[app_Developer]

The problem is it is NOT evolving as it should. It is like mankind creating its own path that suits its own needs. If you are not man your species is likely to be influenced into whatever direction man decides.
Google is farming us into cattle, breed out the aggression and horns so we are easier to extract money. You want THIS... everything else is not good because it doesn't work with Google.

So is it not evolving as it should, or is it not evolving as you would like?

From my perspective, the state of the industry is actually a lot better than it was a few years ago. I don't worry about the tyranny of the duopoly, because I remember when we couldn't make great apps because Nokia and BlackBerry dominated everywhere. People complained that Nokia and BB would dominate forever, and then a few years later both were brought down to size when Apple and Google did it better. Duopoly solved.

[blackmass]

I believe web apps are the direction we should be going in. Allows much more flexibility in end hardware and even security. Any OS on any device with a compliant browser can have access to any app. Consumers and developers win big with this.

Basically, the desktop model.
Well, i feel we r heading that way.
Its possible that at the moment we r in the "commodore 64" era of mobiles & the "Windows" era is yet to happen.
Even if it does happen, do u believe that blackberry will have a bb10 phone waiting for all of us "then".
Or r u hiding the desire for bb
10 phone under the web app model ??

[app_Developer]

I believe web apps are the direction we should be going in. Allows much more flexibility in end hardware and even security. Any OS on any device with a compliant browser can have access to any app. Consumers and developers win big with this.

How do developers win from this? I don't understand the problem which you are solving.

[stlabrat]

Symbian, Brew, BBOS, PalmOS(not really) and many others have come and gone as the dominant OS for mobile. As the next big hits it allows new opportunity for other software makers to make their climb to dominance. The leaders do everything they can to suppress progress or herd the sheep into their development path. If not for the trends or specific demands that pop up we would all be still running some BREW evolutionary OS on microscopic flip phones. Google will do everything to suppress or direct evolution so they can remain dominate.

you forgot mention the NeXT. progress... many of success are build on the lesson learned failures.

[anon(3983727)]

However, the mobile user interface is a lot more robust along with a lot of web-based back-end. Every time you make the browser do what the app does, the app will be doing something else interesting that the browser can't do. The apps you are talking about that can be done on a browser are mostly antiquated.

HTML5 and even QT5+(QTWEBKIT) is very powerful and will do much of what a locally installed app can do. If platforms were designed around web functionality we would have potentially MUCH more capable devices. Cloud compute is a big potential benefit for mobile devices with current battery tech being a bit behind and CPUs as hungry as they are.

[donnation]

BB Hub, Closed ecosystem (refinement android absolutely did not have in 2013), Ability to run Android apps (Amazon or side-loading for tinkerers), Gesture based UI, Peek and flow, Of course the most secure OS available at the time would be hyped, Blackberry Video and music was pretty nice although nowhere near iTunes.
Just think about what Apple advertised for the iPhone. By 2013 they were no longer using the "YOU NEED THIS" strategy but instead using emotional draw to hype its products. they used various unnamed apps to show compelling images of things people may be emotionally tied to. It was not a display of unique abilities of the device but instead series of beautiful things and sounds displayed on the device.
Blackberry's few ads hardly showed the device and almost never showcased what it can actually do. the vast majority of the public had no idea the device existed, the few that saw the ads had no idea how it was different from the Blackberry their parents carried as a corporate device.

The ability to run Android apps isn't a feature to anyone using iOS or Android. They already have those apps and Android apps on BB10 run decent at best.


The hub is nice, but outside of that there really wasn't much else. iOS already had gestures built in in certain areas before BB10 ever had it such as swiping to go forward and back in webpages, apps, etc. BB Music and Movies were a fraction of what Google Play and iTunes have, and unless you are using BES, a BB10 isn't any more secure than Android or iOS.

[blackmass]

I fail to understand what exactly the issue is
Failure of bb10 ?
Popularity of Android/ Google ?
Sales/ success of iPhones ?
Need for web apps ?
ALL of the above ?
None of the above ?

[anon(3983727)]

The ability to run Android apps isn't a feature to anyone using iOS or Android. They already have those apps and Android apps on BB10 run decent at best.


The hub is nice, but outside of that there really wasn't much else. iOS already had gestures built in in certain areas before BB10 ever had it such as swiping to go forward and back in webpages, apps, etc. BB Music and Movies were a fraction of what Google Play and iTunes have, and unless you are using BES, a BB10 isn't any more secure than Android or iOS.

It is a benefit when you don't have to actually run android to have your apps.
Not much else to an OS now aday other than the UI. Everything else is really just an app or part of the app platform. Look at all the users here trying to emulate Blackberry's UI on android still.

[donnation]

It is a benefit when you don't have to actually run android to have your apps.
Not much else to an OS now aday other than the UI. Everything else is really just an app or part of the app platform. Look at all the users here trying to emulate Blackberry's UI on android still.

That's true if you hate Android, which I'm not sure most people that use it do. But it also doesn't prepare them for how poorly (or not at all) the Android apps run in BB10.

[MikeX74]

1. Great products
2. Timely software updates
3. Longer support through software updates
4. Support system of physical retail locations that no other OEM can offer
5. Good decision-making by executives
6. Effective marketing
7. A huge & varied app catalog.

All of those things led to one of the most successful consumer products ever.
Maybe if BB had more of those things going for it(especially #5), they'd be a lot better off these days.

[early2bed]

It is a benefit when you don't have to actually run android to have your apps.
Not much else to an OS now aday other than the UI. Everything else is really just an app or part of the app platform. Look at all the users here trying to emulate Blackberry's UI on android still.

All the users trying to emulate BlackBerry's UI? What I see is a rapidly shrinking handful of users who are functionally fixated on how their favorite UI works. The rest of the world considers this to be rather trivial. You need to browse the file system? What for?

Just look at how BB10 was replaced as BlackBerry's OS of choice - John Chen said he just needed to: 1) Make it secure; 2) Port the key BlackBerry apps. That's it. UI? What's that? You'll get used to it. You were just using it to launch the apps, anyway.

[co4nd]

HTML5 and even QT5+(QTWEBKIT) is very powerful and will do much of what a locally installed app can do. If platforms were designed around web functionality we would have potentially MUCH more capable devices. Cloud compute is a big potential benefit for mobile devices with current battery tech being a bit behind and CPUs as hungry as they are.

One big problem with pure web apps, they don't work when you don't have a network connection. I work for a company that develops mobile apps for utility and infrastructure inspections. An iOS or Android native app can still function when there is no cellular service and update the server when the connection is restored. This is a critical issue for most of our clients. Also I have yet to see a web app that can perform on par with a native app as far as UI and performance is concerned.

[Nguyen1]

There was this joke on whatsapp which went on to explain y the standard railroad gauge in the USA is 4 feet 8.5 inches.
It said that in the old days when the carriages were pulled by horses, the designers had to take into account the width of 2 horse's rear ends while designing the tracks.
That came about to around 4 feet 8.5 inches.
So in order to accommodate 2 horse's ***es they had to make the railroad that wide.
We r still having the same measurements in a large part of the world.
Point is - if we can't replace space equivalent to 2 horses rear end once established as standard, how do v even dream of replacing 2 operating systems established as the standard, b it even by offering security, smoothness, built quality etc etc.
The best v can hope for is to adjust ourself with the 2 horses's rear end, or have something that is equivalent to the rear ends.
Mind u, some parts of the satellites in outer space have been transported using railroads, so their width was designed accordingly. U can make out how important the horses's a** is.

Is this a joke or is there some historical truth to this? Interesting anecdote, either way!

Sent from my BlackBerry Passport SE

[Troy Tiscareno]

BB Hub, Closed ecosystem (refinement android absolutely did not have in 2013), Ability to run Android apps (Amazon or side-loading for tinkerers), Gesture based UI, Peek and flow, Of course the most secure OS available at the time would be hyped, Blackberry Video and music was pretty nice although nowhere near iTunes.

You really think that any of what you wrote is a COMPELLING reason for the average consumer to leave their ecosystem? If so, you are completely out of touch with what motivates consumers (much as BB was).

Absolutely nothing on this list comes anywhere close to making up for the lack of apps that they use for everything: business (Salesforce, QuickBooks, MS Office, etc.), social media (Instagram was a huge hole), entertainment (Netflix), physical security (alarm, security camera, smart lock apps), home automation, and tens of thousands of specialty apps that are key to many people's job.

The ability to run Amazon apps? They're third-rate and far behind Google Play versions if they exist at all - and every single Android phone ever made could run those apps.

Just think about what Apple advertised for the iPhone. By 2013 they were no longer using the "YOU NEED THIS" strategy but instead using emotional draw to hype its products. they used various unnamed apps to show compelling images of things people may be emotionally tied to. It was not a display of unique abilities of the device but instead series of beautiful things and sounds displayed on the device.
Blackberry's few ads hardly showed the device and almost never showcased what it can actually do. the vast majority of the public had no idea the device existed, the few that saw the ads had no idea how it was different from the Blackberry their parents carried as a corporate device.

Actually, BB's ad campaign was "what BB10 can't do" - and unfortunately, that is a LONG list in comparison to iOS and Android.

You want to know why BB10 never stood a chance in 2013? The answer is right here in these two graphics:

[Troy Tiscareno]

I believe web apps are the direction we should be going in. Allows much more flexibility in end hardware and even security. Any OS on any device with a compliant browser can have access to any app. Consumers and developers win big with this.

No, it doesn't - not even close. If they did, that's exactly where app developers would move to. They could monetize a web-based app just as easily as they could a native app, but they definitely can't do many of the specialized things that native development offers that HTML5 or any other web app does not.

Need to access the phones camera, or accelerometer, or other sensors? Can't do that with HTML5. How many apps wouldn't exist without native access to the hardware?

If you doubt this in any way, simply go to any developer website and ask around.

Here's an article that you also might find interesting:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3030873/...nt-looked-back

[anon(3983727)]

You really think that any of what you wrote is a COMPELLING reason for the average consumer to leave their ecosystem? If so, you are completely out of touch with what motivates consumers (much as BB was).

Absolutely nothing on this list comes anywhere close to making up for the lack of apps that they use for everything: business (Salesforce, QuickBooks, MS Office, etc.), social media (Instagram was a huge hole), entertainment (Netflix), physical security (alarm, security camera, smart lock apps), home automation, and tens of thousands of specialty apps that are key to many people's job.

The ability to run Amazon apps? They're third-rate and far behind Google Play versions if they exist at all - and every single Android phone ever made could run those apps.



Actually, BB's ad campaign was "what BB10 can't do" - and unfortunately, that is a LONG list in comparison to iOS and Android.

You want to know why BB10 never stood a chance in 2013? The answer is right here in these two graphics:

You clearly think apps are all that matter. I strongly disagree and I also believe the majority of consumers have no idea about app ecosystems. The younger generations are becoming the larger consumer base though so that is changing, although they want face morphers and social networking above all else.
This is almost identical to what happened with AMD vs Intel. AMD had a superior product with the K7 but people still preferred the catchy jingle and fancy logo on the box that guaranteed "Genuine Intel" product. Anything else was just a knock off. AMD sales suffered especially with OEMS and development slowed. Eventually Intel produced a superior product (lots of lies and cheating along the way).

[Troy Tiscareno]

You clearly think apps are all that matter. I strongly disagree and I also believe the majority of consumers have no idea about app ecosystems. The younger generations are becoming the larger consumer base though so that is changing, although they want face morphers and social networking above all else.

My mother is a 67-year-old technophobe, and my father is a 69-year-old super-technophobe - as in: he's only used an ATM card a half-dozen times, and won't go through a drive-thru.

I bought them smartphones for Christmas in 2014, and not only do they text, check and send email, browse the web, use the GPS, and shop on their phones, they've also both found and installed apps that they're interested in on their own, with no input from me. If you really think that people are unaware of apps, I would refer you to the graphic. EVERYONE has seen those banners - they're on every billboard, every bus, all over boxes at Costco and Walmart and Best Buy, and constantly on TV. Any and every connected device that hits the market uses those banners as part of their advertising.

To deny the importance of the ecosystem is to have your head firmly in the sand, or to be in abject denial.

This is almost identical to what happened with AMD vs Intel. AMD had a superior product with the K7 but people still preferred the catchy jingle and fancy logo on the box that guaranteed "Genuine Intel" product. Anything else was just a knock off. AMD sales suffered especially with OEMS and development slowed. Eventually Intel produced a superior product (lots of lies and cheating along the way).

Yes, AMD was ahead of Intel for a couple of years. Until 2008, I'd never, ever purchased an Intel CPU because AMD was always the better value, so I've been an AMD owner for decades. But the reality is that Intel leaped ahead with their Core technology, and AMD hasn't been close ever since. And I've bought primarily Intel CPUs since then. I didn't buy them because I had anything against AMD - as I said, I'd been an AMD buyer since the late 80's (my first being a 286/12, then a 386/40) and owned several K6 and K7-family CPUs - but because AMD simply got out-classed by Intel, to the point that AMD simply wasn't competitive at the high end anymore. That's still true today. That wasn't a conspiracy, that was Intel's focus and R&D. They got beat by AMD in the early 2000s and the shock of that forced an intense reaction that increased investment and focus and resulted in superior products.

[anon(3983727)]

My mother is a 67-year-old technophobe, and my father is a 69-year-old super-technophobe - as in: he's only used an ATM card a half-dozen times, and won't go through a drive-thru.

I bought them smartphones for Christmas in 2014, and not only do they text, check and send email, browse the web, use the GPS, and shop on their phones, they've also both found and installed apps that they're interested in on their own, with no input from me. If you really think that people are unaware of apps, I would refer you to the graphic. EVERYONE has seen those banners - they're on every billboard, every bus, all over boxes at Costco and Walmart and Best Buy, and constantly on TV. Any and every connected device that hits the market uses those banners as part of their advertising.

To deny the importance of the ecosystem is to have your head firmly in the sand, or to be in abject denial.



Yes, AMD was ahead of Intel for a couple of years. Until 2008, I'd never, ever purchased an Intel CPU because AMD was always the better value, so I've been an AMD owner for decades. But the reality is that Intel leaped ahead with their Core technology, and AMD hasn't been close ever since. And I've bought primarily Intel CPUs since then. I didn't buy them because I had anything against AMD - as I said, I'd been an AMD buyer since the late 80's (my first being a 286/12, then a 386/40) and owned several K6 and K7-family CPUs - but because AMD simply got out-classed by Intel, to the point that AMD simply wasn't competitive at the high end anymore. That's still true today. That wasn't a conspiracy, that was Intel's focus and R&D. They got beat by AMD in the early 2000s and the shock of that forced an intense reaction that increased investment and focus and resulted in superior products.

Both of my parents are now on android devices as well and both use only pre-installed apps. You could bet any money in the world that neither could tell you what apps are available ad what are not on any platform. Sure they would recognize the logo but it's no different than any corner screen logo or text. Goes ignored or unrecognized completely.

As for Intel, their lead began with the compiler. AMD chose an architecture that required optimization for multiple cores with low IPC. Intel not only optimized their compilers for their own hardware only but in some cases AMD processors were forced to use 3DNOW. Also in benchmarks they allowed CPUS to exceed TDP ratings momentarily to inflate scores. Damage was done, AMD fell way behind but now they are back with a new architecture that is faster than intel's fastest at a lower clock.

[Bbnivende]

I am a senior and I can do everything on a phone / computer that my adult children can do.

[sorinv]

So, going back to your 45 year old example, Are you saying that todays processors, based on their capabilities are not considered innovative when compared to the example you put out there. Dual core, quad core, octo core, hyper threading, advanced design and so on? Would you also think thqat the addition of a turbocharger on an internal combustion engine is not innovative? The engine design itself hasn't really changed. Perhaps you're just unable to admit you're wrong. Dont feel bad, you're not alone. A lot of people have the defect

Today's processors use pretty much the same architecture as 45 years ago.
The progress in processors has been due to transistor innovations which have allowed transistors to scale, improve speed, allowed to integrate bigger and more processors and cores on a die, and save power (until about 15 years ago).

Now that Moore's law is close to dead, true invention (not innovation) is needed in computer architecture to continue progress in processors, or some other device has to be INVENTED (not innovated) that could replace the transistor below 5nm dimensions.

There are some attempts to use neural networks architectures and quantum computer architectures, but they still have a long way to go.

[blackmass]

Is this a joke or is there some historical truth to this? Interesting anecdote, either way!

Sent from my BlackBerry Passport SE

I assumed it to b a joke. Performed a web search, the results do not point to any definite evidence.

Edit - i did not look too deep into the search anyway.

[Gajja]

Typically the success figures that are reported for this range of devices are reported as if they are reporting on just one type of device called "The iPhone". (this isn't really a level playing field with other types of contemporary devices by other manufacturers, because few manufacturers, if any, have called all the phones they make by the exact same name continuously since 2007. Imagine the statistics if each version of iPhone was instead called by a totally different name since 2007, like most other brands). Typically also the success figures are not reported in terms of phone sales across the whole world, even though the device has global sales aspirations. (This also isn't really a level playing field because a lot of the world majors on other kinds of mobile phones, and these don't get a fair shout in the statistics that are reported to us, the general public). These I would say are major reasons people feel or think iphones are successful.

[stlabrat]

Yes, AMD was ahead of Intel for a couple of years. Until 2008, I'd never, ever purchased an Intel CPU because AMD was always the better value, so I've been an AMD owner for decades. But the reality is that Intel leaped ahead with their Core technology, and AMD hasn't been close ever since. And I've bought primarily Intel CPUs since then. I didn't buy them because I had anything against AMD - as I said, I'd been an AMD buyer since the late 80's (my first being a 286/12, then a 386/40) and owned several K6 and K7-family CPUs - but because AMD simply got out-classed by Intel, to the point that AMD simply wasn't competitive at the high end anymore. That's still true today. That wasn't a conspiracy, that was Intel's focus and R&D. They got beat by AMD in the early 2000s and the shock of that forced an intense reaction that increased investment and focus and resulted in superior products.

AMD outsource their MFG and intel uses their own FAB - it did make difference interms of support (especially, when you are on the new platform, you would need new test bed, new FA capability, almost new eco system to support and educate the users of your new architecture and interface - where the chip walk off the to the board). the inhouse knowledge of design for manufacturing - critical when you shrink the dimension to nm range... contributed to intel success... however, i wouldn't write off AMD with FinFET as yet. RRAM and spintronic another story (qualcomm intel race?)... as for new architecture, true north (IBM) is still remain to be seen... (it may come out better chip design using AI? who knows).

[app_Developer]

I strongly disagree and I also believe the majority of consumers have no idea about app ecosystems.

This is a perspective that I only see here and on WP forums. It's a sort of selection bias. Most people who just want their phones to work with Uber, their bank, their cars, etc., etc. have long since forgotten about BlackBerry. Those left thinking about BB are probably people who care less about ecosystems. Obviously, or why stick with BB?

In the world I live in, most people are very aware of ecosystem compatibility issues.

[blackmass]

This is a perspective that I only see here and on WP forums. It's a sort of selection bias. Most people who just want their phones to work with Uber, their bank, their cars, etc., etc. have long since forgotten about BlackBerry. Those left thinking about BB are probably people who care less about ecosystems. Obviously, or why stick with BB?

In the world I live in, most people are very aware of ecosystem compatibility issues.

I can second that.
I have seen people in Sailfish Os forums & some Ubuntu users accepting the fact that their respective Oses don't have all the apps available. They, like bb, try work-arounds, but don't go on to state that ppl don't use apps.
A solution can only b thought out when first we hav an acceptance of the problem.
I feel most of the ppl against apps r so because either they feel all the apps r into 'data stealing' or want the end to the app system because blackberry does not hav apps or both. Had BBW been full of apps, they wud be advocating how important apps r and how blackberry changed computing.
At least Microsoft admits to the problem & maybe is working towards a probable solution.