[Skeevecr]

But are the counter argument could be made that HTC, even in its current Android doldrums, is better off than RIM is (BB10 excluded from discussion), couldn't it? Just playing devil's advocate here.

The crucial difference is that there doesn't seem to be any light at the end of the tunnel for HTC as they will be permanently in this race to release the highest spec device they can every few months so that for a few weeks they are at the top of the android spec tree, so they never really get that plateau of reaping the sales rewards for a completed design that samsung or apple get and in the process get themselves a bad reputation for a lack of updates as they almost cast to one side existing models.

[aniym]

Well most of the arguments I was going to make have already been made, but here's something that RIM should look at carefully:

- Don't do carrier exclusives. HTC and Nokia both shot themselves in the foot by putting their flagships (One X/Lumia 920) on one carrier only in North America (AT&T/Rogers) and providing the others with lower-quality models (One S/Lumia 820). This destroys brand development and dilutes ad dollars because interested customers who see an ad will go to Verizon/Tmob/Sprint and find out that the carrier doesn't offer it.

The Galaxy S3 succeeded because of 3 main reasons, in order of importance.
- It's available on every carrier, in every shop, under the same name (no "Fascinate/Captivate/Vibrant crap like the first gen). Everybody knows what a GS3 is now.
- It's known as a successful brand, thanks to 50 million S and S2s sold between 2010-mid-2012 and Samsung's relentless advertising.
- It's a damn good phone.

RIM risks a Nokia-fication of its brand if it doesn't make the flagship model available on all major carriers. Currently RIM already does a poor job of brand identity development by giving identical models different names based on region, radio bands etc. You have the Bold 9900, 9930, 9700, 9630, Torch 9810, a billion Curve models etc. Few people can tell the difference between BB handsets as it is, the ridiculous naming schema doesn't exactly help.

Nokia does this as well (Lumia 920, 900, 820, 810, 800, 710, 610, 620) and it's just messy and confusing for the customer who probably won't even be sure if they're buying the model they saw advertised. It's worse in carrier stores because there have already been reports of Best Buy stocking the Lumia 920 right next to the last-gen 900 (they look similar) without any differentiating information on product cards or anything.

[CranBerry413]

Well most of the arguments I was going to make have already been made, but here's something that RIM should look at carefully:

- Don't do carrier exclusives. HTC and Nokia both shot themselves in the foot by putting their flagships (One X/Lumia 920) on one carrier only in North America (AT&T/Rogers) and providing the others with lower-quality models (One S/Lumia 820). This destroys brand development and dilutes ad dollars because interested customers who see an ad will go to Verizon/Tmob/Sprint and find out that the carrier doesn't offer it.

The Galaxy S3 succeeded because of 3 main reasons, in order of importance.
- It's available on every carrier, in every shop, under the same name (no "Fascinate/Captivate/Vibrant crap like the first gen). Everybody knows what a GS3 is now.
- It's known as a successful brand, thanks to 50 million S and S2s sold between 2010-mid-2012 and Samsung's relentless advertising.
- It's a damn good phone.

RIM risks a Nokia-fication of its brand if it doesn't make the flagship model available on all major carriers. Currently RIM already does a poor job of brand identity development by giving identical models different names based on region, radio bands etc. You have the Bold 9900, 9930, 9700, 9630, Torch 9810, a billion Curve models etc. Few people can tell the difference between BB handsets as it is, the ridiculous naming schema doesn't exactly help.

Nokia does this as well (Lumia 920, 900, 820, 810, 800, 710, 610, 620) and it's just messy and confusing for the customer who probably won't even be sure if they're buying the model they saw advertised. It's worse in carrier stores because there have already been reports of Best Buy stocking the Lumia 920 right next to the last-gen 900 (they look similar) without any differentiating information on product cards or anything.

I think that you make a great point with the naming. Especially since there is a method to the Madness, it's just lost on the masses. If anything a simplified naming system would do wonders for BlackBerry.

And so would making a Great Phone.

[randall2580]

Not every handset. the WP 8X and 8S are completely new. it's doesn't look like their past phones at all.

I was in a Best Buy yesterday and just browsing through the phone dept and ...wow whats that. The 8X is a very nice looking/working phone. Not that I am going to get it. Just was the first time I saw it up close and personal and its a step up for HTC.

HTC admitted poor execution last year in their last conference call. They got what they deserved, and that was after acknowledging they needed to change the year before.

Has nothing to do with OS IMHO - has to do with execution, their own words