[conite]

To clearify, with "secure" I do not refer to hacker or NSA-proof devices, but where data sharing is managed and controlled by users.
This is also the "embedded value proposition" I was reffering to: "Ultimate privacy - Real-time threat monitoring with preinstalled DTEK by BlackBerry provides you proactive security. Store content securely with fingerprint and passcode protection from the Locker app featuring FireFox Focus for private browsing." (taken from the BBMo website).
I could drop you tons of demonstrations of how much end-users cares of, both business and non business, but I like this one to keep on the fresh.

Baby boomers/Gen Y may still live with old stories, but millennials and centennials now are at least aware of the problem and seeks for a trustable brand ("perhaps stemming from events such as WikiLeaks, the group seems to be more into their privacy and anonymity").

This is where i see opportunities not taken by a brand that have since lived on that very same value proposition.

99% of consumers will always chose good security with many features over excellent security with few features.

In any event, as everyone else catches up with security, the choice is becoming easier all the time.

[Chuck Finley69]

To clearify, with "secure" I do not refer to hacker or NSA-proof devices, but where data sharing is managed and controlled by users.
This is also the "embedded value proposition" I was reffering to: "Ultimate privacy - Real-time threat monitoring with preinstalled DTEK™ by BlackBerry® provides you proactive security. Store content securely with fingerprint and passcode protection from the Locker app featuring FireFox Focus for private browsing." (taken from the BBMo website).
I could drop you tons of demonstrations of how much end-users cares of, both business and non business, but I like this one to keep on the fresh.

Baby boomers/Gen Y may still live with old stories, but millennials and centennials now are at least aware of the problem and seeks for a trustable brand ("perhaps stemming from events such as WikiLeaks, the group seems to be more into their privacy and anonymity").

This is where i see opportunities not taken by a brand that have since lived on that very same value proposition.

GenX live matter too... Don't leave us out since we still pay the bills for some millennials and centennials.

That said, not enough of anyone in the past or present cares enough to make BlackBerry or BlackBerry Mobile a viable mobile solution now.

When enough people care to be worthwhile, you guessed it, Apple, Google and perhaps even Microsoft are waiting to provide a mobile solution.

Perhaps it will also include BlackBerry, however, by their own choice, that would be through products from Cylance since BlackBerry exited mobile long ago.

[Sick Viscous]

Dude I'm a Gen X myself. I just forgot to mention our frame, but fact is: new generations are out that "got nothing to hide" and are more into "you won't make $$ on my data unless i agree". Given that, which is a number and not an opinion, you and I are aligned: there is an opportunity that other brands (you mentioned them) are (trying) to satisfy. Among them all, I see there isn't who should be there according to his own entire-life purpose: BB.

[Hphv]

I had a meeting with one of TCL insiders and got some information related to BlackBerry:
TCL has dismantled BlackBerry Mobile division and transferred its executives to other company’s departments.
TCL has stopped the production of all BlackBerry devices.
TCL will end the support of all devices by August 2020.
TCL will not renew or extend the contract with BlackBerry, which will expire by July 2021.
TCL will most likely renew the Alcatel licensing contract with Nokia because of the big recognition that this brand enjoys in the western world.
Key3 isn’t completely dead. The management doesn’t have any decision yet or not giving any update about it, but the insider said that 90% will not happen.

When I asked the insider about the reason that TCL is very mysterious about BlackBerry Mobile future, he said, “The management in both companies don’t want to hear and read the crazy news about BlackBerry death in the media. The market share of Blackberry devices is almost non-existence, but the BlackBerry death story will have huge coverage everywhere and for weeks, and this will absolutely add damage to both companies’ reputation. This could also affect customers’ trust in Alcatel and the newly born TCL brand in the mobile industry. So, don’t expect any official news about the end anytime soon”
I attached an interesting shot of a long folder.
Take this story with a grain of salt. I can’t confirm all the information here, neither being accountable for the insider talk.
Attachment 446448

Sad story

[Chuck Finley69]

Dude I'm a Gen X myself. I just forgot to mention our frame, but fact is: new generations are out that "got nothing to hide" and are more into "you won't make $$ on my data unless i agree". Given that, which is a number and not an opinion, you and I are aligned: there is an opportunity that other brands (you mentioned them) are (trying) to satisfy. Among them all, I see there isn't who should be there according to his own entire-life purpose: BB.

LOL - I'd love BlackBerry to continue but there's just not enough money to play in the big leagues.....there never ever was enough to play once Apple, Google and Microsoft started battling for the consumer eyeballs and wallets.

[Sick Viscous]

I agree. As long as the operating costs are the ones of a major league, than there's no chance. But I am not sure that BB have or should play in that league. A laser-like focus and positioning (like someone i can't recall already said, PKB enthusiast, brand lovers, no-frills users) backed with a smart, easy and lightweight cost structure could work. TCL positioning (the Alcatel goals for wide, cheap market) doesn't seems exactly aligned with that.

And I am still convinced that a smartwatch with BB brand, eventually with a better Android distro than Wear OS (Sailfish f.e.) would raise interest if the focus is what everyone else in the major league cannot afford: users control over data. Again, this is the purpose of BB brand since the beginning and this is why I miss him in the market.

[conite]

I agree. As long as the operating costs are the ones of a major league, than there's no chance. But I am not sure that BB have or should play in that league. A laser-like focus and positioning (like someone i can't recall already said, PKB enthusiast, brand lovers, no-frills users) backed with a smart, easy and lightweight cost structure could work. TCL positioning (the Alcatel goals for wide, cheap market) doesn't seems exactly aligned with that.

And I am still convinced that a smartwatch with BB brand, eventually with a better Android distro than Wear OS (Sailfish f.e.) would raise interest if the focus is what everyone else in the major league cannot afford: users control over data. Again, this is the purpose of BB brand since the beginning and this is why I miss him in the market.

You can count the number of people on one hand who would be satisfied with a device that has essentially no ecosystem to support it.

This is why kaios has no traction outside of "cheap".

[Troy Tiscareno]

I agree. As long as the operating costs are the ones of a major league, than there's no chance. But I am not sure that BB have or should play in that league. A laser-like focus and positioning (like someone i can't recall already said, PKB enthusiast, brand lovers, no-frills users) backed with a smart, easy and lightweight cost structure could work. TCL positioning (the Alcatel goals for wide, cheap market) doesn't seems exactly aligned with that.

And I am still convinced that a smartwatch with BB brand, eventually with a better Android distro than Wear OS (Sailfish f.e.) would raise interest if the focus is what everyone else in the major league cannot afford: users control over data. Again, this is the purpose of BB brand since the beginning and this is why I miss him in the market.

No, it couldn't. At least a half-dozen companies have tried, and they have all failed.

What the vast majority of consumers want is their existing iOS and Android phones to be more secure - what they DON'T want is some other platform with no ecosystem, or even the same platform with no access to the ecosystem (as several secure Android phones were, like the Boeing Black phone). And if they can't have that, then the vast majority will simply keep their iOS and Android phone. Very, very few prioritize security, or email/messaging management, over everything else, and that's not nearly enough users to sustain a line of phones.

Even PKB lovers aren't a big enough group to sustain a line of phones. And the idea that you can also get a better SoC, a fantastic camera, a PKB, and all of the other stuff AND have it at a discount price is pure fantasy. Niche markets are always more expensive than mainstream items, and with something as complex and expensive to produce as a smartphone, the price difference will always be significant without a large volume of sales.

If there was a simple answer, BB would still be in the business, or TCL would be - but there isn't. This is the phase of the smartphone market when the market is contracting and lots of brands - including formerly major ones - will be squeezed out. The number of manufacturers making smartphones was around 800 companies a few years ago - I expect there to be about 20 worldwide by the end of 2020, and maybe 12 by 2025. They'll be the companies that sell in high volume, and can afford to make great devices at a good price. Everyone else will be gone.

[ezubeBB2013]

No, it couldn't. At least a half-dozen companies have tried, and they have all failed.

What the vast majority of consumers want is their existing iOS and Android phones to be more secure - what they DON'T want is some other platform with no ecosystem, or even the same platform with no access to the ecosystem (as several secure Android phones were, like the Boeing Black phone). And if they can't have that, then the vast majority will simply keep their iOS and Android phone. Very, very few prioritize security, or email/messaging management, over everything else, and that's not nearly enough users to sustain a line of phones.

Even PKB lovers aren't a big enough group to sustain a line of phones. And the idea that you can also get a better SoC, a fantastic camera, a PKB, and all of the other stuff AND have it at a discount price is pure fantasy. Niche markets are always more expensive than mainstream items, and with something as complex and expensive to produce as a smartphone, the price difference will always be significant without a large volume of sales.

If there was a simple answer, BB would still be in the business, or TCL would be - but there isn't. This is the phase of the smartphone market when the market is contracting and lots of brands - including formerly major ones - will be squeezed out. The number of manufacturers making smartphones was around 800 companies a few years ago - I expect there to be about 20 worldwide by the end of 2020, and maybe 12 by 2025. They'll be the companies that sell in high volume, and can afford to make great devices at a good price. Everyone else will be gone.

Why would Joe public be happy with so little competition with a product that is now for most people a big part of their lives.

Apart from a few 'cottage industry' OS there are only 2 OS. For example, how many different brands of ice creams are there? Why don't we just have 2 brands of ice creams and car manufacturers, clothing labels, banks etc?

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

Why would Joe public be happy with so little competition with a product that is now for most people a big part of their lives.

Apart from a few 'cottage industry' OS there are only 2 OS. For example, how many different brands of ice creams are there? Why don't we just have 2 brands of ice creams and car manufacturers, clothing labels, banks etc?

Posted via CB10

That’s just how things are. If Joe Public really cared then Microsoft itself would have remained in the mobile business with it’s Windows OS instead of Android for it’s upcoming phone.

[conite]

Why would Joe public be happy with so little competition with a product that is now for most people a big part of their lives.

Apart from a few 'cottage industry' OS there are only 2 OS. For example, how many different brands of ice creams are there? Why don't we just have 2 brands of ice creams and car manufacturers, clothing labels, banks etc?

Posted via CB10

Because developers can already reach 99.99% of all consumers with only 2 apps. They have no motivation to build and support any more.

That's what happenned to all other fledgling OSes. Even Microsoft and its billions could not budge them.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Why would Joe public be happy with so little competition with a product that is now for most people a big part of their lives.

The same reason the only two commercial desktop OSs are Windows and MacOS: Joe Public values a full ecosystem of apps, services, and third-party accessories.

Joe Public wants to be able to use Twitter and Uber and Netflix and QuickBooks and their company's proprietary apps. They want to be able to book flights and rental cars and hotel rooms with a couple of clicks, and they want an excellent camera (still and video), to use mobile banking and touchless payments, use their phone to fly their drones, start their car, control their lights and AV gear, and know that if some new category of device gets released a year from now, they'll immediately be able to use it with their phone.

Only once they have all of those things will they look at areas like security or OS navigation or email management or other niche priorities and use cases.

And developers don't want to support more than 2 platforms - 2 platforms allows a choice of platforms, but minimizes the number of app versions they have to build and support. Adding a 3rd platform increases their development and support costs by 50% but generates zero additional revenue, and when you look at it that way, it's VERY easy to see why there's so little developer interest in a third platform - and why desktop PC OSs have been Microsoft or Apple for the last 30 years, and why smartphone OSs are now Apple or Google. Developers don't want more than 2 platforms to support - it doesn't make financial sense - and so they support the platforms that they feel have the best chance to be successful and profitable. If your platform isn't in 1st or 2nd Place, it isn't going to be commercially viable.

[Zeddepher]

So BB11 (Android) has failed. I figured it would, right at the start.

•<[{ BlackBerry Passport SE }]>•

[Sick Viscous]

What the vast majority of consumers want is their existing iOS and Android phones to be more secure - what they DON'T want is some other platform with no ecosystem, or even the same platform with no access to the ecosystem (as several secure Android phones were, like the Boeing Black phone).

You can count the number of people on one hand who would be satisfied with a device that has essentially no ecosystem to support it.

I keep adding data and you guys keep adding statements. I can't get why we're talking about "no ecosystem" if I said BB should keep produce Androids and eventually add more devices in order to fullfill its own purpose, mission, value proposition and brand position. Android has ecosystem.

And keep in mind that Fitbit sold millions of devices with a proprietary OS and zero ecosystem (until Charge 2, you could barely choose watch background).

What I am trying to say is: Android is the ecosystem, the demand for value we can call "A" is rising, BlackBerry is positioned in the "A" playground, then what? BB quit the market. This is a business issue, not a market issue. For all you said about the hard competition, etc, I am aligned.

[howarmat]

A watch eco system is not the same at all so your fitbit comparison doesnt matter.

For BB, you are right they do have the android ecosystem but its not just another android device. They are a niche device. They focus on keyboards, higher security and that comes with a BB TAX that makes it cost more. They cant just put a slab out there and have it cost $600 when its competition is selling a same spec device for $400 as can be seen by horrible motion sales.

So yes, its a market issue as their target audience is much smaller than the entire android market, its about 1-2% tops really

[Sick Viscous]

They are a niche device. They focus on keyboards, higher security and that comes with a BB TAX that makes it cost more. They cant just put a slab out there and have it cost $600 when its competition is selling a same spec device for $400 as can be seen by horrible motion sales.

You got the point. They have what others don't: keyboard and higher security. That is called differentiation (and it is where BB brand could rule). Differentiation is paid, if you are good with the storytelling. If you try to sell other specs, you fall into the big arena where you (BB) can't win.

So in TCL shoes I would keep my focus on the big opportunities that such brand equity could have to current and future generation of users that consider relevant this exact proposition applied to smartphones and smartwatches (and they're not few, according to the data, facts, studies and insights I've posted previously).

[Chuck Finley69]

You got the point. They have what others don't: keyboard and higher security. That is called differentiation (and it is where BB brand could rule). Differentiation is paid, if you are good with the storytelling. If you try to sell other specs, you fall into the big arena where you (BB) can't win.

So in TCL shoes I would keep my focus on the big opportunities that such brand equity could have to current and future generation of users that consider relevant this exact proposition applied to smartphones and smartwatches (and they're not few, according to the data, facts, studies and insights I've posted previously).

From TCL perspective, even if mutually agreed, it’s not with BBMo since it doesn’t really benefit to improve a brand it doesn’t own. That would be more of a BlackBerry thing and licensing doesn’t pay enough to waste the money.

TCL will develop and build on it’s own brand and simply go where the opportunity lies ahead in the mobile space for it as OEM in general.

[howarmat]

Its been seen that BBs differentiation doesnt make money. That's the issue. They have been trying to sell that since 2013 and no one has made out for the better doing it, not BBL with BB10 or Android, BBMo or any other licensee.

[conite]

From TCL perspective, even if mutually agreed, it’s not with BBMo since it doesn’t really benefit to improve a brand it doesn’t own. That would be more of a BlackBerry thing and licensing doesn’t pay enough to waste the money.

TCL will develop and build on it’s own brand and simply go where the opportunity lies ahead in the mobile space for it as OEM in general.

Its been seen that BBs differentiation doesnt make money. That's the issue. They have been trying to sell that since 2013 and no one has made out for the better doing it, not BBL with BB10 or Android, BBMo or any other licensee.

That's right.

BlackBerry has done far better by building out EMM to secure ALL devices, instead of poking away at their own handsets.

[bb10adopter111]

That's right.

BlackBerry has done far better by building out EMM to secure ALL devices, instead of poking away at their own handsets.

Microsoft is also winning big by supporting all platforms instead of using all of its apps and services to try and dominate the OS business.

From the screen of my trusty Z10 using the exceptional BlackBerry VKB.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Exactly. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em" very much applies. BB has found profitability by securing ALL devices with their EMM software, and Microsoft by making their apps for iOS and Android and enthusiastically supporting them. Both would have preferred to make their own devices, but that's not what the market wanted.

If there was a big enough market for BB-branded devices with BB-unique features, we wouldn't be having this discussion. BB wouldn't have had to leave the market and license out the name and tech, and if they had, TCL would be profitable making the phones - but neither of those things is true. TCL needed to sell a minimum of 2M BB-branded devices a year to make the license agreement sustainable, and instead they sold 660k the first year, 335k, the second year, and around 100k this year - meaning that sales were both terrible AND falling at a rate of 50% a year. Not exactly a business that justifies more investment - rather, it's what is known as a death spiral. Less sales means less money, which means cutting features or quality (think about the camera, display, and SoC), which means fewer sales the next year, which means less money, which means cutting features and quality, rinse, repeat. BB phones are considerably more expensive than their competition and have worse specs and performance - and the gap would only get wider. Plus, the financial losses get worse.

At some point, you realize you can't win, and you pull the plug. That's what TCL did at the beginning of the year, and now they're just clearing inventory and running out the clock on the license agreement.