08-01-16 08:32 PM
209 ... 23456 ...
tools
  1. SomeoneOrOther's Avatar
    And yet, today's younger generation, who don't know the whole story behind BB's decline, want to blame everything on Chen. I don't get it
    to boldly go likes this.
    07-04-16 03:36 PM
  2. donnation's Avatar
    And yet, today's younger generation, who don't know the whole story behind BB's decline, want to blame everything on Chen. I don't get it
    They gotta blame someone. Many haven't been around long enough or know BB's history and want to pin its failures on the guy currently running the ship. The truth is Chen arrived when the body was already cold, and has done his best to Frankenstein a software company out of what was remaining.
    grydlok and SomeoneOrOther like this.
    07-04-16 03:42 PM
  3. Parrillas NY's Avatar
    Mr. Chen KILL BB10
    07-04-16 03:44 PM
  4. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    The bottom line is that when Chen took the helm, BB10 was already dead.
    There, I fixed it for you.

    Chen wasn't hired to save BB hardware - the Board had already accepted that hardware was almost certainly going to fail for BB. Instead, Chen was hired to turn BB into a software company that would survive the failure of its hardware business. That's why Chen, a software turn-around expert, was hired instead of a hardware/logistics guy.

    As I wrote in my earlier post, the blame for BB10's failure rests firmly on the shoulders of Mike Lazaridis.
    JeepBB and cribble2k like this.
    07-04-16 03:50 PM
  5. aha's Avatar
    They gotta blame someone. Many haven't been around long enough or know BB's history and want to pin its failures on the guy currently running the ship. The truth is Chen arrived when the body was already cold, and has done his best to Frankenstein a software company out of what was remaining.
    It's like blaming Obama for the trillion dollar debt.
    07-04-16 03:51 PM
  6. BBerryPowerUser's Avatar
    It's like blaming Obama for the trillion dollar debt.
    Exactly. Obama spent more money in his first six months in office than ALL Presidents spent COMBINED before him. Why blame him? Blame those that voted for him.

    On a serious note, I think BlackBerry is too edgy and complicated for the masses. iPhone, as an opposite extreme, is as easy as pie. Turn it on, set up your email, and you're done. The phone's eco-system is closed and simple. Evidently, tens of millions like that. I have an iPhone. It's fun as a play phone. Perhaps that's the key. The masses want something to play with, and an iPhone is fun.

    Whatever the case, BlackBerry was the first through the wall. The first guy through the wall always gets the arrows in his chest. Ford invented the mass-produced automobile, yet most of my friends don't drive one. Neither do I. First is not always best.
    jegs2 likes this.
    07-04-16 04:42 PM
  7. TgeekB's Avatar
    Exactly. Obama spent more money in his first six months in office than ALL Presidents spent COMBINED before him. Why blame him? Blame those that voted for him.

    On a serious note, I think BlackBerry is too edgy and complicated for the masses. iPhone, as an opposite extreme, is as easy as pie. Turn it on, set up your email, and you're done. The phone's eco-system is closed and simple. Evidently, tens of millions like that. I have an iPhone. It's fun as a play phone. Perhaps that's the key. The masses want something to play with, and an iPhone is fun.

    Whatever the case, BlackBerry was the first through the wall. The first guy through the wall always gets the arrows in his chest. Ford invented the mass-produced automobile, yet most of my friends don't drive one. Neither do I. First is not always best.
    Blackberry was not first through the modern wall, it was first through the old broken down wall. They were last when it came to catching on with what was new and innovative, that's why they got left behind. Left behind by a play phone, as you like to call it.
    JeepBB and donnation like this.
    07-04-16 05:16 PM
  8. BlackberryFan777's Avatar
    In Troy's post, below, you'll read the conventional explanation of BlackBerry's fall. It's a revisionist history that doesn't really gel with anyone's experience who used both an early iPhone and a BlackBerry Bold 9000 as I did. Mike L has offered a different, more historical explanation of where the company stumbled. Here it is:

    Verizon, a booming US carrier, planned to dominate the market through the release of LTE technology. They insisted they had a timeline of just under two years to get the network upgrades up and they needed devices that would run faster on their network than on their competitor's HSPA networks. They asked BlackBerry, Motorola, and another competitor to build the devices that would sell Verizon as "America's fastest network." Month's later when the device manufacturers presented their work before Verizon, BlackBerry did not have a product to show. Intstead, Mike L gave them a kind of physics lecture on why LTE was many years off and couldn't be implemented on their network. As is clear now, Mike was wrong about this one thing and it hurt the company immensely. When Mike L left the room, one Verizon executive asked the others, "So, what now? Do we fire BlackBerry?" They had planned for Blackberry to be the flagship on which LTE would sail, but for the next few years when customers would go to Verizon stores, they would be educated that BlackBerry devices are old-fashioned and that new Android or "Droid" branded devices would run multiple times faster on Verizon's network. Literally, Verizon made Android a success and Verizon would have preferred to have made BlackBerry that success. As other carriers unveiled LTE, BlackBerry still didn't have a solution. Sure, Apple didn't either for a long time, but the Apple iPhone wasn't a big sales success until later on when it did.

    The part of Troy's revisionist history that bothers me the most is the idea that Apple's original iPhone was a device so superior that it was revolutionary and disrupted the market. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The original iPhone was pretty much an iPod with a phone app. The BlackBerry Bold 9000 crushed the iPhone in sales. There was no consumer recognition that Apple would own the future of phones at that point. I owned both when they were released and ended up returning my iPhone. Its inability to copy and paste and countless other failings have been documented here. It didn't do push email on exchange, either. While the iPhone had a superior camera and browser, I want to make clear that the camera and browser on both sucked. If you've taken photos with smartphones in the last couple of years, you've experienced how useful they are and probably realized that, in many cases, you don't need a dedicated pocket camera, at all, anymore. That's *not* what iPhone consumers found. It was the best camera in a phone at a time when cameras in phones were so bad they weren't useful for much of what they are useful for today. Although Apple was able to draw on legions of desktop developers to improve their ecosystem quickly, something that BlackBerry couldn't have done because it had no desktop community, I don't even remember the iPhone having an App Store when it launched.

    So, did Apple just crush BlackBerry with its iPhone? Nope. It delivered a product for people who wanted to carry one device instead of both a phone and an MP3 player. And, it delivered it on only one network, AT&T. Did the iPhone have a good foundation for growth? I think so. It's kernel, app isolation, and NDK were far superior to BlackBerry's at the time. But, those are technical things that are pretty distant from the consumer. When BlackBerry 10 was released, it had the best kernel, app isolation on the market and its Qt / Cascades NDK was very competitive, too. But, those things don't equal a disruptive boom in the market.

    BlackBerry didn't really begin to slip in my mind until 2010 after BBX was already under development. The new platform *was* delayed too long, but it wasn't released on "old hardware." The hardware was not as cutting edge as it would have been when the Z10 was originally supposed to ship, but it was still flagship material from any device maker. The red developer phones, one of which I still have, stood out, too.

    But, BB10 was abandoned by John Chen when he came on board. Not in the sense that he shuttered it immediately; he still used it to take our money. But, the expenses that were necessary for it to grow and thrive were not paid. Developer relations was shuttered, so the app ecosystem stalled -- up to that point, it was good only for a new platform, but things looked to be picking up. Not sure what happened next. You can't grow a platform to critical mass on the cheap and that's what happened. But, Apple and Google recognized some of the awesomeness of BB10 and much of its little tweaks and improvements live on. It needed to get closer to acheiving Mike L's vision and that would have happened if the board didn't go in a different direction. Heck, Thor was selling 4 to 7 million phones per quarter before his last quarter when he appears to have been replaced earlier than we were informed. Today, Chen sells so few Android devices, it's unclear why BlackBerry makes them. But, I digress...

    Anyway, in my opinion, if BlackBerry would have satisfied its real customers -- the carriers -- by providing LTE devices, it would be the largest platform in mobile today. The iPhone is pretty much irrelevant to BlackBerry's fall, although the form factor seems to have caught on. Today, the iPhone sells well in enterprise because it is very much more like a BlackBerry of 2008 than an iPhone of 2008 -- it's hardened for enterprise security.

    Also, the Storm was an awful device, but it wasn't a flop; it was ordered by Verizon because Verizon wanted to be able to offer it's customers something that looked like an iPhone, but had all the superior functionality of a BlackBerry, and it sold pretty well.

    BB suffered from "Founder's Disease." Mike Lazaridis was a brilliant engineer who identified a set of problems with mobile, and, based on his early experience with Nokia's mobile data products, he created the 2-way BB pagers that eventually turned into early smartphones. But he fixated on these problems and solutions and refused to see that the world was changing and that, starting around 2005, there were new problems in search of new solutions.

    Apple created the iPhone to solve those new problems and to make the (rapidly growing) power of smartphones easy for everyone to use. Google, who had already been working on the same idea, immediately adjusted their plans once the iPhone was announced, dropping work on their "Sooner" BB Bold-style phone and putting all their effort in the all-touch "Dream" concept (which became the HTC Dream/T-Mobile G1). But Mike, seeing the same thing Google saw, simply insisted that people really didn't want iPhones, touchscreens, cameras, mobile media, full web browsers, or apps - rather, he decided, physical keyboards (PKBs) and mobile email & messaging were all that mattered. Instead of immediately starting work on a next-gen OS (which should have been in the works long before the iPhone announcement), he focused on making touchscreens FEEL like a keyboard - something no one actually asked for. And a ton of time was invested in hacking their old, 1st-gen OS capable of working with a clickable touchscreen, cameras, and an improved web experience.

    The Storm, the device in question, was a massive flop, requiring a replacement in the Storm 2 - which further wasted development time on the old OS when BB should have been focused in a new one. In fact, BB didn't even start development for 3 years after the iPhone launch, and took another 3 years to release a bug-filled version on older hardware at a high price. Again, it flopped, and truthfully BB didn't have a really stable, full-featured release for yet another full year - 7 years post-iPhone.

    Seven years is an eternity in the tech business. BB effectively stood by and watched as Apple, and then Google ate their lunch and poached their business, and by the time they finally got into gear, the war had already been lost.

    BB10 died in 2009, before the first line of code was even written, because that was the year that Apple and Google's ecosystems became so big and so diverse that they simply couldn't be caught, even with hundreds of billions of dollars in resources (I'm looking at Microsoft here).

    Similarly, Microsoft had no excuse. They'd also been in the game for years, always half-heartedly, and that still really hasn't changed. By all rights, MS should be the kings of the mobile OS - they had a huge lead in many ways - but Ballmer just didn't understand mobile's importance, despite Bill Gates having been a mobile cheerleader for a decade before the iPhone.

    Nokia and Palm also made similar mistakes, though to Palm's credit, they knew what was going on and were working on it - they just lacked the funds and were forced to sell themselves to HP, which was the kiss of death.

    BB (Mike L) should have known better, but he thought 2001 problems were still the pressing issues in 2007, while the rest of the world had moved on.
    07-04-16 05:36 PM
  9. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    BBOS 7 devices were responsible for bulk of sales in 2013. BB10 was a flop right off and wasn't salvageable. It had so many crappie apps ported or created because of Thors' bungled strategy to attract developers and thinking consumers wouldn't notice the app gap was far worse on BB10 than BBOS7. I could do more on my 9900 than I could on my Z10 or Q10. They finally caught up to my 9900 with 10.2.1. The app gap still was bigger with BB10 at that point. Whatever has been done was necessary to save company for the shareholders. There was never a way to save BB10. Think abortion when you describe it's life cycle.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    JeepBB and Velocitymj like this.
    07-04-16 05:53 PM
  10. Alain_A's Avatar
    , I think BlackBerry is too edgy and complicated for the masses

    ^^^^This.....IPhone simple for the masse
    07-04-16 05:55 PM
  11. shaleem's Avatar
    Does it really matter? I mean, I've been reading threads on this subject for years. BlackBerry is not dead...... yet.

    "It doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you."
    remus_lonno likes this.
    07-04-16 05:56 PM
  12. kevwill6115's Avatar
    By investor, I mean an institution definitely! Or it could be a person, if you mean Bill Gates!



    That's why I mentioned the investors, because THEY should tell Blackberry what to do and when to do.
    Can anyone tell me how the shareholders/board members allow Chen to keep pushing forward with handsets? Numbers are down quarter after quarter.

    Posted via CB10
    07-04-16 09:14 PM
  13. DonHB's Avatar
    ...BB10 died in 2009, before the first line of code was even written, because that was the year that Apple and Google's ecosystems became so big and so diverse that they simply couldn't be caught, even with hundreds of billions of dollars in resources (I'm looking at Microsoft here)....
    It was hubris on the part of management. They should have, with development of BB10 begun in 2010 and introduced in '13, made Android the first development platform for BB10 (the BB10 we know with QNX Neutrino). Losing the Signal devoted a couple of sentences to Alan Brenner's proposal. He proposed that BlackBerry adapt the Android runtime to fully support Flow, integrating the features of BB10. This would have reduced time to market and would not have required developers to begin anew; allowing them to use their existing software assets to build apps for BB10.

    But expecting the platform to be adopted in great numbers in less than a year was truly hubris. Not having a Plan B (perhaps making Brenner's recommendation Plan B) was also hubris. Having a billion dollar inventory of Z10s was Hubris. Not directing sales of BB10 devices prior to version 10.2.1 specifically to BlackBerry devotees was hubris. Mismanagement was directly responsible for BB10's market results. John Chen, whose background was in hardware before becoming known for turning around Sybase began work as CEO ten months after BB10s introduction. It does appear that the board gave up on BB10 when device sales didn't match the targets they were promised. Hubris again--as if a product with the BlackBerry logo should sell itself.
    Last edited by DonHB; 07-04-16 at 10:28 PM.
    07-04-16 10:16 PM
  14. Velocitymj's Avatar
    BB suffered from "Founder's Disease."..........
    Your reply to this, as is usually the case with many of your posts, is the most factually informative of any that I've read on this subject.
    Thanks for laying down reality.


    Posted via CB10
    07-04-16 10:58 PM
  15. Velocitymj's Avatar
    Yeah no one could have said it better than Troy, It was just too late.. They had to release it early enough to gain traction and support from developers, when they still had a huge users base.. Back at the end of 2012.. I had a Bold 9780.. and I was looking to buy a new device.. My first consideration went to BlackBerry, but they just didn't have a response to the innovation of Android And iOS.. They were seriously behind.. at times where Samsung had the Note II & S3.

    That's what happened to almost everyone I knew who had a BlackBerry, we all wanted to jump to the next generation of BlackBerry phones.. We waited for them to do something, come up with something great.. But the offerings were seriously inferior to what was out there.. Even BB10 wasn't out at this time.. It was just too late.. They should've figured that out.. There response wasn't at the same level of Android & iOS.. They should've adopted Android back then in order to catch up quickly.. It would've saved them tons of money, and we wouldn't be where we're now.. They could've been seriously competing if they moved to Android early on, like everyone did..
    It's not just that, it's also that BB10 was so pathetic : bare boned, unfamiliar, lacking full cross platform usability (not a real word) and super buggy.
    And their hubris about it (along with the BlackBerry fanboys) was aggravating to put it mildly. .
    As a business owner I returned the Z10 to replace my phone after 7 days, kept us on 9900 Bolds (even though mine could no longer bring up contacts).
    Complete fools and they still don't get it.

    Posted via CB10
    07-04-16 11:11 PM
  16. Velocitymj's Avatar
    just do one change and BlackBerry will again rise: your brainstorming team.
    Keep dreaming bro.
    Even when the capabilities of smartphones reaches a plateau (as is bound to happen) BB10 will be buried with it's lack of apps being the stake in it's heart that keeps it from rising again.

    Posted via CB10
    07-04-16 11:30 PM
  17. Dennis Okaka's Avatar
    I believe BB can still change and make a comeback
    bodjor likes this.
    07-05-16 12:32 AM
  18. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    In Troy's post, below, you'll read the conventional explanation of BlackBerry's fall. It's a revisionist history that doesn't really gel with anyone's experience who used both an early iPhone and a BlackBerry Bold 9000 as I did. Mike L has offered a different, more historical explanation of where the company stumbled. Here it is:

    <snip>

    The part of Troy's revisionist history that bothers me the most is the idea that Apple's original iPhone was a device so superior that it was revolutionary and disrupted the market. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The original iPhone was pretty much an iPod with a phone app. The BlackBerry Bold 9000 crushed the iPhone in sales. There was no consumer recognition that Apple would own the future of phones at that point. I owned both when they were released and ended up returning my iPhone. Its inability to copy and paste and countless other failings have been documented here. It didn't do push email on exchange, either. While the iPhone had a superior camera and browser, I want to make clear that the camera and browser on both sucked. If you've taken photos with smartphones in the last couple of years, you've experienced how useful they are and probably realized that, in many cases, you don't need a dedicated pocket camera, at all, anymore. That's *not* what iPhone consumers found. It was the best camera in a phone at a time when cameras in phones were so bad they weren't useful for much of what they are useful for today.
    You completely missed the point. I completely agree that the first iPhone (aka the iPhone 2G) had all kinds of shortcomings. It was also incredibly expensive, being $600 down with a 2-year contract, making the phone's total cost come out at over $1000.

    But none of that mattered. What did matter is that the iPhone revolutionized people's idea of what a phone could be. It was clear that the first iPhone hadn't realized its full potential, and in fact, it would be 2 more releases, until the 3GS, that the iPhone really began to deliver on its potential. The important thing that you're greatly discounting, though, is that most people could pretty clearly see where Apple was going, even though they hadn't actually gotten there yet in 2007, and the mass consumer wanted to go there with Apple. Many couldn't yet afford to do so, and many were uncertain about all this new potential power that they could carry around in their pocket, but the reason the press talked about almost nothing else for several years is because the iPhone was a huge disruption to the industry. For the first time, it allowed people to carry a real computer in their pocket, and most people began to understand what that really meant, even if the full potential had yet to be realized.

    Even Mike admits he was shocked that they "put a whole Mac computer in there." The idea of a full-fledged web browser and a big screen with no PKB was another big shock, and of course, the integrated and curated app store, with integral app payment system, was another revolution that didn't exist when the iPhone was launched but came just after the second iPhone (the iPhone 3G) was released.

    It is impossible to discount the impact of the iPhone. It was absolutely revolutionary, and changed almost every aspect of the smartphone business - even for those who didn't own their first smartphone for several years later, and even for those who never bought an iPhone but moved to an Android phone from their old "dumbphone." Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not an Apple fan - the whole walled garden approach is a huge turn-off to me, and always has been - but that doesn't mean I don't give credit where credit is due.

    The Storm would never have existed without the iPhone - in fact, it was specifically and directly made by BB in an attempt to compete directly with the iPhone, and while it definitely sold well, it didn't stay sold - it had the highest return rate of any smartphone in history. And that means it created huge losses for both Verizon and BB.

    The LTE issue was, of course, a massive Mike-led mistake, just as the whole 2.5G-instead-of-3G that he pushed for previously. That was just more proof of both Mike's hubris and how out-of-touch he was with contemporary reality. But as big as those issues were, they are dwarfed by Mike's short-sightedness with BBOS & BIS - a model that, as someone recently put so well, the carriers were highly motivated to disrupt, and which BB had built its entire company around, with no real backup plan.

    I think we both agree that Mike led BB to make a great number of big mistakes, one after another after another. He just couldn't see past his own solutions to 2001's problems after the rest of the world had moved on, and anytime someone wanted something - anything - more modern, Mike tried to solve it by insisting that BBOS/BIS (i.e., 2001 solutions) was the solution to the new issue, even when that was clearly impossible. Mike actively held back not only BB, but the carriers too, as much as he could, instead of driving forward. The tech business isn't kind to those who can't move ahead, and BB's sufferings are merely proof of that.

    BB's fate isn't because of one mistake, or even a handful of mistakes, but rather a systematic failure of Mike Lazaridis to accept and embrace the forward change happening in the world - and that failure informed every decision he made, for years, that drove BB from the heights it had achieved right straight into the ground.
    JeepBB, MikeX74, Ronindan and 2 others like this.
    07-05-16 12:59 AM
  19. MC_A_DOT's Avatar
    I believe BB can still change and make a comeback
    Whatever it is that you're smoking, you need to stop lol
    jegs2 likes this.
    07-05-16 03:07 AM
  20. kvndoom's Avatar
    Can anyone tell me how the shareholders/board members allow Chen to keep pushing forward with handsets? Numbers are down quarter after quarter.

    Posted via CB10
    My guess is that they want to have a fully complemented package. Phones, software, device management. Their move away from the consumer market and more focus on corporations will be more successful if they can sell phones along with their software solutions.

    Passport SE, "The BlockBerry" - Cricket Wireless
    07-05-16 05:14 AM
  21. wilber1's Avatar
    I think all of us BlackBerry faithful really know that it is over for handsets yes there will be a few new Androids coming but they will not sell enough to keep them coming it's so sad and too bad but be prepared to move on .
    07-05-16 05:53 AM
  22. Avenzuno's Avatar
    Shareholders are not greedy, they only want 1 thing... MONEY!! And Mr. Chen mentioned many times "I still believe we can make MONEY from hardware business". Chen believed he can save Blackberry while everyone believed it's dead, and he made it! Why not to believe he can save hardware business too? They are not scientists, they are investors! They only hear the bold part of Chen's statement.
    (God didn't put money in someone's pocket, and brain in his skull... gave each to 1 of them)
    Yes, for the shareholders, BlackBerry is an investment. The former RIM wants to offer the best products and services for its customers. Consumers, though, are lowest on the totem pole, an afterthought. We here are BB10 fans because of the product itself, and are frustrated that BlackBerry is not furthering the BB10 consumers' own investment to the platform. Consumer customers like us here on this here thread, unfortunately, have no say so. But the shareholders and board do notice the numbers, whether the sales are there. If anyone should be revolting at this point, it should be the shareholders! I know the following suggestion is a topic for the armchair thread, but if I were to become a major shareholder, I would install leadership that would address the consumer market itself as one of the highest priority. I would revive BB10 software and hardware development much like only five years ago BlackBerry refreshed the OS 7 line with a new Bold 9900. It can be done if some rich investor out there really wants it. Someone at CB please recruit a white knight to shake up the BlackBerry Board of Directors!
    Linlithgow0 likes this.
    07-05-16 07:59 AM
  23. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    Yes, for the shareholders, BlackBerry is an investment. The former RIM wants to offer the best products and services for its customers. Consumers, though, are lowest on the totem pole, an afterthought. We here are BB10 fans because of the product itself, and are frustrated that BlackBerry is not furthering the BB10 consumers' own investment to the platform. Consumer customers like us here on this here thread, unfortunately, have no say so. But the shareholders and board do notice the numbers, whether the sales are there. If anyone should be revolting at this point, it should be the shareholders! I know the following suggestion is a topic for the armchair thread, but if I were to become a major shareholder, I would install leadership that would address the consumer market itself as one of the highest priority. I would revive BB10 software and hardware development much like only five years ago BlackBerry refreshed the OS 7 line with a new Bold 9900. It can be done if some rich investor out there really wants it. Someone at CB please recruit a white knight to shake up the BlackBerry Board of Directors!
    At this point... I think most real "shareholders" would like to see BlackBerry get out of hardware.

    BOLD 9900 line was introduced back when BBOS was still popular... there were almost 60 Million BBOS users back then and BIS still offered users in many markets a value as a low cost way to access the internet.

    BB10... never really was "alive" to begin with.
    07-05-16 08:14 AM
  24. Bbnivende's Avatar
    At this point... I think most real "shareholders" would like to see BlackBerry get out of hardware.

    BOLD 9900 line was introduced back when BBOS was still popular... there were almost 60 Million BBOS users back then and BIS still offered users in many markets a value as a low cost way to access the internet.

    BB10... never really was "alive" to begin with.
    Just one modification, PKB phones were still popular not so much BBOS. BB7 was behind the curve in August 2011. The rise of sales of Curve devices as a cheap texting device stalled their demise. That BBOS continued to sell in 2013 was just entropy. If BB10 was a still birth, BBOS was a dead man walking.

    There are many BBOS super fans on this site but not in the real world.

    The problem BlackBerry has is that they need to make phones that are popular to Enterprise and to consumers beyond their fan base.

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by Bbnivende; 07-05-16 at 09:45 AM.
    Avenzuno likes this.
    07-05-16 09:24 AM
  25. hayesjam's Avatar
    Honestly, I think BB10 failed because 99% of smartphone users prefer eye candy and simple social media apps over a true secure business productivity device.
    Avenzuno and to boldly go like this.
    07-05-16 10:42 AM
209 ... 23456 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-03-16, 11:33 PM
  2. How to reinstall Blackberry World
    By PwrSurge in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-03-16, 07:53 PM
  3. Text messages go to addresses I did not choose?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-16, 12:17 AM
  4. Why won't my gDMSS HD Lite connect on my BlackBerry Passport?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-02-16, 07:10 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD