[Wiki Cydia]

When Apple was about to launch the iPhone, they went to Verizon first, because they were the biggest carrier in the US. They nearly had a deal, but Apple was insisting on Apple-controlled OS updates, and Verizon didn't want to agree to that, so the deal fell apart. Thus, Apple went to their second choice: AT&T.

Actually Apple's original deal was with Cingular, not AT&T:

"Apple has chosen Cingular, the best and most popular carrier in the US with over 58 million subscribers, to be Apple’s exclusive carrier partner for iPhone in the US."

Apple - Press Info - Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone

I think this is relevant because even though Cingular was a large wireless provider they were still in a weaker position than Verizon, which explains why they were a little more willing to deal.

[The Big Picture]

They should write something in the OS which allows updates via BlackBerry link if the phone has no sim.

And pretend they dont know what happended.

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2141, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

[The Big Picture]

Yep, it would be a problem if the carriers stopped selling the newest BB in their stores. Oh, wait they already have. Well, it would be bad for BlackBerry if the carriers withheld updates which massively improved the BB experience. Oh, yeah they already do that. How terrible would it be if carriers didn't care when store sales people actively push potential BB buyers to some other product? How exactly would angering the carriers hurt BB worse? The carriers cut off BB from working on their network? The US government is not about to let that happen.

BB should dump the carriers and go it alone. It couldn't be any worse than what's happening now.

Their future plans might still involve carriers no?

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2141, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

[geraldryan]

For anybody that is not aware of the facts, Concorde was prevented from flying into the USA for 3 years after it started its commercial services ie Paris Rio and London to Bahrain. They did this in the hope their own aviation industry would produce a competitor. It never happened!! Blackberry will be no different when it come to this type of behaviour.

[crackberry_geek]

There really is nothing to test. I am on AT&T and BlackBerry knows how to build software for the carrier. I am now running the newest 10.2.1. Prior to this I have been running the 1925, and before that the 1055 leaks. They all work fine. Testing is just company speak for "control". Going forward BlackBerry needs to get a contract for direct updates.

Posted via CB10 via my Z10

That may be true for AT&T, but it is not the case for T mobile... where it has been confirmed that wifi calling does not work. This has been the case for months now, since release of 10.2.

BlackBerry has not been able to resolve the problem. Rather, they threw it over the fence and claimed they've delivered 10.2.1 worldwide... knowing full well that it doesn't support all carrier's requirements.

Shame on you BlackBerry.

Posted with Z10 via CB10

[Wiki Cydia]

I am not surprised anything the yanks do to protect their markets, Concorde was prevented from flying into the USA for ages thanks to the whinging of protective groups within their society so there is nothing new with their behaviour with the Blackberry company.!!

New York City is part of the U.S.A., and the Concorde serviced JFK for nearly its entire service period. That's not a good example at all.

[Wiki Cydia]

That may be true for AT&T, but it is not the case for T mobile... where it has been confirmed that wifi calling does not work. This has been the case for months now, since release of 10.2.

BlackBerry has not been able to resolve the problem. Rather, they threw it over the fence and claimed they've delivered 10.2.1 worldwide... knowing full well that it doesn't support all carrier's requirements.

Shame on you BlackBerry.

Posted with Z10 via CB10

I think you're being a little harsh. BBRY's original agreements with carriers didn't allow for direct updates, and by the time they became necessary it appears the company lacked the leverage to alter the fundamentals of their carrier relationships. Certainly BBRY would love to be able to deliver updates directly. That they can't do so is not the fault of anything other than poor timing.

[crackberry_geek]

I think you're being a little harsh. BBRY's original agreements with carriers didn't allow for direct updates, and by the time they became necessary it appears the company lacked the leverage to alter the fundamentals of their carrier relationships. Certainly BBRY would love to be able to deliver updates directly. That they can't do so is not the fault of anything other than poor timing.

I'm not talking about direct updates.

I'm talking about the fact that BlackBerry knows Tmo US uses wifi calling... yet the OS since 10.2 conflicts with the feature... so they've delivered an unacceptable product to T mobile.

Posted with Z10 via CB10

[The Big Picture]

The longer carriers can hold BlackBerry user down on old OSes the more likely the user is going to switch due to lack of features / app compatibility.

Im sure if you own a BlackBerry device and have something to complain about all the carriers would do is to push apple or google devices for a good deal.

Why?

Because apple has given them sales targets and so has samsung in exchange for bulk order discounts.

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2141, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

[crackberry_geek]

Say what you want about Apple's "sales targets"... but the fact is that Apple spends tremendously on marketing of their own to promote it.

On the other hand... BlackBerry has done virtually nothing.

If you were a carrier, who would you rather support? Someone invested enough in their own future to spend on their own marketing? Or someone who doesn't seem to care?

[Gykesdollars]

PERSONALLY, IMHO I think the OP is beating a dead horse with these questions. The problem is neither blackberry nor carriers, but every crackberrian in the US!! Yes, I said so!!

Why not wedge the same campaign against blackberry for their DELIBRATE NEGLIGENCE as you would against Your carriers. It's high time people learnt the power of Social-networks and if effectively used could cause more devastation than a nuclear bomb!! Learn from The twitter campaign against T-Mobile!!! take to twitter and other social networking platforms, call on blackberry and pour out your frustration!!!

Last time I checked, BB10 has the least user base compared to other platforms in US thus reducing the level of importance to these carriers!!! LEARN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! LEARN!!!

Z10STL100-1/10.2.1.2141 "the iPhone NEMESIS"

[rusty502]

American carriers have ALWAYS, with EVERY platform, done carrier testing before releasing new firmware/OSs for their phones.

When Apple was about to launch the iPhone, they went to Verizon first, because they were the biggest carrier in the US. They nearly had a deal, but Apple was insisting on Apple-controlled OS updates, and Verizon didn't want to agree to that, so the deal fell apart. Thus, Apple went to their second choice: AT&T. At the time, even though they were the second-biggest carrier, AT&T was losing ground quickly, so they agreed to let Apple do direct OS updates. Once Apple had that agreement with AT&T and set that precedent, and then proved that the iPhone, even at the crazy-high price that it was initially offered at ($600 up-front ON CONTRACT, which is roughly equal to $1050 off-contract), would sell, Apple was able to secure the same right with other carriers. Even then, with AT&T growing at a huge pace with the iPhone after two years of sales, it took Verizon a long time to agree to Apple's demand for direct control of updates, but finally the pressure was too much and they gave in.

No other smartphone company has ever had that kind of leverage with the carriers, and hence no other smartphone company has the contractual ability do to direct updates to phones purchased through the carriers. Yes, Google Nexus phones purchased directly from Google (i.e., unlocked GSM phones) can be updated directly, but they are an obvious exception - the vast majority of people in the US buy their phones locked, on-contract, from their carrier. Another issue is that the US has 2 CDMA carriers, and unlike GSM phones available in most of the world, CDMA phones can't be provisioned on the network by simply inserting an active SIM. Until LTE phones were released, they didn't even HAVE a removable SIM, and so CDMA phones are locked to the carrier and the carrier, because they can, will only activate phones originally sold by that carrier. You can't just go buy some random phone and use it on Verizon or Sprint - they won't let you, even if that phone is technically compatible.

So, BB is no different from Samsung, LG, Motorola, HTC, Lenovo, Nokia, or any other Android or Windows Phone maker: they have to wait for the carrier to test and approve their updates before those updated will be released. WHY is this? Because, in the US, the primary support mechanism for smartphones is the CARRIER, not the smartphone company (with the exception of Apple, who has Apple Stores, one of the reasons AT&T agreed to let Apple have update control in the first place). A bad OS/firmware update can wreak havoc on potentially millions of phones all at once, inundating the carrier with support requests, and often forcing the carriers to exchange phones for customers, at a big financial loss to the carrier. In most of the world, the manufacturer is the primary support source, and phones are often purchased independently of carrier service (with GSM in most places, this is easy to do). That makes the US somewhat unique, with it's mix of GSM and CDMA carriers.

So, waiting for updates to be tested and approved is normal, and Apple shouldn't be compared to any other vendor because Apple was granted a contractual exception to the rule that no one else was in a position to demand and has support infrastructure that no other vendor has.

The other part, as several people have pointed out, is that testing updates takes time, money, and resources for the carriers, and so that testing is prioritized. It doesn't take a genius to look at BB's marketshare percentage to know that testing BB updates is a lower priority than testing updates for Samsung, HTC, LG, Motorola, or Nokia devices. Will BB eventually get their turn on the testing schedule? Most likely, yes, but they are a lower priority because the installed base is so small relative to other phones.

For the people who have said that BB should "issue an ultimatum" or "stop dealing with the carriers", you are clueless to how the cell phone business works, at least in the US. BB needs the carriers FAR, FAR more than the carriers need BB. The carriers could EASILY choose not to activate BB phones on their networks AT ALL, and while GSM customers could find ways around that, CDMA customers (Verizon and Sprint) would have no way to use a BB if they wanted to stay with their carrier. Plus, something like 97% of all smartphone sales in the US are made by carriers, so without the carriers, BB is all the way dead in the US. BB is in absolutely no position to be issuing ultimatums, and the very idea is ludicrous and laughable.

Those people who bought and own their own BB phone have alternatives to update their phone's OS, so there's no real reason to complain. Yes, it's true that those who were issued their phones by their employers, locked down with BES, can't do anything but wait for the carriers, but that's exactly what you have to do. Yes, it sucks, but that's the unfortunate reality, and nothing is really going to change that. BB isn't the only company whose phones are waiting for carriers to release phone updates - everyone but Apple is in the same boat, even if some are closer to the front of the line.

Great post Troy, I do have one question maybe you can answer, is a carrier in any way obligated to release updates? I know we expect them to, but you should buy a device for what it does now right? Not what you think it may become in the future, as long as the device functions as intended on said network, I really don't think they would be required to do anything. The reason I'm asking is I have seen a couple of post where people are threatening to take legal action, would they have a leg to stand on?

[geraldryan]

I am well aware of where JFK is,I was an engineer with Concorde. The facts are Concorde was Banned from JFK until 17th Oct 1977 when the Supreme Court of United States declined to overturn a lower courts ruling rejecting efforts by the Port Authority and grass roots campaign led by Carol Berman to continue the ban.!! So 3 years had gone by before Concorde was allowed into JFK. It should also be noted at the time Airforce One , a Boeing VC-137 was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during take off. Concorde cruised at Mach 2 at 72000 ft.!! as good an example as you will ever get and in my opinion a strategy used in various other in other forms today ie Blackberry rings a bell.

[crackberry_geek]

I am well aware of where JFK is,I was an engineer with Concorde. The facts are Concorde was Banned from JFK until 17th Oct 1977 when the Supreme Court of United States declined to overturn a lower courts ruling rejecting efforts by the Port Authority and grass roots campaign led by Carol Berman to continue the ban.!! So 3 years had gone by before Concorde was allowed into JFK. It should also be noted at the time Airforce One , a Boeing VC-137 was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during take off. Concorde cruised at Mach 2 at 72000 ft.!! as good an example as you will ever get and in my opinion a strategy used in various other in other forms today ie Blackberry rings a bell.

You will find no greater aviation geek than myself. I appreciate the history lesson.

That said, not sure I agree on the comparison. Everyone knew about Concorde, while almost no one knows about BlackBerry's current hardware and OS (except the fanboys).

And that is the underlying reason for BlackBerry's failure.

Posted with Z10 via CB10

[sixpacker]

US Carriers need to stop marketing BB as Buisness Phone only. What ever BB need to do to prevent that prevent that, then do it.

Blackberry announced to the world they were moving away from the consumer market (in the West anyway) and moving into enterprise. Isn't this a consequence?

Posted via the Android CrackBerry App!

[bmantz65]

Great post Troy, I do have one question maybe you can answer, is a carrier in any way obligated to release updates? I know we expect them to, but you should buy a device for what it does now right? Not what you think it may become in the future, as long as the device functions as intended on said network, I really don't think they would be required to do anything. The reason I'm asking is I have seen a couple of post where people are threatening to take legal action, would they have a leg to stand on?

I guess the devil is in the details. Does the small print from the carrier when you sign up with them mention device updates? I don't know.


Posted via CB10

[geraldryan]

Just my take on the problem but I will agree to disagree. An Irish solution to the discussion. !!!!

[The Big Picture]

PERSONALLY, IMHO I think the OP is beating a dead horse with these questions. The problem is neither blackberry nor carriers, but every crackberrian in the US!! Yes, I said so!!

Why not wedge the same campaign against blackberry for their DELIBRATE NEGLIGENCE as you would against Your carriers. It's high time people learnt the power of Social-networks and if effectively used could cause more devastation than a nuclear bomb!! Learn from The twitter campaign against T-Mobile!!! take to twitter and other social networking platforms, call on blackberry and pour out your frustration!!!

Last time I checked, BB10 has the least user base compared to other platforms in US thus reducing the level of importance to these carriers!!! LEARN PEOPLE!!!!!!!!! LEARN!!!

Z10STL100-1/10.2.1.2141 "the iPhone NEMESIS"

I think you are making a lot of sense here. Let the carriers know how you guys feel. The whole T-Mobile fiasco should teach us something.

BTW. This T-mobile thing did create quite a ruckus on Social media but has CNN, fox news or ANY members of the media reported it on broadcast TV?

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2141, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

[mkmilan]

So if the carriers have given up with BB, why not go the Google Nexus route and sell and upgrade directly or with the hardware makers,

[JeepBB]

Great post Troy, I do have one question maybe you can answer, is a carrier in any way obligated to release updates? I know we expect them to, but you should buy a device for what it does now right? Not what you think it may become in the future, as long as the device functions as intended on said network, I really don't think they would be required to do anything. The reason I'm asking is I have seen a couple of post where people are threatening to take legal action, would they have a leg to stand on?

I doubt that anyone could successfully sue a carrier for not releasing an OS update. Contracts are generally written in terms of providing a network service and often a handset and meeting various service levels. Unless the contract you signed has a clause that made timely release of OS updates a part of that agreement, then you have no leg to stand on.

I haven't seen all carrier contracts, but I know mine has no such clause.

And, what would a carrier gain from such a clause?

Carrier: Hmmm... we can devote time and money to testing each new update, which will serve to refresh customer phones and make them like new with additional features... Or, we could sell them a new phone and new contract. Tough call huh?

[rusty502]

So if the carriers have given up with BB, why not go the Google Nexus route and sell and upgrade directly or with the hardware makers,

As I understand it, CDMA carriers, Verizon, Sprint, can block any phone not sold thru them, Verizon did so with the Nexus 5. You could do it with GSM carriers as far as I know.

[DaSchwantz]

It costs money to support a new OS. If the subscriber base is not there, you really can't fault a carrier for not upgrading. Not that I wouldn't want to see an ATT upgrade, but can you imagine all these Z10 battery issues being directed at ATT customer service, rather than Crackberry? Here, most people take an initiative to fix issues or at least find out about them. When the masses have an issue, they hand it to customer service and say fix it! If there is no fix, there is major unhappiness for a consumer, which a carrier is loathe to encourage, even if this means no updated OS's.

Yet all other carriers around the world seem to be able to do it.

Posted via CB10

[The Big Picture]

Yet all other carriers around the world seem to be able to do it.

Posted via CB10

Yeap.

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.2141, Z30, Z10, iP5, SGS3

[anon(153966)]

The same question could be asked of the Z30 on all carriers, not just Verizon...

Posted via CB10

[lnichols]

I am well aware of where JFK is,I was an engineer with Concorde. The facts are Concorde was Banned from JFK until 17th Oct 1977 when the Supreme Court of United States declined to overturn a lower courts ruling rejecting efforts by the Port Authority and grass roots campaign led by Carol Berman to continue the ban.!! So 3 years had gone by before Concorde was allowed into JFK. It should also be noted at the time Airforce One , a Boeing VC-137 was louder than Concorde at subsonic speeds and during take off. Concorde cruised at Mach 2 at 72000 ft.!! as good an example as you will ever get and in my opinion a strategy used in various other in other forms today ie Blackberry rings a bell.

No US company built a competitor because the business model for the Concorde made it a low volume sales offering. Their is a reason why they don't fly anymore and no one has made a replacement.

Posted via CB10