02-22-16 07:55 PM
316 12345 ...
tools
  1. kbz1960's Avatar
    The iphone gaining more users doesn't mean that BB was loosing users, they both kept growing, one just at a much faster rate.
    True. But something was going wrong or they wouldn't had done what they did.
    01-05-14 01:16 PM
  2. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    True. But something was going wrong or they wouldn't had done what they did.
    You mean banking their future of an illusion? Because that's what BB10 was at that time, nothing more then an idea that didn't pan out. Basically they traded the bird in their hand for the one in the bush. Knowing what we know now about BB10 it was nothing more then a gamble.
    01-05-14 01:19 PM
  3. lnichols's Avatar
    They were losing users in established markets where they were making money on higher profit hardware and higher service fees (full services, BES), and replacing them with hardware that they were making little or losing money in emerging markets and lower end service fees too (BBM/Social only plans). They realized that business model associated with BBOS and BIS was not sustainable as eventually the emerging markets would become like the established ones and that they needed to transition.
    01-05-14 01:22 PM
  4. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    If QNX was so good and it's the future for BB how come nobody thought of turning it into a real OS in the last 30 years? Sure it's perfect as an imbedded OS but as a mobile OS? It was all every obvious in the PB OS where no apps can talk together, they all work separate.
    01-05-14 01:25 PM
  5. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    They were losing users in established markets where they were making money on higher profit hardware and higher service fees (full services, BES), and replacing them with hardware that they were making little or losing money in emerging markets and lower end service fees too (BBM/Social only plans). They realized that business model associated with BBOS and BIS was not sustainable as eventually the emerging markets would become like the established ones and that they needed to transition.
    That could well be true but what's also true is BB10 the way it is now was not the answer to that problem, in fact BB10 heartily accelerated their problems, correct?
    01-05-14 01:32 PM
  6. Bbnivende's Avatar
    Once Jakarta has a successful launch and BB can make a cheaper physical keyboard phone we will see this type of news article.

    The end of Symbian: Nokia ships last handset with the mobile OS | PCWorld
    01-05-14 01:35 PM
  7. lnichols's Avatar
    That could well be true but what's also true is BB10 the way it is now was not the answer to that problem, in fact BB10 heartily accelerated their problems, correct?
    I don't think so. If they were still using BBOS only, they would still be losing customers in the established markets, and low cost Android would still be taking away customers in emerging markets. Doing nothing would have had them trying to do a transition now. The market has spoken: given affordable and more capable alternatives to BBOS the customers will go to the alternatives. The fact that BlackBerry has botched the transition from the PlayBook to the Bb10 launch to the pathetic Z30 rollout doesn't mean a transition wasn't needed, it means BlackBerry failed to execute. I know of BB10 rollouts that are getting ready to start in the US Federal space, without BB10 I can tell you that those customers would be transitioning away from BlackBerry to any other FIPS approved solution as high level people in these organizations want devices that can do way more than BBOS is capable of.
    01-05-14 01:49 PM
  8. rthonpm's Avatar
    If QNX was so good and it's the future for BB how come nobody thought of turning it into a real OS in the last 30 years? Sure it's perfect as an imbedded OS but as a mobile OS? It was all every obvious in the PB OS where no apps can talk together, they all work separate.
    For one thing, a mobile device doesn't need more than an embedded OS: the overlying applications just need a watchdog to control memory allocation. As to why no one did it before: why couldn't Microsoft or anyone else develop a decent tablet until the 2000's: the hardware wasn't there yet to do it.

    Overall, saying BlackBerry didn't need to move on from BBOS is like saying that Windows 3.1 could work as a modern computer operating system. Time passes all platforms by and BBOS had its time come and go.

    Posted via CB10
    web99 and neoberry99 like this.
    01-05-14 01:51 PM
  9. lnichols's Avatar
    If QNX was so good and it's the future for BB how come nobody thought of turning it into a real OS in the last 30 years? Sure it's perfect as an imbedded OS but as a mobile OS? It was all every obvious in the PB OS where no apps can talk together, they all work separate.
    Android used Linux (free) and Apple based theirs on BSD and the Mach Kernel (Free). Windows built their own. None of these options have the security credentials of QNX. I know you aren't a fan of BB10, but from the security perspective and how the certifications are so flexible for it compare to the competition, it is superior to all of them and BBOS from how flexible it is to get certified. Apple and Google didn't care abiut security and developed on top of freelh abailable options, BlackBerry did care and bought the solution they built off of.
    southlander likes this.
    01-05-14 02:29 PM
  10. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    For one thing, a mobile device doesn't need more than an embedded OS: the overlying applications just need a watchdog to control memory allocation. As to why no one did it before: why couldn't Microsoft or anyone else develop a decent tablet until the 2000's: the hardware wasn't there yet to do it.

    Overall, saying BlackBerry didn't need to move on from BBOS is like saying that Windows 3.1 could work as a modern computer operating system. Time passes all platforms by and BBOS had its time come and go.

    Posted via CB10
    They did need to do something but it wasn't the BBOS experience/UI that needed changed, that's for sure. Most people wouldn't care what was powering the OS as long as they saw performance improvements.
    xanadome likes this.
    01-05-14 02:32 PM
  11. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    Android used Linux (free) and Apple based theirs on BSD and the Mach Kernel (Free). Windows built their own. None of these options have the security credentials of QNX. I know you aren't a fan of BB10, but from the security perspective and how the certifications are so flexible for it compare to the competition, it is superior to all of them and BBOS from how flexible it is to get certified. Apple and Google didn't care abiut security and developed on top of freelh abailable options, BlackBerry did care and bought the solution they built off of.
    That means absolutely 0 to a consumer or even a small business owner/self employed person.
    01-05-14 02:35 PM
  12. Joao Oliveira's Avatar
    OS7 is massively outdated when it comes to "entertainment"... It performs flawlessly at comunication, but in things like apps, media consumption and internet browsing, is pretty poor for today's standards, and a lot of people today use their phone more to play than comunicating
    01-05-14 02:40 PM
  13. lnichols's Avatar
    That means absolutely 0 to a consumer or even a small business owner/self employed person.
    You are correct. But it does matter to many of their regulated customers. So if you can serve them, consumers, and others with the same product then isn't that a good thing? In the end they had to build the new OS off of something, and they chose QNX and bought the company.

    It took Apple almost 4 years to get iOS FIPS approved and it is onoy version 6 and only specific devices. BB10 was FIPS approved at release on every device that runs it. And the Z30 didn't need to be tested when it came out because of the way the cert was written.
    01-05-14 02:49 PM
  14. kbz1960's Avatar
    You mean banking their future of an illusion? Because that's what BB10 was at that time, nothing more then an idea that didn't pan out. Basically they traded the bird in their hand for the one in the bush. Knowing what we know now about BB10 it was nothing more then a gamble.
    I guess we'll never know but I think sticking with BBOS would've been a gamble too. I thought they started being in trouble about 3 or 4 years ago? I know you think they spent all their time and money on BB10 and that is where all the loss is. And yes BBOS phones out sold BB10 phones so far but I don't think the sales of only BBOS phones, if BB10 never happened, would have changed where they are today. But again we'll never know because that isn't the path they choose.
    m1kr0 likes this.
    01-05-14 03:24 PM
  15. hanexs's Avatar
    Pretty unanimous response that they needed a new OS.

    Some things I still don't get, most people cite how slow the OS was, but I always thought it had a lot to do with the underpowered hardware in the devices.

    Also some comments on the difficulty of making an OS "crash less", as a coder I understand that it is hard to make an OS "crash less", but of course it is much harder to make two OS's "crash less" which it seems that is what RIM has signed up for.

    Also comments about the GUI, but I don't see how the GUI is related to the OS, most of those things could be brought into any OS.

    I guess I can understand that the source just wasn't maintained well, and it was just less work to sort that out, then it would be to start fresh.... that kind of makes sense, but I wonder when IOS or Android, will have to do this. Seems unlikely to happen in the near future.

    Also the licensing fees to Oracle made a lot of sense, I didn't know they had to pay Oracle for each device!

    Just seems like a lot of work, to accelerate the tanking of the company. I wonder what they could of done with all those resources put to something else, with a common vision. But I guess hindsight is 20/20

    Thanks for your responses either way, time to go back to my 9900 for now
    xanadome likes this.
    01-05-14 09:26 PM
  16. dkonigs's Avatar
    Some things I still don't get, most people cite how slow the OS was, but I always thought it had a lot to do with the underpowered hardware in the devices.
    The Bold 9900 was basically their attempt to put sufficiently-high-powered hardware behind BBOS. It does perform significantly better than all of the older devices, and basically wowed everyone reviewing it when it was new.

    However, it still suffers from all the same software problems as all of their other devices. It just has a lot more "wiggle room" before they start getting in your way.
    Problems such as:
    • Shared Java VM across all apps, causing side-effects from "heavier" apps
    • Random freezes with a spinning clock (Java garbage collector), especially during the first 10-20 minutes after booting
    • Separate "Application Memory" space that gradually shrinks the longer its been since your last battery pull
    • Having to reboot the device whenever you upgrade or uninstall an app
    • Having to regularly reboot the device due to issues caused by all of the above


    I bought my Bold 9900 basically at release day for my carrier. I upgraded to the BlackBerry 10 on a Z10 the instant the platform became available to me. (which was even earlier than the general public, being a developer with test devices) I have not once had even the slightest desire to go back. If BB10 were to completely fail, I'd sooner switch platforms than ever go back to BBOS as an everyday device.
    serbanescu and kbz1960 like this.
    01-05-14 09:57 PM
  17. extisis's Avatar
    It seems unfortunate for BB to have two OS's to support.
    it's like you got two pets when you can only afford to maintain one, monetarily and/or by other means. you got that 15 year old dog (BBOS) that you don't want to get rid of because people like it and love petting it so much that you just have to keep it around. then you went and bought that awesome exotic Bengal cat (BB10) and didn't know what to do. still providing promises to the people that love that old a$$ dog.
    Last edited by extisis; 01-05-14 at 10:36 PM.
    01-05-14 10:01 PM
  18. extisis's Avatar
    but I wonder when IOS or Android, will have to do this. Seems unlikely to happen in the near future.
    you know, i like how pretty iOS7 is just not that actuality of the OS. it's iOS1-6 just prettier with colors and now with BlackBerry gestures, go figure. anyway, i always said if they changed that OS somehow i might get into it. just the apps alone is all iOS has and i'd rather have more core features. i like android but the fact that it's an open OS (Kindle uses android f.y.i.) and carriers load malware, blah blah security probs. Just gimme my BlackBerry !
    01-05-14 10:09 PM
  19. thedustytaco's Avatar
    They wanted to build on top of qnx something they recently purchased. Not just that bbos 7 wasnt capable of handling other new functions found in bb10
    01-05-14 11:25 PM
  20. Gearheadaddy's Avatar
    Windows supports XP, Vista, 7, and 8. As technology advances there is and always will be a need to create new operating systems. Blackberry stayed with the old BBOS alone, almost too long. BB10 should have come out sooner. Not that it could have. And yes, Blackberry does need the 2 os's right now. In the future they may need 3. If they do need 3, I really hope they push the third out if necessary to stay up there in the safest, most secure platform. After all, Chevy, Ford and Chrysler do have more than one model car...Options...yes choices are necessary for survival. My grandfather always said, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket"...because if you trip and fall, you break them all and end up with none.
    WhiteBerry likes this.
    01-06-14 12:25 AM
  21. extisis's Avatar
    Windows supports XP, Vista, 7, and 8. As technology advances there is and always will be a need to create new operating systems. Blackberry stayed with the old BBOS alone, almost too long. BB10 should have come out sooner. Not that it could have. And yes, Blackberry does need the 2 os's right now. In the future they may need 3. If they do need 3...
    i do remember using Windows Mobile 6.1 (before my 9800) and they did a similar transition in OS development when developing Windows 7 and 8 for Mobile. the timeline for that was about the same time BBRY has took to develop BlackBerry Tablet OS for the flopped PlayBook, then developed BB10. W7 & 8 coexisted for a while and actually had apps that were able to be ported between both OS's. Mind you, Windows 7 Mobile was still using the Windows CE-based architecture. Now, that scenario isn't too practical for BBRY as these are two OS's that have almost nothing to do with each other. Having 3 of these suckers roaming the planet? that's just crazy. BlackBerry10 is fine, and imagine how better it'll be once it gets to 10.3+ and the next wave of BB10 phones come.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    01-06-14 12:41 AM
  22. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    O.P

    Yes they do.

    Thnx

    Posted via CB10
    01-06-14 01:16 AM
  23. Phone Guy 4567's Avatar
    Their big mistake was not future proofing the 9900 series enough to allow it to be updated to BB10. As far as I can recall not too long after its release BB10 was announced & RIM said the 9900 would not be upgradable to it. RIM basically told people that their current flagship device was a dead end, a dead end that wasn't quickly replaced with a new BB10 device.
    01-06-14 01:26 AM
  24. extisis's Avatar
    Their big mistake was not future proofing the 9900 series enough to allow it to be updated to BB10. As far as I can recall not too long after its release BB10 was announced & RIM said the 9900 would not be upgradable to it. RIM basically told people that their current flagship device was a dead end, a dead end that wasn't quickly replaced with a new BB10 device.
    no amount of tweaks to the architecture of a BBOS device would allow it to have the ability to run BB10. look at the PlayBook... new(er) hardware... was still not able to run BB10 (properly). I wouldn't consider the 9900 a dead end device as plenty of people are still using it.
    rthonpm likes this.
    01-06-14 02:45 AM
  25. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    I just read about supporting BB7 indefintely, and it makes me wonder, why did BB need to change OS's at all? I mean, there are a lot of things I like about bb10, but when I look at my 9900, I don't really see why they couldnt have modified the OS instead of creating a whole new one and burning a whole 2-3 years doing so.

    For those of you that know a bit more of what would be involved, would it have been easier to:

    introduce the peek and flow concepts to BBOS,
    make BBOS crash less
    and upgrade the ram and cpu to work at an acceptable speed?

    I love BB10, but when I loook at my 9900, I think all it needed was a LOT more speed (ram and cpu), some more stability, a non crappy camera, and a lot more apps. How hard would it have been for them to do this instead of building a whole new os?

    Or did they really just hit a wall with the OS and they couldnt improve it anymore? It seems unfortunate for BB to have two OS's to support.
    What you describe here is basically ... building a brand new OS/platform (at least a major revision).
    Also don't forget that Java based OS implies a lot of royalty fees.
    01-06-14 04:00 AM
316 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Mac Users: OS 10.2.1.1925 improves icloud integration
    By blackburberry in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-27-14, 10:24 PM
  2. Os 10 greater quality than Android OS
    By zten in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 201
    Last Post: 01-05-14, 04:35 PM
  3. Can't get Sachesi to install os to my phone
    By jamiemarksberry in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 01-04-14, 11:20 PM
  4. Downgrading OS to official carrier release
    By Imthiyaz Hameed in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-04-14, 10:27 AM
  5. Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-04-14, 09:14 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD