[raino]

After reading a comment on the CB blog about the Q10 finally coming to Sprint on August 30th, I did some research as to who may have been responsible for this significant delay. While I cannot verify the components claim made by the commenter, I did find some data indicating that BB may be partially at fault for the delayed launch of this model. Rest of the blame may lie with Sprint, or as that commenter suggested, entirely with BB for not having the components in their supply chain.

Sprint's Q10 (SQN100-4, FCC ID L6ARFQ110LW) seems to have cleared the FCC on June 13, 2013. I was able to find this out by going to this page and entering the SQN100-4's FCC ID (which I got from the manual on BB's website.) All carrier models have been released on a date after the FCC clearance, and the Sprint model is the last to clear the FCC, and the last to release on a US carrier (see table below.)

Below is a table of my findings. I got the release and unboxing dates from crackberry.com articles. Something interesting I found out was that the SQN100-1, which cleared the FCC on April 17th, was ready for release on Telus as soon as April 29th, but was not released on AT&T until June 21st. Verizon and T-Mobile were relatively quicker in having their models physically available for purchase after FCC clearance.

Model	FCC ID	FCC clearance	US Carrier	Release date (on US carriers)	CB unboxing (US carrier model)
SQN100-1	L6ARFL110LW	4/17/2013	AT&T	6/21 (AT&T)	?
SQN100-2	L6ARFM120LW	5/7/2013	Verizon	6/6 (online), 6/10 (in-store)	6/10
SQN100-3	L6ARFN80UW	4/22/2013	No native US carriers	N/A	N/A
SQN100-5	L6ARFP120LW	5/3/2013	T-Mobile	? (business customers,) 6/5 (non-business customers)	5/13
SQN100-4	L6ARFQ110LW	6/13/2013	Sprint	8/30	N/A

So what do you guys think? Is Sprint unnecessarily shouldering all the blame? Can anyone verify the hardware shortage rumor in BB's pipeline?

[RJB55]

Well I've been with Sprint for over 15 years and they've always been the last to the party as far back as I can remember. So for me it's expected that Sprint will continue this tradition and set my expectations accordingly.. I know that doesn't answer your question directly but does give an historical perspective on Sprint's track record for rolling out pretty much anything new.

Nice chart by the way.

[OldSkoolVWLover]

I know enough about Sprint to know I won't trust em as far as I can throw em. They had Pre2 devices running on network before VZW or ATT launched, and they haulted the device. Personally happy to no longer be on Sprint, and after watching them kill webOS on their network, I am fine with anyone and everyone blaming Sprint.

[howarmat]

Sprint also has a ton of iphones it needs to move so i can see that as a slight deterance in getting the Q10 to the market.

[raino]

If the radio/chip component comment I linked to in my OP is not true, then yes, Sprint may be to blame for the delay after June 13th (maybe July 13-17 realistically, based upon the VZ and TMO patterns.)

But why did the Sprint Q10 model clear so late at the FCC? Was it sent for inspection correspondingly late too? That's where BB may be to blame.

[lnichols]

It is a one off device to a small user base because it is CDMA and LTE on different frequencies than Verizon! T-Mobile may be a smaller carrier but they are using technologies,frequencies, and standards that many other carriers use. So Sprint is to blame for the poor and late LTE adoption plan.

Posted via CB10

[raino]

It is a one off device to a small user base because it is CDMA and LTE on different frequencies than Verizon! T-Mobile may be a smaller carrier but they are using technologies,frequencies, and standards that many other carriers use.

Good point! The Verizon and Sprint Q10 variants are basically made for these two carriers only, and Sprint is the smaller one of the two.

But your post does not explain why the Sprint Q10 was cleared so late. Did BB send it for approval later than the other variants? They even got the ROW 100-3 model cleared sooner than the Sprint Q10!

[raino]

Another comment from the radio/processors guy:

As someone who worked for a major boardset build contractor for General Dynamics, delays on the delivery of chips, processors, semi-conductors, and boardsets can create major havoc, and Blackberry is not exempt from those. That is why I keep insisting in asking both parties at the same time (Sprint and Blackberry) to explain the reasons for the delays.
Also, there are several regional carriers on the same situation thanks to this delay, otherwise we would have seen the FCC documentation for it by now. However, people go the easy way and blame Sprint for the delays, even accusing them of not wanting to release a Blackberry device with a touchscreen because of the iPhone deal (they did not dish out 15.6 Billion to Apple immediately, and they are paying THE SAME cost all other carriers in the US are paying, so stop this nonsense of a reason).

[lnichols]

Good point! The Verizon and Sprint Q10 variants are basically made for these two carriers only, and Sprint is the smaller one of the two.

But your post does not explain why the Sprint Q10 was cleared so late. Did BB send it for approval later than the other variants? They even got the ROW 100-3 model cleared sooner than the Sprint Q10!

Because the frequency they use for LTE, plus CDMA support makes it a device basically just for Sprint. Device made forT-Mobile and AT&T can be sold many other places, Verizon has a ton of subscribers. Why put a lit of effort into a company that has few subs and refused to sell the Z10? It is a business! And the other carriers put in more effort (even if not great) than Sprint did!

Posted via CB10

[raino]

Why put a lit of effort into a company that has few subs and refused to sell the Z10? It is a business! And the other carriers put in more effort (even if not great) than Sprint did!

LOL so you are saying that BB did indeed thumb its nose (I mean...make a business decision) at Sprint?

[lnichols]

LOL so you are saying that BB did indeed thumb its nose (I mean...make a business decision) at Sprint?

I'm saying they decided to make their lower selling, Sprint specific, Q10 offering last and it cleared the FCC last! The Z10 in the US was likely delayed because of waiting for the Verizon one to clear the FCC as it didn't clear till March but AT&T and T-mobile devices cleaeed in January. It is not thumbing it's nose, BlackBerry simply couldn't afford to delay a device desperately needed to possibly generate Bb10 growth.

Posted via CB10

[OldSkoolVWLover]

Good point! The Verizon and Sprint Q10 variants are basically made for these two carriers only, and Sprint is the smaller one of the two.

But your post does not explain why the Sprint Q10 was cleared so late. Did BB send it for approval later than the other variants? They even got the ROW 100-3 model cleared sooner than the Sprint Q10!

Could always be that Sprint didn't finalize a contract as soon as other US carriers did...

[raino]

Could always be that Sprint didn't finalize a contract as soon as other US carriers did...

Interesting point. This model became public, at the very latest, on 5/17/2013. Is it common for BB to announce devices before an agreement is in place?

Also, I wonder when the manufacturing would have started.

[RJB55]

I'm curious as to why this level of details matters to you, you seem to have more than a passing interest in finding out if BBRY somehow impacted Sprint's launch date for the Q10. So are you doing research for an article or perhaps some other reason?

[FrankPCS]

BlackBerry can send whatever it wants to the FCC and it can clear. It'd be up to Sprint to approve the device for its network. Whatever Sprint requested BlackBerry to build into their Q10, most likely Sprint didn't like it. Maybe it lacked Sprint's proprietary HD Voice or the software/hardware played havoc on the network - in the end I would think Sprint had a hand in its delay. Of course I wouldn't lay it all on Sprint, it'd also depend on how fast BlackBerry sent revisions to Sprint and we all know how well BlackBerry has stuck to deadlines.

Posted via CB10

[raino]

I'm curious as to why this level of details matters to you, you seem to have more than a passing interest in finding out if BBRY somehow impacted Sprint's launch date for the Q10. So are you doing research for an article or perhaps some other reason?

No particular reason. I just found it utterly ridiculous that one of the Big Four does not have a BB10 phone out yet, so I wanted to find out who's fault that might be. Initially, I blamed Sprint completely, but after reading the comment I linked to in my OP, I wanted to prove the guy wrong. But when I did the FCC search, the late approval really surprised me, and now has me believing that Sprint alone may not be completely at fault here.

[sleepngbear]

Sprint also has a ton of iphones it needs to move so i can see that as a slight deterance in getting the Q10 to the market.

I would love to know more about these phones that carriers 'have to move'. At whose insistence is this volume clause required, the carriers or Apple? If it's Apple, seems to me there's more than a little bit of unfair trade practices going on. Maybe they're not a monopoly, but they sure are exerting their market dominance in a way that is less than competitive.

[howarmat]

I would love to know more about these phones that carriers 'have to move'. At whose insistence is this volume clause required, the carriers or Apple? If it's Apple, seems to me there's more than a little bit of unfair trade practices going on. Maybe they're not a monopoly, but they sure are exerting their market dominance in a way that is less than competitive.

from my understanding when the carriers signed the contracts they promises to bring in a certain amount of $$$ and if they didnt they had a penalty to pay apple. Hard to say how much is true and what is media exaggeration,

[RJB55]

No particular reason. I just found it utterly ridiculous that one of the Big Four does not have a BB10 phone out yet, so I wanted to find out who's fault that might be. Initially, I blamed Sprint completely, but after reading the comment I linked to in my OP, I wanted to prove the guy wrong. But when I did the FCC search, the late approval really surprised me, and now has me believing that Sprint alone may not be completely at fault here.

Thanks for the explanation.

[sleepngbear]

from my understanding when the carriers signed the contracts they promises to bring in a certain amount of $$$ and if they didnt they had a penalty to pay apple. Hard to say how much is true and what is media exaggeration,

True. But what I'd like to know is if that promise is/was a prerequisite to getting the contract in the first place. I guess if nobody is holding a gun to the carriers' heads, then it's not unfair competition because the carrier can always choose to simply not sell the brand. And walk away from a lot of money in the process.

There was a time that Honda motorcycles did something similar with their dealers (don't know if they're still doing it or not) where if a dealer wanted to sell Hondas along with other brands, they had to have twice as many Hondas in stock as any of the other brands. #1, it made it really difficult on dealers, and #2, guess which brand those dealers were more likely to push on new motorcycle buyers. Fair? Ethical? Or simply taking advantage of their stronger market position? Only your hairdresser knows for sure.

[raino]

True. But what I'd like to know is if that promise is/was a prerequisite to getting the contract in the first place. I guess if nobody is holding a gun to the carriers' heads, then it's not unfair competition because the carrier can always choose to simply not sell the brand. And walk away from a lot of money in the process.

But if such a binding contract affects the market in general (to the point where customers are pretty much being walked into ONE choice,) isn't that anti-competitive? In other words, what they do to Sprint may not be anti-competitive, but vis a vis other handset makers, it is?

[howarmat]

its hard to say. VZW now has 3 more droid offerings that they will push since droid is a trademarked brand for only VZW. I am sure there are always reasons why a vendor pushes certain phones over another.

[Jon Tessler]

i highly doubt that BB is at fault here. I posted in the sprint forum in various threads that I spoke DIRECTLY with a Sprint government sales rep back in may and his EXACT QUOTE to me was "I want to sell the phones BUT SPRINT KEEPS PUSHING THE RELEASE DATE BACK, Now it is August at the earliest".

I got a lot of flack for saying this, but it seems that my source, a guy who makes multi-million dollar DOD sales was right on the button 3 months go.

the people who want to make excuses for Sprint either work for them, or just don't want to see them getting bashed for their bad company decisions.

[raino]

i highly doubt that BB is at fault here. I posted in the sprint forum in various threads that I spoke DIRECTLY with a Sprint government sales rep back in may and his EXACT QUOTE to me was "I want to sell the phones BUT SPRINT KEEPS PUSHING THE RELEASE DATE BACK, Now it is August at the earliest".

I don't know how your rep could have been telling you in May that Sprint was pushing the date back, considering that the Sprint Q10 didn't clear the FCC until June. Could he have been trying to not lose you as a customer?

[OldSkoolVWLover]

But if such a binding contract affects the market in general (to the point where customers are pretty much being walked into ONE choice,) isn't that anti-competitive? In other words, what they do to Sprint may not be anti-competitive, but vis a vis other handset makers, it is?

The only thing I can say, minimum sales numbers is not really any different from exclusivity contracts in my eyes. I would say the exclusivity contracts are worse because you are forced to a certain provider rather than the carrier of your choice.