1. FrankIAm's Avatar
    Its been up on me since forever. This comment on a blog post, here, on crackberry, explains it very well. (taken from the "Aristo" spec sheet)

    my guess this is gonna be the phone that will reel in all the rich and famous. Once the rich and famous start talking about how awesome there BlackBerry is. Thats when the rest of the consumers line up to buy the cheaper same brand phones, because most customers dont know the difference.
    I, myself, do agree on that. This is what I think made RIM go down in the smartphone market... A lot of people claiming their 3 year old blackberry curve which they just bought beacause it was cheaper isnt as good as the lastest iPhone and then switch. Don't tell me it doesnt happen, because I've seen that a lot.
    Different phones from the same manufacturer leads to confusion. Look at apple, they develop iOS, but only on one single phone which only gets updates, not variants. And before you say "android", android is the os. Which, again, the average consumer ignores and just goes by "samsumg, motorola, htc".

    Once, I heard a friend say "Blackberries cant do hotspot". He had a 8320. Needless to say, I wanted to straight on punch him. Don't tell me that kind of stuff doesn't hurt. While you appeal to a greater market, you also get to deal with the average ignorant (Ignorant as in: (a.) Destitute of knowledge; uninstructed or uninformed; untaught; unenlightened.) people. Double edged blade, here.

    Comments?
    Last edited by FrankIAm; 10-02-12 at 09:29 AM.
    10-02-12 09:24 AM
  2. kbz1960's Avatar
    I don't know if they should be doing as many as leaks are talking about but more choices than 1 is better. The killer could be making too many and getting stuck with them if they don't sell well.
    10-02-12 09:31 AM
  3. sleepngbear's Avatar
    RIM is not Apple and cannot compete with one model. They have their traditional BB faithful to appease as well as new users to attract and existing users of other brands to try to win over. That being said, I think the major differences among the new BB10 models are in processing power; aside from the QWERTY vs full touch screen variants, all models should be similarly spec'd from an app perspective. I am positive that the intent is for devs to not have to write a different version of each app for every phone, which has been just one of the bigger thorns in the sides of developers on regards to the legacy BBOS.

    For consumers, multiple device options are a must in order to appeal to as many of them as possible and eliminate any barriers that might steer them away from the brand. For example, in addition to the difficulties developers faced with the old BB platform, one of the brand's biggest criticisms has been underwhelming hardware. But not every smart phone users can or wants to pay for a top-end device. So the choice is to just write them off, or include an option that isn't cost-prohibitive and therefore lest likely to drive away the more price-conscious consumer.

    My opinion, RIM is definitely on the right track here.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    10-02-12 09:41 AM
  4. cgk's Avatar
    RIM is not Apple and cannot compete with one model.
    Equally they are simply too small to gain decent economics of scale from multiple devices - variations of device types, yes - actual multiple devices - I think that would be a mistake during the initial period.
    Last edited by cgk; 10-02-12 at 02:07 PM. Reason: typo - two to too.
    10-02-12 09:43 AM
  5. BlackBerry Guy's Avatar
    Personally I feel one keyboard and one touchscreen is all they need instead of taking their traditional low/mid/high approach. Have a consistent BB10 experience that isn't diluted because of lower specs or missing hardware features. They can take a page out of Apple's book and keep last year's device around as the budget model. That way they gain efficiency of scale and also can focus their device r&d.
    10-02-12 10:19 AM
  6. lobbyintx's Avatar
    Personally I feel one keyboard and one touchscreen is all they need instead of taking their traditional low/mid/high approach. Have a consistent BB10 experience that isn't diluted because of lower specs or missing hardware features. They can take a page out of Apple's book and keep last year's device around as the budget model. That way they gain efficiency of scale and also can focus their device r&d.
    i concur. a high end device and a low/medium device is all that is needed.
    10-02-12 10:23 AM
  7. BoldPreza's Avatar
    Definitely agree. Too many phones has caused confusion in the past. I think honestly four is the right number.

    Curve(Absolute base model, camera optional, helps maintain their Developing world base)
    L/N(Great mid-range phones)
    Aristo
    Playbook(7/10)

    Done no more expansion on line.
    10-02-12 10:30 AM
  8. FrankIAm's Avatar
    Yes, 2 or maybe 3 devices plus playbook should be it.. No need for more.
    Just look at what we have on the table right now, Nevada, London, Laguna, Lisbon, Aristo.
    10-04-12 09:44 AM
  9. kill_9's Avatar
    Their hubris continues to be the undoing of the BlackBerry brand. The ideal scenario is a BlackBerry Bold-style smartphone and a BlackBerry "Balde"-style of smartphone. These two models cover the physical keyboard users and the full-size touch screen users. To paraphrase my high school English teacher, "RIM suffers from device diarrhea."
    10-04-12 10:02 AM
  10. Nine54's Avatar
    People like choice, but only if it's choice in meaningful ways...ways that people can easily ascribe value to based on their wallets. The error many companies, particularly those in the tech space, continually make is that they differentiate their products in almost arbitrary ways. RIM definitely was guilty of this in the past by having some devices that had wifi, some that didn't; some that had bluetooth; some that didn't, some that had a faster processor or more memory, some that didn't, etc. The problem is that while some users are willing to pay for the "Rolls Royce" device and others only will pay for the "Hyundai," the customer's goals and needs with each device are roughly the same. The user with the "Hyundai" smartphone wants to do the same thing with their device that the "Rolls Royce" smartphone user does: browse the web, use popular apps, place reliable phone calls, text, email, etc. However, the user with the Hyundai phone is going to have an undoubtedly crappier experience doing those things than the Rolls Royce phone user: due to lower specs, the phone will be slow, freeze up, quickly run out of storage, be unable to use popular accessories, have crappier signal strength, etc.

    Most of these users don't think back to their purchase and recall that they made these "compromises" when purchasing a low-end device because these compromises violate their minimum quality expectations. That would be like Hyundai drivers being OK with their car stalling out on the road once in a while because, well, hey, they paid for a Hyundai. Or accepting a top speed of 40 mph because they opted not to get a V-8 engine. These "compromises" are unacceptable for any user regardless of his or her price sensitivity. Yet we see compromises like this all the time in technology where the intended usage and customer needs for devices in two market segments are roughly the same except that one costs less and provides a worse experience. The end result is a bad customer experience and tarnished brand equity.

    The automobile industry is a good analogy because there are meaningful ways to differentiate product lines and brands. Some users just need a car that gets them from A to B safely and reliably. They don't need (or aren't willing to pay for) leather seats and luxury appointments. They're not a "car person" so they don't really care about a high-performance engine or flashy looks. Some buyers care more about the luxury features than about performance. Some buyers want raw power. Some want it all. Some have a utility factor like 4x4 or truck beds. Some are willing to pay for leather seats in their 4x4 truck. And the list goes on. But at a minimum, all users want their automobile to work and to work well and consistently. And all want "features" like A/C or music-listening options; these aren't really points of differentiation or negotiation as they're expected.

    In tech, there are examples of meaningful segmentation, and I think Apple does this well with its laptops. If you need workstation-level performance, get a MacBook Pro. It will be large, expensive, and have mediocre-to-bad battery life, but users who need it will be OK with that. If you're willing to sacrifice some performance to get better battery life and portability, get a MacBook. And if mobility is king to you, get a MacBook Air, but don't expect to expect to render the next Avatar movie on it. But, regardless of the device you choose, you will get a good experience based on the compromises you were willing to make. Notice that price alone does not define a segment. There is no "value" line. If you're price-sensitive and still want an Apple experience, then perhaps the iPad is for you.

    I think RIM could have an advantage over other smartphone OEMs because it recognizes that there are clear points of differentiation among its users. There's the "classic" BB users who want a physical keyboard. There's also users who place a premium on screen real estate. There's another group who wants both and is willing to sacrifice size and weight to have it (though I'm not clear on how large of a market slider users represent). Where it starts to get a little fuzzy to me is with the intended Curve market. Emerging markets definitely are price-sensitive, but more out of necessity than by choice. Yet they still want and need the latest technology. Ideally, RIM would figure out how to make a "less luxurious" Bold line for these users. Maybe it's the Curve, but performance should be more or less comparable. Apple takes the approach of just discounting last year's model, which has some advantages but also increases the risks of obsolescence and the perception of "last year's" tech among those users. So, this is an opportunity for RIM to figure out how to make a cost-effective device for these markets that isn't simply seen as inferior. Maybe it uses different materials or has a design that's cheaper to manufacture at scale. I don't know. But simply making the Curve a Bold that's crappier in every way doesn't seem like a great strategy...

    BTW, no offense to Hyundai owners. I think Hyundai is a great example of a brand that identified it's market segment and knows it's value prop. Subsequently, it's becoming one of the leading brands in that segment with high customer satisfaction.
    Last edited by Nine54; 10-06-12 at 09:04 AM.
    10-05-12 03:30 PM
  11. FrankIAm's Avatar
    Wow, you said it better. I do think the issue relies with the lower end devices. There shouldnt be. People who want something cheaper should stick to OS7. BB10 should be all about high end devices (and just a couple of them), because it'd be the same story otherwise, not the same functionality which would eventually lead to ditching and complaints.
    10-06-12 09:28 AM
  12. randall2580's Avatar
    I understand the OP's premise and to some extent agree. What makes the iPhone spectacular IMHO is that everyone from the tech challenged to the geek love that phone (just generally speaking - it's why they sell a gazillion every year). You can buy a iP4 right now at AT&T for 99 cents that's a heck of a value with few if any compromises (ok it doesn't have Siri).

    Where I disagree is this constant belief that RIM suffers from folks comparing 3 year old curves and making up their mind about the brand. That happens I don't deny it. However starting with the Storm, RIM started doing damage to the brand that continued to the release of the 9900 without a front facing camera and the rear one without auto focus (no competing product from a major manufacturer released at the same time had these glaring omissions), and telling Devs don't develop for BB7 because it will be obsolete in a year (turns out to be closer to 2 in the end) basically insuring BB7 was dead on arrival as it would not be able to provide apps folks EXPECT to get on a phone. Think about all the apps folks want, Flipboard, Instagram,Skype, Pinterest etc and think about when the last time you saw the App World logo next to that app - for BB7 its rarely if ever. This was not only RIMs trouble it was Windows Phone 7's as well. In addition there is no multi-media support for BlackBerry from RIM is there anything in App World that competes with iTunes and the Google Play Store? This is why folks think/KNOW BlackBerry is behind and that will remain until at least the BB10 phones are launched.

    I bought every BB on/about launch day including the 9810 for which I paid full price for because the 9800 was driving me crazy with it's poor UI. I needed Skype and I had hoped the PlayBook was my answer but when it became clear it would not, I had to buy an Android phone to get what I needed. This had nothing to do with a 3 year old Curve influencing my decision this was terrible forward looking strategy by RIM and when they say their problem was they didn't plan for LTE sooner and that's why folks left the brand - it makes me laugh every single time.

    RIM could learn from Apple (and before you call me a fanboy understand I do not own a single Apple product other than a 2nd gen iPod I never use any more) and bring to market a reduced line of phones that work to expectation of their users. That will be the start of the RIM turnaround, and I agree their strategy is sound bring out the slab and they keyboard to start and make them the most wonderful smartphones in the market place. Go from there. Maybe in a year or two they are the phones you can buy at AT&T for 99 cents and will give the user a wonderful experience.
    Roo Zilla likes this.
    10-06-12 09:58 AM
  13. Nine54's Avatar
    While I get the OS7 strategy, what about the lack of popular apps? I think RIM potentially sabotaged that strategy by effectively killing off developer interest in the OS7 platform by writing its obit years before BB10 would be released....
    10-06-12 11:25 AM
  14. Nine54's Avatar
    Where I disagree is this constant belief that RIM suffers from folks comparing 3 year old curves and making up their mind about the brand. That happens I don't deny it. However starting with the Storm, RIM started doing damage to the brand that continued to the release of the 9900 without a front facing camera and the rear one without auto focus (no competing product from a major manufacturer released at the same time had these glaring omissions),
    Good point. The underlying issue is that RIM thought it knew its customers and started making compromises on their behalf. But, customers actually were not willing to compromise in those ways--especially not when competitor products did not have such compromises.

    Decisions like this scream of poorly conducted focus groups and customer surveys, which is why these tools can be harmful to product design if used improperly. Bad surveys or interview techniques end up creating either-or scenarios or forcing customers to rank features in order of preference or importance. Just because I might rank the physical keyboard, email, and call quality as the most important things to me doesn't mean I don't care about camera quality. The ranking gap between camera quality and physical keyboard could be very small in my mind, yet that won't be clear from the survey. If a competitor's product offers an overwhelmingly better camera in addition to other features, the combined benefit of those features might outrank the benefit of, say, the physical keyboard, which I deemed most important. The real world is not an all-or-nothing desert island where users must choose between this feature or that feature.

    and telling Devs don't develop for BB7 because it will be obsolete in a year (turns out to be closer to 2 in the end) basically insuring BB7 was dead on arrival as it would not be able to provide apps folks EXPECT to get on a phone. Think about all the apps folks want, Flipboard, Instagram,Skype, Pinterest etc and think about when the last time you saw the App World logo next to that app - for BB7 its rarely if ever. This was not only RIMs trouble it was Windows Phone 7's as well. In addition there is no multi-media support for BlackBerry from RIM is there anything in App World that competes with iTunes and the Google Play Store? This is why folks think/KNOW BlackBerry is behind and that will remain until at least the BB10 phones are launched.
    100% agree. While I understood RIM's desire to double-down on BB10 and improve investor confidence by demonstrating alignment and focus, the effect of doing this so publicly was devastating--especially when it became clear the company was no where near releasing BB10 phones. Just because OS7 might not have been viable for the next 5-10 years doesn't mean it couldn't be a competitive platform for the next 2-3. RIM had been significantly improving the OS, and my guess is that scaling back further improvements was more about cost and level-of-effort than technical feasibility--which would be OK if BB10 had remained on track. But, all the developer outreach that RIM's doing for BB10 should have been done for OS7. RIM should have continued making better SDKs and development tools and held "convert-a-thon" events to get devs converting their iOS and Android apps to OS7. Then, the developer outreach efforts for BB10 could be focused on porting and updating those OS7 instead of creating net-new ones.

    I bought every BB on/about launch day including the 9810 for which I paid full price for because the 9800 was driving me crazy with it's poor UI. I needed Skype and I had hoped the PlayBook was my answer but when it became clear it would not, I had to buy an Android phone to get what I needed. This had nothing to do with a 3 year old Curve influencing my decision this was terrible forward looking strategy by RIM and when they say their problem was they didn't plan for LTE sooner and that's why folks left the brand - it makes me laugh every single time.
    Agree, but it's not about comparing a 3-year old phone to a current phone: of course the newer phone will be better. The issue is the 3-year-old Curve falling short of competitor phones released around the same time. If users' BB experience was sub-par at that time, the brand will be damaged regardless of whether new BB phones are significantly improved. The situation is only made worse when product lines are poorly differentiated (i.e., the company makes compromises on features that its customers are unwilling to compromise on).
    randall2580 likes this.
    10-06-12 12:43 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD