Twig Error: Failed to write cache file "sites/crackberry.com/files/twig_cache/b0/b02a5f4ee8d7487b8bc25d87a91e095183fe21b01b3f0a3d936c3bb626f4b2ec.php". (Line 80 in /web/drupal7-20210910145921/vendor/twig/twig/src/Cache/FilesystemCache.php)
11-14-16 01:54 PM
567 ... 1920212223
tools
  1. donnation's Avatar
    Not everyone is a kid, hipster, or old person. I mean why should we have manual transmissions then? It's too complicated so we should make everyone drive an automatic I guess.
    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.
    MikeX74, Jerry A, JeepBB and 3 others like this.
    11-08-16 04:58 PM
  2. donnation's Avatar
    And the other side should stop disparaging people who don't want everything dumbed down and wishing for alternative platforms to die so we can all be a society of sheep using the same product.
    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 PM
  3. matt4pack's Avatar
    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.
    Most doctors, lawyers, and business professionals drive automatic transmissions as well. It doesn't mean that a manual option shouldn't still exist for those who do value what some people here would call complicated.
    11-08-16 05:05 PM
  4. donnation's Avatar
    Most doctors, lawyers, and business professionals drive automatic transmissions as well. It doesn't mean that a manual option shouldn't still exist for those who do value what some people here would call complicated.
    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 PM
  5. matt4pack's Avatar
    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.
    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 05:10 PM
  6. donnation's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    MikeX74, JeepBB, TGR1 and 2 others like this.
    11-08-16 05:14 PM
  7. matt4pack's Avatar
    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.
    I was responding to what someone said on the last page about people not wanting a more complicated os.
    11-08-16 05:14 PM
  8. early2bed's Avatar
    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.
    Never really has a fair chance? Nokia, Palm, and Blackberry each utterly dominated the smartphone market at one point.
    11-08-16 05:19 PM
  9. matt4pack's Avatar
    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.
    I had an iphone 3G so I know what slow as molasses is. The last update made it completely unusable which they got a pass for while others were never given those same passes for much less.
    Last edited by matt4pack; 11-08-16 at 05:37 PM.
    11-08-16 05:22 PM
  10. matt4pack's Avatar
    Never really has a fair chance? Nokia, Palm, and Blackberry each utterly dominated the smartphone market at one point.
    Not once the big guys decided they wanted a piece of that pie. They dominated one line of business while the others did so much more which put them ahead of the game.

    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 PM
  11. donnation's Avatar
    Not once the big guys decided they wanted a piece of that pie. They dominated one line of business while the others did so much more which put them ahead of the game.
    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 PM
  12. DJ BigToe's Avatar
    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.
    Not sure 20ish people is a large enough sample size to conclude that hardcore mac users don't use their ports.

    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 PM
  13. early2bed's Avatar
    Not once the big guys decided they wanted a piece of that pie. They dominated one line of business while the others did so much more which put them ahead of the game.
    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.
    JeepBB and TGR1 like this.
    11-08-16 05:54 PM
  14. matt4pack's Avatar
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by matt4pack; 11-08-16 at 06:50 PM.
    11-08-16 06:21 PM
  15. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    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.
    Apple, Microsoft, and Google were all tiny, insignificant companies within my own living memory. Palm was worth billions when Google was Larry and Sergei were 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.
    Last edited by Troy Tiscareno; 11-11-16 at 10:30 AM.
    11-08-16 07:00 PM
  16. early2bed's Avatar
    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.
    Remember, that Apple went to every carrier but could only get AT&T, then not the major US carrier (23% market share), to carry the iPhone with a five year exclusive deal. That doesn't sound like they had money and economies of scale on their side - that belonged to Palm, Nokia, Microsoft, and BlackBerry and the other major carriers. BlackBerry had years to come up with something for its Verizon customers with the full support of the dominant US carriers.

    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.
    JeepBB, TGR1 and pantlesspenguin like this.
    11-08-16 07:06 PM
  17. JohnKCG's Avatar
    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.
    Very good points, so we can agree than BlackBerry failure was caused by bad timing and that was caused because BlackBerry arrogance


    Posted via CB10
    11-08-16 07:09 PM
  18. tre10's Avatar
    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 make an excellent point in your last paragraph. It's not a simple task to transition an entire user base to something new that they don't know. Both BlackBerry and Microsoft had a tough time with that transition. They both had to essentially throw away entire apps stores because their new OS were so fundamentally different in capabilities to the old ones.

    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 PM
  19. StephanieMaks's Avatar
    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.
    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 07:28 PM
  20. tre10's Avatar
    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.
    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. All of Apple's transitions have been on their own time and there's a distinct advantage in that.

    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 PM
  21. donnation's Avatar
    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 acting like Blackberry was run out of a garage. They had millions upon millions of users and billions of dollars. Because a company is successful in making refrigerators doesn't mean they are going to be successful in making phones.

    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 PM
  22. matt4pack's Avatar
    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.
    I would agree mostly but to me what you just described is the Apple of today. They just got left behind by the surface studio and it's new way of user interaction in the professional market and are getting left behind in the education market by chromebooks. They have confusing products lines with consumer level equipment carrying the pro name just so they can try to justify the price and so on. They are so stubborn about touch in OS X that they're being left behind while it's finally starting to pay off for Microsoft. All seems very familiar.
    11-08-16 07:45 PM
  23. Jerry A's Avatar
    You are acting like Blackberry was run out of a garage. They had millions upon millions of users and billions of dollars. Because a company is successful in making refrigerators doesn't mean they are going to be successful in making phones.
    Well, there is Samsung and LG. They make both refrigerators and phones.

    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 PM
  24. JeepBB's Avatar
    The more complex the better. I want to be confused!
    Yeah, I've used Android too...
    11-09-16 01:34 AM
  25. JeepBB's Avatar
    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've previously read insider posts who've said that BB10 was originally intended to have a BBOS runtime (either in place of, or in addition to, Android). There were problems, and the BBOS RT never came... and, as you say, BB threw 80M BB users under the bus.

    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 AM
567 ... 1920212223

Similar Threads

  1. How the DTEK60 helped me cancel my iPhone 7 Plus pre-order
    By kasedillz in forum BlackBerry DTEK60
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 11-07-16, 08:46 PM
  2. A new Blackberry with a QWERTY keyboard would be a big success.
    By Jonas Hagglund in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-04-16, 06:21 AM
  3. What is this VPN error?
    By Alale in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-31-16, 09:15 AM
  4. Whats happening with whatsapp why I need to update?
    By mad_orsi in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-31-16, 01:15 AM
  5. DTEK50 or 60...or stick with iPhone?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-30-16, 03:45 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD