[belfastdispatcher]

Clearly you haven't used BB10...

Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.1925

Did you reply to the wrong post or something because it doesn't make much sense.

[belfastdispatcher]

BlackBerry are losing Billions every quarter. I don't think it would make much difference if half those BBOS sales hadn't been there such is the low margin they get from the devices and the fact that carriers are charging less and less for BIS and BES after negotiating for less and less service revenue to BlackBerry due to their weak position.

But God bless those Luddites with incredibly poor taste in phones for their contribution.

Posted via CB10 on Z30 STA100-2 on O2 UK - Activated on BES10.2

Wow, so liking BBOS means you have poor taste in phones? LMAO

[lnichols]

Proof? Or is this just your opinion?

And you have proof that BBOS could support more RAM, better processors, etc? Based on how they always kept the memory and processors levels at low levels on BBOS devices, it points more to limitations in the OS. Your statements that they just needed to throw more hardware at BBOS are opinion.

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

And you have proof that BBOS could support more RAM, better processors, etc? Based on how they always kept the memory and processors levels at low levels on BBOS devices, it points more to limitations in the OS. Your statements that they just needed to throw more hardware at BBOS are opinion.

Posted via CB10

The historical proof so far is that RAM has increased with every new generation, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the RAM is the last generation was the limit.

This is also supported about how they kept all other specs to a minimum compared to other platforms at the same time. BlackBerrys have always been a few years back in the specs race. Example, while Curve 8300 was top of the line you could buy HTC with 3G, GPS complete with tomtom navigation, wifi, front facing camera complete with video calling.

There is absolutely no reason to believe it was the most the OS could support.

[MarsupilamiX]

The historical proof so far is that RAM has increased with every new generation, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the RAM is the last generation was the limit.

This is also supported about how they kept all other specs to a minimum compared to other platforms at the same time. BlackBerrys have always been a few years back in the specs race. Example, while Curve 8300 was top of the line you could buy HTC with 3G, GPS complete with tomtom navigation, wifi, front facing camera complete with video calling.

There is absolutely no reason to believe it was the most the OS could support.

There is no reason to believe, that your opinion has more credibility, than the other one.
And you should know that by now.

If past behaviour would be any indication....
Then:
1) BlackBerry would still be the number one in the mobile space.
2) BBOS wouldn't be the most outdated and obsolete platform on the market.
3) RIMM would still be governed by Co-CEOs.

You can't prove your POV. It's impossible for you.

To answer the question of the OP though:
Of course BlackBerry needed a new OS.
To seriously question that, shows a deep misunderstanding of the market.
In the times of BBOS 6, it was already clear what consumers want from a phone, and it was clear that it wasn't BBOS.

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

There is no reason to believe, that your opinion has more credibility, than the other one.
And you should know that by now.

If past behaviour would be any indication....
Then:
1) BlackBerry would still be the number one in the mobile space.
2) BBOS wouldn't be the most outdated and obsolete platform on the market.
3) RIMM would still be governed by Co-CEOs.

You can't prove your POV. It's impossible for you.

To answer the question of the OP though:
Of course BlackBerry needed a new OS.
To seriously question that, shows a deep misunderstanding of the market.
In the times of BBOS 6, it was already clear what consumers want from a phone, and it was clear that it wasn't BBOS.

Posted via CB10

It's all opinions without the actual facts, but saying the 768mb was the absolute limit for BBOS is a specific and bold statement requiring some sort of backup proof as opposed to a general belief that there was room for improvements.

[RubberChicken76]

It's all opinions without the actual facts, but saying the 768mb was the absolute limit for BBOS is a specific and bold statement requiring some sort of backup proof as opposed to a general belief that there was room for improvements.

In 2011, RIM released the BlackBerry PlayBook, then later the BlackBerry Bold 9900.

The BlackBerry bold 9900 had 8 GB of storage, yet only had 768 MB to store apps on. The PlayBooks came in 16, 32, and 64 GB of storage and could store apps in that 16, 32, and 64 GB storage.

The Bold 9900 had a single core processor in an era where dual cores were becoming more common. The PlayBook meanwhile, had a dual core processor as well ... and made use of it.

How can you think that BBOS didn't have some serious limitations that prevented it from making use of certain technologies?

[Bbnivende]

It's all opinions without the actual facts, but saying the 768mb was the absolute limit for BBOS is a specific and bold statement requiring some sort of backup proof as opposed to a general belief that there was room for improvements.

The Dark Side of BlackBerry OS and Why it Had to Go - N4BB

[MarsupilamiX]

It's all opinions without the actual facts, but saying the 768mb was the absolute limit for BBOS is a specific and bold statement requiring some sort of backup proof as opposed to a general belief that there was room for improvements.

I am far more inclined to go with the thought of 768 MB being the limit, since we haven't seen any devices with BBOS and more RAM.
And if 768 MB wasn't the limit where the OS "sees" more RAM, it probably was the threshold where the user can't notice serious performance upgrades anymore.

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

The Dark Side of BlackBerry OS and Why it Had to Go - N4BB

Sorry, is that supposed to be proof?

[belfastdispatcher]

I am far more inclined to go with the thought of 768 MB being the limit, since we haven't seen any devices with BBOS and more RAM.
And if 768 MB wasn't the limit where the OS "sees" more RAM, it probably was the threshold where the user can't notice serious performance upgrades anymore.

Posted via CB10

Good for you, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Please excuse me while I ignore it.

[mkelley65]

This paragraph says it all, nothing to do with the OS, it's lack of hardware:

"You see, BlackBerry OS runs its apps and OS from only 768 Mb of system memory and has no other RAM for the applications to run in, as on other smartphone platforms or computers. They run where they are installed. This can be beneficial for security reasons. Plus, you can run as many apps simultaneously as you have installed. Every app will just pop open, no matter how many apps are running. The device memory, on the other hand, is where you keep your files and other documents you�ve saved to your BlackBerry. This is in the gigabyte range on BlackBerry 7 phones, and isn�t something that affects the performance at all."

You totally missed the first line where it defines the limit of the BBOS.

[belfastdispatcher]

You totally missed the first line where it defines the limit of the BBOS.

Dude, that's because that's how much ram the BB7 range had, it was much lower on BB6 and waaaay lower on BB5 and BB4.

You're taking it out of context and that's in no way proof that's the actual limit.

[RubberChicken76]

Sorry, is that supposed to be proof?

Seriously dude - you're really, really clinging to a false hope that BlackBerry OS didn't have some massive limitations in terms of what its platform supported. I get that you prefer the experience to meet your needs, but come on.

Why is it the PlayBook had these massive games that were gigs in size and yet BlackBerry 7 did not - despite having much, much, much larger userbases? The platform didn't support it ...

[rthonpm]

Good for you, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Please excuse me while I ignore it.

More for you to ignore....

RIM explains app memory in OS 7 BlackBerry devices

Written by crackberry's own contributor Simon Sage no less...

[MarsupilamiX]

Good for you, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Please excuse me while I ignore it.

Ignore it, refute it, or accept it.
I don't care about your anachronistic views for quite some time now, anyway.

I wouldn't even have responded, if your post wouldn't have tried to elevate your opinions to facts.
And you love to do that in your posts.

But please, carry on with the role of the martyr.
Since you acknowledged yourself, that BlackBerry needed a new OS, I don't understand your strange position, anyhow.

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

More for you to ignore....

RIM explains app memory in OS 7 BlackBerry devices

Written by crackberry's own contributor Simon Sage no less...

Can you point me where it says 768mb is the absolute ram limit for BBOS?

[BlackBerry Guy]

Looking at BlackBerry's actions (limited upgrades to BBOS and hardware, purchase of QNX) with a dash of common sense would suggest that to upgrade BBOS to be competitive with modern OSs was either impossible or at the very least prohibitively resource and time draining to do. If they could've kept going with BBOS, you know they would've, given how established it is, the infrastructure built around it, and their attempts to modernize it in the later versions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hanexs]

Everyone that is quoting ram limits are ignoring the fact that development can change the limits (and frequently does, there are many examples of OSs changing their max ram limit with an update). Unfortunately there aren't a lot of people responding with inside or experienced knowledge on how many manhours it would take to overcome this barrier. We know that BB10 took significant effort to develop, years in fact and it even led to a schism within the company that was unhealkthy. Could this time be used to make BBOS competitive, to increase its RAM limit, and would it have kept the company more united then it is now, I am not sure but thought it was an interesting question.

Is it a significant effort to change these things? How does it compare to building a whole new OS? I don't know, but I doubt it is an easy question to answer.

Furthermore, from a marketing perspective, how positive was the allure of a new modern OS coming out, how did this compare to the losses of blackberry telling its customers its phones were garbage for YEARS because they were building something new and better and that anyone who needed to upgrade should wait or switch to other phones. How can you market a product when the company keeps saying "the good product is coming out next year, or the year after that, oh wait 6 more months". What would the advantage of incremental "getting better every month" type updates, with every phone and every release having a couple more things be, instead of the message of "we dont update our phones there all the same thing for years, but wait and see in a couple years were going to have something awesome" and then when it comes out its not awesome cause its a new OS and of course there are kinks to work out. How damaging was this to its userbase?

Would it really have been that hard to put a front facing camera on my 9900, I bet it would have been... but then again how does that effort compare to building a new OS?

Was BBOS not getting better because it could NOT get better, or was it because they were focussed on something else? I imagine the answer is obviously a bit of both. But its an interesting thing to discuss.

[kbz1960]

Can you point me where it says 768mb is the absolute ram limit for BBOS?

Not easy to find. Most I find is bbos is based on j2me.

[MarsupilamiX]

Everyone that is quoting ram limits are ignoring the fact that development can change the limits (and frequently does, there are many examples of OSs changing their max ram limit with an update). Unfortunately there aren't a lot of people responding with inside or experienced knowledge on how many manhours it would take to overcome this barrier. We know that BB10 took significant effort to develop, years in fact and it even led to a schism within the company that was unhealkthy. Could this time be used to make BBOS competitive, to increase its RAM limit, and would it have kept the company more united then it is now, I am not sure but thought it was an interesting question.

Is it a significant effort to change these things? How does it compare to building a whole new OS? I don't know, but I doubt it is an easy question to answer.

Would it really have been that hard to put a front facing camera on my 9900, I bet it would have been... but then again how does that effort compare to building a new OS?

Was BBOS not getting better because it could NOT get better, or was it because they were focussed on something else? I imagine the answer is obviously a bit of both. But its an interesting thing to discuss.

That BBOS still has things like the Spinning Clock, memory leaks and needs battery pulls in its 7.1th iteration, should give you the answer already.

They couldn't fix the limitations of their OS, in 10+ years.
If that in and on itself doesn't say enough about the capabilities BBOS hasn't, then I do wonder what would do it.

When someone compares OS7 phones, with phones like the iPhone 4 or the Galaxy S2, it becomes so obvious that BBOS itself is an anachronism, left behind from a time where a smartphone had to have a keyboard and email management was everything one wanted from his phone.

These days are long gone now, as are the days of BBOS.

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

That BBOS still has things like the Spinning Clock, memory leaks and needs battery pulls in its 7.1th iteration, should give you the answer already.

They couldn't fix the limitations of their OS, in 10+ years.
If that in and on itself doesn't say enough about the capabilities BBOS hasn't, then I do wonder what would do it.

When someone compares OS7 phones, with phones like the iPhone 4 or the Galaxy S2, it becomes so obvious that BBOS itself is an anachronism, left behind from a time where a smartphone had to have a keyboard and email management was everything one wanted from his phone.

These days are long gone now, as are the days of BBOS.

Posted via CB10

That's only proof of their incompetence, after all, BB10 is a big failure.

[sleepngbear]

This conversation is not about BB10, it is about its predecessor. Regardless of how well BB10 has or hasn't done so far -- which can also be construed as a sign of incompetence of previous management -- it is here to stay, or at least here as long as BlackBerry is around. I think it's a pretty safe bet that they are not going to retreat from it now. The question is whether or not BBOS needed to be replaced, and the success or failure of BB10 has absolutely no relevance to that question.

That being said, legacy BBOS had run its course. Everything that could possibly have been wrung from it was wrung from it. It was not going to spur the kind of growth the company needed in the current landscape, because it would continue to appeal to only those it had previously appealed to, no more, but likely less and less as time goes on. BB7 was a bandaid to keep the ship afloat until it's successor could arrive. And while many of us were quite happy with that effort, it went as far as it could go, complete with all of the things that have been turning off new users and existing users alike. I was willing to live with them, you were willing to live with them, maybe a few million other users and businesses would be willing to live with them, but it had reached the proverbial end of the road. There's no other way to put it.

Could BBRY have found a better solution than QNX? Maybe, maybe not. Could BBRY have executed BB10 better? Absolutely. Could/should BBRY have made BB10 more BBOS-like? That is certainly a good topic for discussion. But none of that changes the fact that they could not survive much longer with BBOS alone, and they would quite likely be in even worse shape than they are today had they tried to.

[belfastdispatcher]

This conversation is not about BB10, it is about its predecessor. Regardless of how well BB10 has or hasn't done so far -- which can also be construed as a sign of incompetence of previous management -- it is here to stay, or at least here as long as BlackBerry is around. I think it's a pretty safe bet that they are not going to retreat from it now. The question is whether or not BBOS needed to be replaced, and the success or failure of BB10 has absolutely no relevance to that question.

That being said, legacy BBOS had run its course. Everything that could possibly have been wrung from it was wrung from it. It was not going to spur the kind of growth the company needed in the current landscape, because it would continue to appeal to only those it had previously appealed to, no more, but likely less and less as time goes on. BB7 was a bandaid to keep the ship afloat until it's successor could arrive. And while many of us were quite happy with that effort, it went as far as it could go, complete with all of the things that have been turning off new users and existing users alike. I was willing to live with them, you were willing to live with them, maybe a few million other users and businesses would be willing to live with them, but it had reached the proverbial end of the road. There's no other way to put it.

Could BBRY have found a better solution than QNX? Maybe, maybe not. Could BBRY have executed BB10 better? Absolutely. Could/should BBRY have made BB10 more BBOS-like? That is certainly a good topic for discussion. But none of that changes the fact that they could not survive much longer with BBOS alone, and they would quite likely be in even worse shape than they are today had they tried to.

That's well true but there's no reason we can't have a conversation about it.

[hanexs]

That being said, legacy BBOS had run its course. Everything that could possibly have been wrung from it was wrung from it. It was not going to spur the kind of growth the company needed in the current landscape, because it would continue to appeal to only those it had previously appealed to, no more, but likely less and less as time goes on. BB7 was a bandaid to keep the ship afloat until it's successor could arrive. And while many of us were quite happy with that effort, it went as far as it could go, complete with all of the things that have been turning off new users and existing users alike. I was willing to live with them, you were willing to live with them, maybe a few million other users and businesses would be willing to live with them, but it had reached the proverbial end of the road. There's no other way to put it.

I don't get what is so hard to understand here.

You say "It had reached the end of the road" but then you also say "BB7 was a bandaid to keep the ship afloat". But what if it wasn't a band aid? What if all there efforts were in it and onto even BB8?

Are you claiming that it was IMPOSSIBLE to make BBOS use more ram, have a front facing camera, not crash as much, perform faster, make it easier to code apps for, etc? Or are you saying that it would take a insanely high amount of effort to do this? All I am trying to discuss is how that effort compares to the effort of making a new OS, and other consequences of the decision.