some easy upgrades to the Z30.

And it would be nice if they would do whatever is necessary to encourage AT&T's prompt acceptance of the devices.

I really think they can make some real headway in the US market if they could get ahead of the curve a bit with their newest devices.

[early2bed]

I'm not sure any of these phones are designed to bring back overall market share. We've experienced the launch of the Z3 which will only be released in developing markets. The Classic is a retro-featured phone tailored towards existing customers. The Windermere seems like a niche device, perhaps for the medical market.

Look for more "What is Blackberry doing?" threads after the WWDC keynote on Monday.

[cgk]

The important question is - how is that broken down between BB7 and BB10?

[vtpmt81]

It just took BlackBerry too long to realize the threat that iOS and Android were to its marketshare. They felt that the BlackBerry had enough people that loved its keyboard, security, and messaging to keep its marketshare. If they had realized this back in 2008 instead of 2010 (when they bought QNX) - they would be in a different place. Imagine if the Z10 came out in 2011 instead of 2013. During that time people were waiting to see if the iPhone was coming to Sprint and T-Mobile and were getting impatient with Apple wanting a sequel to the iPhone 4. Android was still on Gingerbread - which while very solid had plenty of issues - many phones were still on �clair and Froyo at that time. WP7 was still in its infancy.

[Tim Heard]

Here's the thing, given their current figures, even adding relatively small numbers of users will net a huge increase as a percentage of their current number of users, which will bring good press, and hopefully even more acceptance.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Here's the thing, given their current figures, even adding relatively small numbers of users will net a huge increase as a percentage of their current number of users, which will bring good press, and hopefully even more acceptance.

Wonder what it would really take to gain acceptance....

Looking back BBOS had 70-75 Million users at one time, and still developers would not bother with it.

Some question Amazon decision to move forward with a phone - I mean the Kindle line of tablets has only sold 50 million devices.

Percentages, Good Press, Acceptance.... What matters is at what point can they make a profit and sustain that profit. As revenues from licensing decreases - due to the loss of BIS and the cuts to BES pricing and possible fewer BES licenses), I'm thinking that sales of 20 million devices at a profit (no markdowns, no selling at cost and thus no cheap $200 Z10 type devices) would be needed to sustain BlackBerry. Back at launch some hoped that BlackBerry would sell that many per quarter, now that looks like an impossible task to meet in a years time.

[Tim Heard]

BlackBerry's device business is only going to be a fraction of their overall revenue, assuming their strategy is successful. Most likely they are keeping the segment going because it fits with their overall strategy, not because they intend at some point to have 25% of the mobile device market.
What "sustains" the company won't be device sales, at least not any time in the near future.
QNX is already on the verge of paying off significantly, given their new relationship with Ford, and the fact that QNX already has a major footprint in the auto industry. Their security product certainly looks promising.
You certainly have a point about developers and numbers. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible for a new developer to get any traction with a new app in the Apple or Android markets. There are simply too many apps already out there. An argument could be made that developers have an opportunity now to get in on the ground floor with BB10. If numbers start growing, there's certainly money to be made, because it is easier to establish one's brand right now.

Wonder what it would really take to gain acceptance....

Looking back BBOS had 70-75 Million users at one time, and still developers would not bother with it.

Some question Amazon decision to move forward with a phone - I mean the Kindle line of tablets has only sold 50 million devices.

Percentages, Good Press, Acceptance.... What matters is at what point can they make a profit and sustain that profit. As revenues from licensing decreases - due to the loss of BIS and the cuts to BES pricing and possible fewer BES licenses), I'm thinking that sales of 20 million devices at a profit (no markdowns, no selling at cost and thus no cheap $200 Z10 type devices) would be needed to sustain BlackBerry. Back at launch some hoped that BlackBerry would sell that many per quarter, now that looks like an impossible task to meet in a years time.

[cgk]

I think people overegg the value of qnx - embedded systems licences go for buttons.

sent from my bright red Nexus 5

[Tim Heard]

I have read a number of articles from analysts who would disagree. Here are a few:

Can Ford Save BlackBerry? (BBRY, F)

BlackBerry's QNX: Why it's so valuable to Apple, Google, auto industry | ZDNet

http://www.fool.ca/2014/05/14/3-reas...ight-on-track/

BlackBerry Ltd’s QNX in driver’s seat of connected car market Google Inc covets | Financial Post

I think people overegg the value of qnx - embedded systems licences go for buttons.

sent from my bright red Nexus 5

[spikesolie]

I think people overegg the value of qnx - embedded systems licences go for buttons.

sent from my bright red Nexus 5

Maybe maybe not

Posted via CB10

[Clanked]

I think people overegg the value of qnx - embedded systems licences go for buttons.

sent from my bright red Nexus 5

ROTFLMFAO.....maybe the most ridiculous thing you've posted on here.

Posted via CB10

[early2bed]

IHS’s Boyadjis estimates QNX will generate about $100 million in revenue this year, about 90% from the auto industry. Boyadjis assumed an average software license of about $3 per vehicle and QNX selling 20 million units.

So, you should be able to buy QNX for something like $300 million or about 10% of what Beats Electronics is worth.

[chickenman18]

Ford had Sync by Microsoft. It's time to call anything with QNX - "Powered By Blackberry"
It'll get Blackberry back in the minds if consumers in a positive light on a broad scale. And they'd get paid to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using CB Forums mobile app

[Tim Heard]

I think BlackBerry originally purchased it for $200 million.

Clearly the value of QNX is expected to grow, since it is related to what's about to be a big spike in revenue related to their Ford deal, as well as the potential of their IoT ventures. I can't remember which article it was that stated that the auto entertainment market was valued at around $41 billion. Apparently QNX is a dominant player in this niche, having relationships with 40 auto makers.

Looking ahead, it's likely that cars will be fitted with input devices, whether physical or bluetooth, that will allow you to connect your phone to your car and send and receive emails, or potentially even check out your car's vitals on your phone. Things like that will run on top of QNX.

So, you should be able to buy QNX for something like $300 million or about 10% of what Beats Electronics is worth.

[Tim Heard]

That does sound like a good idea. Or even less obtrusively having a BlackBerry log show up when the car starts.

Ford had Sync by Microsoft. It's time to call anything with QNX - "Powered By Blackberry"
It'll get Blackberry back in the minds if consumers in a positive light on a broad scale. And they'd get paid to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using CB Forums mobile app

[Dave Bourque]

I think people overegg the value of qnx - embedded systems licences go for buttons.

sent from my bright red Nexus 5

If Google masters say so it must be true!

Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.3175

[cgk]

Well it beats being wrong about everything - I mean... What have you ever been right about Dave? Anything? In the time I have been here every single prediction you have made has been wrong so your credibility is pretty low.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[spikesolie]

Well it beats being wrong about everything - I mean... What have you ever been right about Dave? Anything? In the time I have been here every single prediction you have made has been wrong so your credibility is pretty low.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

To be fair I've never seen you make an objective prediction either... you talk up Google so much as well its ridiculous. for one I refuse to believe Google is capable of providing 1/10th of the amount of innovative projects they set out on

Posted via CB10

[TgeekB]

I've been hearing no about QNX for three years now. Supposedly Ford will be using it but until I see it in mass numbers I'll wait to see. Other big companies like Google are not sitting still so it's not easy right now. The future holds the answer.

Posted via my Nexus 10.

[JeepBB]

IIRC, the reason BB bought QNX was that they needed a kernel for their new OS - initially for the Playbook, and then BB10.

They didn't have a suitable kernel, and had no time to develop one. I recall much talk at the time questioning whether $200M might have been too much to pay. I recall the consensus was that the price would be more than recouped once BB10 had conquered all before it and it would be seen as a wise investment.

This recent talk about BB gaining from QNX use in vehicles seems to have increased as realisation grows that BB aren't going to make their fortune from QNX in BB10 devices.
JBB

[early2bed]

I'm wondering whether QNX is really considered a growth opportunity in cars. Most of the mobile players are moving into the car space and bringing their value-added ecosystem functions of maps, messaging, language recognition, music, podcasts, etc. Even the connectivity will probably come from the smartphone data plan. I don't see what QNX is contributing that will get them anymore than their current $3 per vehicle.

John Chen admits that Blackberry can not offer a complete consumer ecosystem for smartphones. One would assume the same extends for their cars. QNX serves a utility function to run the touchscreen, sound system and car info but the content seems to be coming from the smartphone platform companies.

It's like comparing Sony TV or Vizio to Comcast or NBC Universal. One company sells you some hardware every few years and the other gets cable subscription fees, retransmission fees, ad revenue, pay per view, etc. The hardware business is a low-margin commodity. The content business is enormously profitable revenue stream.

[Playbook007]

I'm wondering whether QNX is really considered a growth opportunity in cars. Most of the mobile players are moving into the car space and bringing their value-added ecosystem functions of maps, messaging, language recognition, music, podcasts, etc. Even the connectivity will probably come from the smartphone data plan. I don't see what QNX is contributing that will get them anymore than their current $3 per vehicle.

John Chen admits that Blackberry can not offer a complete consumer ecosystem for smartphones. One would assume the same extends for their cars. QNX serves a utility function to run the touchscreen, sound system and car info but the content seems to be coming from the smartphone platform companies.

It's like comparing Sony TV or Vizio to Comcast or NBC Universal. One company sells you some hardware every few years and the other gets cable subscription fees, retransmission fees, ad revenue, pay per view, etc. The hardware business is a low-margin commodity. The content business is enormously profitable revenue stream.

In order to serve the auto industry you have to offer a purely stable system first, followed by the bells and whistles. The problem with Apple is that it is a closed system, so unless you have an Apple phone, well you wouldn't be buying the car. Also Apple tends to have its own lock ups which brings the whole system down, so does Microsoft, and so does Android. QNX is different in design. BB10 is the most stable device I have ever owned. It never crashes. Ford dropped Microsoft for its stability issues. Why did they not pick up Apple, Android? Why QNX? There is a solid reason for it.

Posted via CB10

[JeepBB]

In order to serve the auto industry you have to offer a purely stable system first, followed by the bells and whistles. The problem with Apple is that it is a closed system, so unless you have an Apple phone, well you wouldn't be buying the car. Also Apple tends to have its own lock ups which brings the whole system down, so does Microsoft, and so does Android. QNX is different in design. BB10 is the most stable device I have ever owned. It never crashes. Ford dropped Microsoft for its stability issues. Why did they not pick up Apple, Android? Why QNX? There is a solid reason for it.

Posted via CB10

There may indeed be a solid reason for picking QNX - it presumably owns 90% of that market for a good reason...

Still won't make BB rich though.

As was said above, supplying a per vehicle commodity item for a few dollars isn't where the money is - as with phones, it's the ecosystem that earns the big bucks, and BB doesn't have one (or at least one big enough to matter).

And, minor misrepresentation of the Apple system. I believe it works with any phone... it just does *more* if that phone is an iPhone. So, not a reason to *not* buy the car, more a good reason to buy a new iPhone for your new car. They call it marketing... Apple is pretty good at it.

[Witmen]

The thing I don't get about QNX is if it is so amazing, why did BlackBerry buy them?

QNX is really old. I remember my dad having the OS on a floppy when I was just a child. If I knew about QNX back then, I'm sure Microsoft, Google, Apple, so on and so on also knew about it.

If there is so much value in QNX, than why in the world did it take so long for a company to buy them and why did they get sold for just $200 million dollars?

We live in a world where oculus can never release a single retail product and still get bought for 2 billion dollars. A company that makes horribly overpriced headphones is worth 3 billion dollars. And we can't forget, a instant messaging app is worth 19 billion dollars.

If QNX is so important to the future of the world, than why is it BlackBerry picked them up for practically nothing?

[spikesolie]

The thing I don't get about QNX is if it is so amazing, why did BlackBerry buy them?

QNX is really old. I remember my dad having the OS on a floppy when I was just a child. If I knew about QNX back then, I'm sure Microsoft, Google, Apple, so on and so on also knew about it.

If there is so much value in QNX, than why in the world did it take so long for a company to buy them and why did they get sold for just $200 million dollars?

We live in a world where oculus can never release a single retail product and still get bought for 2 billion dollars. A company that makes horribly overpriced headphones is worth 3 billion dollars. And we can't forget, a instant messaging app is worth 19 billion dollars.

If QNX is so important to the future of the world, than why is it BlackBerry picked them up for practically nothing?

I'm guessing it's because of the whole "flashy promise" idealism. Occulus had flashy products that were considered to be revolutionary in ideas even if they didn't really release it. A lot of qnx has to do with working behind the clock so to speak.. it's not something you can see directly unless you tried to.... basically it does the dirty work.

From what I've learnt in pro sports (soccer & bb) the flashy scorers get the credits

Posted via CB10