What makes iphone so successful?
-
And people didn't reject BB10 because it was complicated. It isn't, but if that makes you feel superior then by all means, lead the think tank on.11-08-16 04:58 PMLike 6 - By disparaging do you mean not buying? Because that's the reason that BB went Android. Your beef is with Blackberry for quitting on BB10, not those who didn't purchase their phones.11-08-16 05:00 PMLike 0
- Right. They are doctors, lawyers, and business professionals that are using iOS. The business sector of iPhone users far outweighs those using a Blackberry.
And people didn't reject BB10 because it was complicated. It isn't, but if that makes you feel superior then by all means, lead the think tank on.11-08-16 05:05 PMLike 0 - Who's calling it complicated? You seem to be the only one leading that charge. Just because someone isn't using it doesn't mean they find it complicated. It also doesn't mean that because you find something dumbed down that that's the way everyone feels.11-08-16 05:09 PMLike 0
-
But I'm the type who pulls for the underdogs.11-08-16 05:10 PMLike 0 - My only beef is with people who wish for alternative platforms to die because of stupid reasons like it's too complicated for most people as if everyone has the same needs. It has nothing to do with bb10 but with all the players (Palm, Nokia, and so on) who never really had a fair chance in the first place.
These "small" players had a chance, but they failed to act on the opportunity they had.11-08-16 05:14 PMLike 5 - I was responding to what someone said on the last page about people not wanting a more complicated os.11-08-16 05:14 PMLike 0
- My only beef is with people who wish for alternative platforms to die because of stupid reasons like it's too complicated for most people as if everyone has the same needs. It has nothing to do with bb10 but with all the players (Palm, Nokia, and so on) who never really had a fair chance in the first place.
But I'm the type who pulls for the underdogs.11-08-16 05:19 PMLike 4 - Your knowledge of other Platforms seems to be a bit off. Palm had a chance with the Pre but released a ****ty device with a little bitty cramped keyboard that was slow as molasses. Nokia had the biggest user base in the world with Symbian but failed to transition into something more. Blackberry had a huge user base but chose to stick with BBOS for too long and ignored the market.
These "small" players had a chance, but they failed to act on the opportunity they had.Last edited by matt4pack; 11-08-16 at 05:37 PM.
11-08-16 05:22 PMLike 0 -
But people seem to worship mega-corporations these days for some strange reason.Last edited by matt4pack; 11-08-16 at 05:43 PM.
11-08-16 05:25 PMLike 0 - Lol they were the big guys. What are you even talking about? All of a sudden the "big guys" with no phones and no market share decided to take over? You are making zero sense. You can keep thinking you are using the thinking man's OS and let everyone else use their dumb phones. Not much more for us to argue about.JeepBB and Elephant_Canyon like this.11-08-16 05:39 PMLike 2
- I know plenty of hardcore Mac users that use them for work. Heck, I'm sometimes one of them. There is exactly 1 photographer that's affected by the new Mac. The other 20-ish have no issue.
Once again, a corner case. I posit that most MacBook (Pro or otherwise) users aren't hooking up a bunch of gear to their laptop.
I will say, a person using a mac pro to sit in starbucks and write blog posts, or scripts, are not "pros", true, those people wont need any ports.
Next MacPros will have no ports, I'm calling it now.11-08-16 05:52 PMLike 0 - Except that the some of biggest of the big guys in hardware and software didn't make it in mobile despite trying very hard : Sony, HP, and Microsoft. So, to paint this as tech bullies coming in and pushing the little guys out of the smartphone market is a contrivance. The ascendance of Google, Samsung, and Apple mobile in technology was based on innovation and execution. BlackBerry simply was not innovative enough and certainly didn't execute well enough to compete and retain the markets and customers it once owned.11-08-16 05:54 PMLike 2
- Except that the some of biggest of the big guys in hardware and software didn't make it in mobile despite trying very hard : Sony, HP, and Microsoft. So, to paint this as tech bullies coming in and pushing the little guys out of the smartphone market is a contrivance. The ascendance of Google, Samsung, and Apple mobile in technology was based on innovation and execution. BlackBerry simply was not innovative enough and certainly didn't execute well enough to compete and retain the markets and customers it once owned.
The main advantage Apple and Google had besides the tens of billions of dollars is they didn't have a legacy OS which meant they could start fresh once the hardware was capable of running a modern OS. Palm, Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft all had legacy OS's to support which is what ultimately killed them irregardless of the position they once had.Last edited by matt4pack; 11-08-16 at 06:50 PM.
11-08-16 06:21 PMLike 0 - Amazing insight there. It's a little bit easier to get that kind of ecosystem when you have a monopoly in the first place whether it's google with search, Microsoft with office, or Apple with music players. Those monopolies help to fund everything else they do and make it impossible for the little guys to compete whether it be Nokia, Palm, Blackberry, Sega, or Nintendo who were ever only in one line of business to start with.
While of course you are right that it's easier for a big player to fund other big things, what you're missing is that the "winners" of the smartphone war were the two companies who had real vision, excellent timing, and very, VERY real, brutally honest perspective of where the business was, where it was going, and how to get users, developers and investors on board.
BB didn't lose to Apple and Google because they had more money, they lost because Mike Lazaridis simply couldn't see beyond his 2G-mobile-network-based solutions that he'd based his whole company around. In other words, it was a complete failure of leadership, not a failure of money or technology. If BB had had a realistic solution for competing with the iPhone, they'd have had investors lined up around the block to invest money into the idea (which is how Apple and Google grew).
The reality is that engineers tend to be lousy businessmen. Jobs was never an engineer - he was a visionary, a salesman, and a dictator, but he didn't design or create things - he improved them conceptually, but that was the limit of his creative abilities. One of Mike's specific goals in creating BB was to make it "a place where engineers didn't have to answer to businessmen" (aka "market realities"), and in the end, he ended up creating an echo chamber where outside ideas that competed against Mike's views simply weren't allowed, and where Mike was always right.
Your example of Microsoft is a great one. MS had every possible advantage in mobile: they were huge, wealthy, had "must-have" apps, enormous developer support, excellent developer relations, and had been involved in mobile a decade before anyone really took it seriously (Bill Gates absolutely knew it was the future and spent tons on mobile R&D, which Ballmer mostly ignored once he took over). In the end, none of that helped them, because they lacked leadership that made mobile a top priority and who would make it a complete, integrated vision. Result: less than 1% marketshare for Microsoft.
Mike was a brilliant engineer with a great solution for 1999's mobile problems - he had Founder's Disease (unwilling to disrupt the products that "made" the company) and was never prepared for anything that came later. BB failed in the smartphone business because of Mike - the same person who had succeeded in the business so significantly a decade earlier.Last edited by Troy Tiscareno; 11-11-16 at 10:30 AM.
11-08-16 07:00 PMLike 7 - The main advantage Apple and Google had besides the tens of billions of dollars is they didn't have a legacy OS which meant they could start fresh once the hardware was capable of running a modern OS. Palm, Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft all had legacy OS's to support which is what ultimately killed them irregardless of the position they once had.
As far as Android is concerned, the HTC dream was launched only on T-Mobile in 2008 - hardly a power move by Google.Last edited by early2bed; 11-08-16 at 07:28 PM.
11-08-16 07:06 PMLike 3 - Apple, Microsoft, and Google were all tiny, insignificant companies within my own living memory. Palm was worth billions when Google was Larry and Sergei working out of a garage. Nokia was a huge, established company for decades before Jobs met Woz.
While of course you are right that it's easier for a big player to fund other big things, what you're missing is that the "winners" of the smartphone war were the two companies who had real vision, excellent timing, and very, VERY real, brutally honest perspective of where the business was, where it was going, and how to get users, developers and investors on board.
BB didn't lose to Apple and Google because they had more money, they lost because Mike Lazaridis simply couldn't see beyond his 2G-mobile-network-based solutions that he'd based his whole company around. In other words, it was a complete failure of leadership, not a failure of money or technology. If BB had had a realistic solution for competing with the iPhone, they'd have had investors lined up around the block to invest money into the idea (which is how Apple and Google grew).
The reality is that engineers tend to be lousy businessmen. Jobs was never an engineer - he was a visionary, a salesman, and a dictator, but he didn't design or create things - he improved them conceptually, but that was the limit of his creative abilities. One of Mike's specific goals in creating BB was to make it "a place where engineers didn't have to answer to businessmen" (aka "market realities"), and in the end, he ended up creating an echo chamber where outside ideas that competed against Mike's views simply weren't allowed, and where Mike was always right.
Your example of Microsoft is a great one. MS had every possible advantage in mobile: they were huge, wealthy, had "must-have" apps, enormous developer support, excellent developer relations, and had been involved in mobile a decade before anyone really took it seriously (Bill Gates absolutely knew it was the future and spent tons on mobile R&D, which Ballmer mostly ignored once he took over). In the end, none of that helped them, because they lacked leadership that made mobile a top priority and who would make it a complete, integrated vision. Result: less than 1% marketshare for Microsoft.
Mike was a brilliant engineer with a great solution for 1999's mobile problems - he had Founder's Disease (unwilling to disrupt the products that "made" the company) and was never prepared for anything that came later. BB failed in the smartphone business because of Mike - the same person who had succeeded in the business so significantly a decade earlier.
Posted via CB1011-08-16 07:09 PMLike 0 - So is Samsung going to go under because of the battery fiasco? No not a chance because they do everything from making chips to refrigerators and washing machines which is a luxury the smaller guys didn't have. If you can't see how that's an advantage from a monetary or economies of scale factor which the others didn't have then I don't know what to say.
The main advantage Apple and Google had besides the tens of billions of dollars is they didn't have a legacy OS which meant they could start fresh once the hardware was capable of running a modern OS. Palm, Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft all had legacy OS's to support which is what ultimately killed them irregardless of the position they once had.
On another note neither Apple nor Google has had to "transition" their user base yet. The old version of the OS is always close enough in coding and UI to the new one for everything to work. When they have to completely change the underlying architecture will be the true test.11-08-16 07:12 PMLike 0 - On another note neither Apple nor Google has had to "transition" their user base yet. The old version of the OS is always close enough in coding and UI to the new one for everything to work. When they have to completely change the underlying architecture will be the true test.
The first, in 1984 was from the Apple ][ to the Macintosh. But the Macintosh has gone through a number of huge transitions, both hardware and software.
Hardware wise, they went through the Motorolla 68k processors, to the PowerPC architecture, and finally the Intel architecture. (Some believe they're planning to move to ARM next but who knows.)
Software wise, on the Mac, they went from the old Mac System / OS platform to Unix-based OS X.
None of those transitions has been 100% painless but I'd argue they've been pretty successful considering. In every case they provided backwards compatibility (albeit not forever, but for several years) and generally their users had a lot of time to get comfortable with the New Thing before they shut off whatever compatibility layer was keeping the Old Thing alive.
Would that BBRY had done the same in migrating BBOS to BB10, perhaps things might have played out a little differently.11-08-16 07:28 PMLike 5 - I will point out that Apple has a lot of experience going back a long way, when it comes to transitioning and migrating their users.
The first, in 1984 was from the Apple ][ to the Macintosh. But the Macintosh has gone through a number of huge transitions, both hardware and software.
Hardware wise, they went through the Motorolla 68k processors, to the PowerPC architecture, and finally the Intel architecture. (Some believe they're planning to move to ARM next but who knows.)
Software wise, on the Mac, they went from the old Mac System / OS platform to Unix-based OS X.
None of those transitions has been 100% painless but I'd argue they've been pretty successful considering. In every case they provided backwards compatibility (albeit not forever, but for several years) and generally their users had a lot of time to get comfortable with the New Thing before they shut off whatever compatibility layer was keeping the Old Thing alive.
Would that BBRY had done the same in migrating BBOS to BB10, perhaps things might have played out a little differently.
So lack of backwards compatibility is a valid problem. BlackBerry and Microsoft threw you off the bus where Apple helped you down the steps all while rubbing your back(Hasn't been the case with the new MacBook but that's been how apple does hardware for a while. Think 30 pin to Lightning). Google is pretty much the same.
I think that's what will help their transitions not be the disaster when that time comes.
I will point out that Apple has a lot of experience going back a long way, when it comes to transitioning and migrating their users.
The first, in 1984 was from the Apple ][ to the Macintosh. But the Macintosh has gone through a number of huge transitions, both hardware and software.
Hardware wise, they went through the Motorolla 68k processors, to the PowerPC architecture, and finally the Intel architecture. (Some believe they're planning to move to ARM next but who knows.)
Software wise, on the Mac, they went from the old Mac System / OS platform to Unix-based OS X.
None of those transitions has been 100% painless but I'd argue they've been pretty successful considering. In every case they provided backwards compatibility (albeit not forever, but for several years) and generally their users had a lot of time to get comfortable with the New Thing before they shut off whatever compatibility layer was keeping the Old Thing alive.
Would that BBRY had done the same in migrating BBOS to BB10, perhaps things might have played out a little differently.11-08-16 07:38 PMLike 0 - So is Samsung going to go under because of the battery fiasco? No not a chance because they do everything from making chips to refrigerators and washing machines which is a luxury the smaller guys didn't have. If you can't see how that's an advantage from a monetary or economies of scale factor which the others didn't have then I don't know what to say.
The main advantage Apple and Google had besides the tens of billions of dollars is they didn't have a legacy OS which meant they could start fresh once the hardware was capable of running a modern OS. Palm, Nokia, Blackberry, and Microsoft all had legacy OS's to support which is what ultimately killed them irregardless of the position they once had.
You are right about the legacy OS. Apple and Google came out with something different, and honestly you should be thankful for that. If they hadn't, you'd be using a BB1000 running BBOS.11-08-16 07:40 PMLike 0 - Apple, Microsoft, and Google were all tiny, insignificant companies within my own living memory. Palm was worth billions when Google was Larry and Sergei working out of a garage. Nokia was a huge, established company for decades before Jobs met Woz.
While of course you are right that it's easier for a big player to fund other big things, what you're missing is that the "winners" of the smartphone war were the two companies who had real vision, excellent timing, and very, VERY real, brutally honest perspective of where the business was, where it was going, and how to get users, developers and investors on board.
BB didn't lose to Apple and Google because they had more money, they lost because Mike Lazaridis simply couldn't see beyond his 2G-mobile-network-based solutions that he'd based his whole company around. In other words, it was a complete failure of leadership, not a failure of money or technology. If BB had had a realistic solution for competing with the iPhone, they'd have had investors lined up around the block to invest money into the idea (which is how Apple and Google grew).
The reality is that engineers tend to be lousy businessmen. Jobs was never an engineer - he was a visionary, a salesman, and a dictator, but he didn't design or create things - he improved them conceptually, but that was the limit of his creative abilities. One of Mike's specific goals in creating BB was to make it "a place where engineers didn't have to answer to businessmen" (aka "market realities"), and in the end, he ended up creating an echo chamber where outside ideas that competed against Mike's views simply weren't allowed, and where Mike was always right.
Your example of Microsoft is a great one. MS had every possible advantage in mobile: they were huge, wealthy, had "must-have" apps, enormous developer support, excellent developer relations, and had been involved in mobile a decade before anyone really took it seriously (Bill Gates absolutely knew it was the future and spent tons on mobile R&D, which Ballmer mostly ignored once he took over). In the end, none of that helped them, because they lacked leadership that made mobile a top priority and who would make it a complete, integrated vision. Result: less than 1% marketshare for Microsoft.
Mike was a brilliant engineer with a great solution for 1999's mobile problems - he had Founder's Disease (unwilling to disrupt the products that "made" the company) and was never prepared for anything that came later. BB failed in the smartphone business because of Mike - the same person who had succeeded in the business so significantly a decade earlier.11-08-16 07:45 PMLike 0 -
Samsung has been very successful during the smartphone era and LG was a key player during the dumbphone and early smartphone days.
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
11-08-16 08:31 PMLike 0 - Right that's what I meant when I said the new stuff has always been close enough to the old for things to work. BlackBerry and Microsoft would have been well served to have put in some backwards compatibility. I guess they didn't have time for that as they were already late.
I suspect BB would have been in a different reality if they'd been able to bring a significant number of those BBOS guys along. Though I doubt it would have changed the ending, merely postponed it, as BB10 still wouldn't have had the extensive App ecosystem that the world seemingly demands.11-09-16 01:56 AMLike 0
- Forum
- Popular at CrackBerry
- General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
What makes iphone so successful?
Similar Threads
-
How the DTEK60 helped me cancel my iPhone 7 Plus pre-order
By kasedillz in forum BlackBerry DTEK60Replies: 29Last Post: 11-07-16, 08:46 PM -
A new Blackberry with a QWERTY keyboard would be a big success.
By Jonas Hagglund in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 46Last Post: 11-04-16, 06:21 AM -
What is this VPN error?
By Alale in forum Ask a QuestionReplies: 2Last Post: 10-31-16, 09:15 AM -
Whats happening with whatsapp why I need to update?
By mad_orsi in forum BlackBerry PassportReplies: 4Last Post: 10-31-16, 01:15 AM -
DTEK50 or 60...or stick with iPhone?
By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a QuestionReplies: 1Last Post: 10-30-16, 03:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD