-
Just to push this to the side a little, imo another major factor for the title question was ease of transition (which ive probably mentioned before) but wanted to add that though I can't remember the specific examples, there have been companies who went the extra mile to convert those users using decade old software before shutting the service down.
Crackberry Kevin a few days ago did a post implying that Blackberry with BB10 decided to target the general public, when it may have worked better for then to target just their old users base, a precision launch, I agree and think this would have made it all the more easier to then go to the general public.. obviously what's done is done but..
I still see too many people thinking BB10 is legacy which makes it more difficult for then to use the device as their expecting familiarity, and I think it would be worthwhile BlackBerry investing in
1) relationships with carriers so they can help customers understand this too, which means improving the quality and quality of BlackBerry reps
2) for future new phones, or even future old phones sold to carriers , they should update the introduction to show legacy features that are no longer there and their bb10 alternatives (where applicable)
3) some of their advertising should also be aimed at reaching the legacy users showing them that at least some of the features are there, but while others are not Bb10 is so much more etc etc
Whilst some people will never be moved come hell come thunder, it was/is BlackBerry's job to 'add value' for legacy users to BB10 or at least try to, and whilst John Chen is doing so with enterprise, non business consumers shouldn't be left out...
TechCraze C0008DDD1
01-30-14 12:50 AM - Helps with what? Of course those claims can be measured or quantified if the comparison is very specific and variables are reduced as much as possible and controlled. But the OP didn't say faster, simpler, etc. He just said BBOS was simple, fast, and efficient, period. There was no comparison, hence the until further information is provided, it's subjective.
Hmm, I'd challenge that. In fact, if this site is representative at all of hardcore users, there are plenty of examples where someone was lured away by another platform only to return to BB. Why? Because the other platforms did not do the things these users cared about most as well as BlackBerry devices. The real issue is that most former BB users were not traditionalists; their affinity for the platform was based on ephemeral "qualities" such as image or status, popularity among their peers, and the lack of compelling alternatives. They might have been "hardcore" users of their phone, but they were not BB power users and likely did not use most of the device's features. For example, unless the phone was issued by their employer, most were probably never connected to a BES server.Whereas I would guess that a large percentage, even majority of the BBOS traditionalists have extremely limited exposure to platforms outside of what they chose back in the days when BlackBerry was the top platform in the marketplace.
"Better" alone doesn't really mean anything as it presumes a single, common value system. Once you ask "Better how?" you'll likely start getting into something more quantifiable: "Well, it's faster, simpler, etc." But even that's not enough since something can be faster in one way and slower in another.Case in point, BelfastDispatcher here seems to truly believe that he made a great effort to make BlackBerry 10 work for him, and my experience with him suggests he is deluded on that point. In short, whether people think one thing or other is better is often an extremely subjective opinion handicapped by extremely limited experience with alternatives and a penchant for rationalizing one's choices in life with absurd pretzel-logic, an emotional malady that is unfortunately rather common.
But that's all beside the point. Regarding Belfast, that's a pretty big logical jump to say that his complaints about a product are indicative of some deeper insecurity around his life choices, lol. I've followed many of his posts and while I can't attest to the accuracy of specific claims, it basically boils down to this: BB 10 was a deprecation in terms of the features he cared about. Whether or not he made a great effort with BB 10 is immaterial; to him, the sum of the parts were not an improvement. Not every new product is necessarily an improvement in all ways. To some, film might be a "better" photography medium than digital in some ways. But, digital is better in so many other ways that users have accepted its downsides.
As someone in the business of IT training, people are willing to learn. You're conflating change management with the desire to learn. Yes, people can be resistant to change, stuck in their ways, etc. But that's often when the benefits of the change are not transparent--change for change's sake. Or, it's when the change is thrust on them vs. being something they sought. People sought out the iPhone and were willing to learn it. Agree with you on the points about irrational attachment to technology. It's similar to how some guys are with cars. Not everyone is like that about technology, which isn't always obvious if you frequent tech blogs. In some cases, it might be manifestation of loyalty. But in those cases and others, I think it's because people aren't buying the product as much as their buying the reasoning behind why the company made the product it made. I don't think that's entirely irrational, though I'll agree that such emotion around an inanimate object might be a little disproportionate in the big picture.I am well-aware of how this works in the consumer technology marketplace because I spent over 10 years in the retail business selling those products to people. The fact that people make such completely boneheaded decisions about what to own and/or cheerlead-for is one of the key reasons I couldn't work in the business any more. The irrationality and capriciousness of the typical customer's product decision-making process drove me nuts.
Huh? Lost me there.ORLY?
Not really apples-to-apples comparisons as it relies on the premise that the "replaced" technology is always obsolete and that every product decision is always rational and an "improvement." I bet the 1954 Chevy engine is pretty darn similar to the 1953, yet there could be differences simply because Chevy wanted to change the design of the car and the engine needed to fit in the new chassis. Subjective decisions like product styling can have downstream impacts and change other components that have nothing to do with the effectiveness of those components.For the same reasons you can't go down to the local auto-parts store and buy a replacement motor for your 1953 Chevy, and you probably will have a very difficult time finding a replacement CPU fan for a 12 year old PC, and you will discover that your 12 year old email program will not support the latest groupware features offered by modern email infrastructure, and so on and so on.
But this is beside the point. We were talking about learning and existing users. A great example is Windows 8. Are some users simply unwilling to even try it, etc.? Sure. But others have tried it and have determined it is less effective than Windows 7 at meeting their needs. But Microsoft's primary goal wasn't about building a better product for those users; it was about building a better product for new, potential users. So why do existing users just need to get on board when it's obvious that Microsoft did not try to build a better product for them and the new one is not as effective at meetings their needs?
I don't think anyone expects that...not even the old "nellies" if they were being honest lol. I think the real issue is that if the company is unable to excite most of its installed base with new products and entice them to "upgrade," something is wrong. In other words, the number of willing adopters should be far greater than the old nellies. If not, then maybe the old product was just "good enough," or maybe the company is focusing on the wrong things or poorly communicating the value prop of the new product.Companies who produce products are not charities. In order to survive and continue to support their customers they must generate revenue and profit from products. If the potential revenue stream from a 10-year-old product has dwindled to virtually zero, no one in their right mind should expect the company to lose gobs of money catering to old nellies who can't give up something that no longer supports modern systems, no longer interoperates with anything, is afflicted with multiple serious architectural deficiencies that lead to unfixable security vulnerabilities, etc etc etc ad nauseum.
No need for the insult--I definitely understand and agree! The only problem was that your explanation didn't correspond to the question I posed. I'll articulate it a different way and emphasize that we were talking about UI here: Why should existing users have to learn a new UI just so that new users will find the new UI familiar and, therefore, won't need to learn something new? Why can't new users just learn the "old" UI, if that UI was effectively meeting the need?I really really don't understand why I would have to explain something like that to grown adults - I would think children by the age of 16 or so would have gotten a handle on such obvious matters of basic logic.
I see plenty of demand among professionals to learn new technologies and plenty of demand for those technologies by organizations. A craftsman will learn how to use a hammer if it's a better tool for driving nails than a screwdriver.As a person whose business and professional role revolves around implementing and supporting technology in businesses, I can say with great confidence that you have no idea what you are talking about in that respect.
Again, you're conflating my point above with change management. And the symptoms of change management you mention usually come when the USER benefits are not clear and the change is disruptive. People are self-interested; they'll often happily learn new things that will make their lives easier. They're understandably less enthusiastic about learning new things that, to them, only seem to make someone ELSE's life easier.we have seen here in this thread with great abundance, MOST people in fact are un-creative, set in their ways and stubborn about their established personal patterns. This is also why we have ridiculous, endless "advocacy wars" here on CrackBerry - because people are so absurdly defensive about their platform choices.
Now, it's not a blanket statement, and technology can be special in that some folks, particularly older ones, can have a "fear" of tech and find it more difficult to learn. But this often is because, despite the technology's benefits, it's unintuitive UI can be a barrier to adoption. Better design likely would mitigate the challenge.
Sure. See here:Show me where I claimed "BlackBerry phone sales are terrible is because today's phone users aren't familiar with the old UI".
Yes a small number of people in the world are familiar with it. Most people in the world today using smartphones however, aren't familiar with it and use straight touchscreen products. (Which is why BlackBerry's sales are in the toilet these days compared to the competition)Agree! However, I think the fact that legacy device sales continue to outsell new devices (or, sell less worse than new devices lol) suggests something is wrong with new device strategy.BlackBerry sales are terrible for a variety of reasons, this thread in particular demonstrates the fallacy that since BB10 flopped for a bunch of mostly unrelated reasons, the legacy OS partisans seem to think that means that "BBOS won". No, as MarsupilamiX has repeatedly pointed-out, they BOTH failed.
I think it boils down to this: No one is arguing that BBOS was perfect and needed no improvement. And no one is arguing that BB 10 brought a lot of improvements. I think what folks like Belfast are arguing, though, is that BB 10 also removed a lot of what legacy users relied on and liked about BB 10. This is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.
To these folks, sure, BlackBerry didn't really fix the issues with BBOS; rather, it just swapped in a new product that inherently doesn't have those issues. "Oh, that burger is too greasy? OK, here is a turkey sandwich--no grease at all!" Sure, BlackBerry addressed the issues, but not in a way these users wanted. Now, some might argue that the issues couldn't be fixed or that it would be faster/easier to just swap in a new product. I'll defer to developers or engineers here, but given how the BB 10 timeline kept slipping and the very beta-ish nature of the 10.0 and 10.1 releases, I'm a little skeptical.
Also, regarding BIS vs. EAS, etc., regardless of whether BB 10 does everything email-related fine and there's no need for BIS, I think it's a problem that BlackBerry allowed EAS to get "good enough" to begin with. Perhaps BIS really is an obsolete paradigm, but as one of the few (only?) true push technologies, I doubt it. I just think BlackBerry didn't innovate enough here, failing to extend its lead in push message delivery and find new use cases for the core technology.01-30-14 01:23 AM -
The comment that I followed-up to, and which you commented-upon with your "fast/efficient/simple" comparison was the one about BB10 not having "proper buttons".
I stand by what I wrote. "Proper" has nothing to do with "fast/efficient/simple". One is authoritative, the other are quantitative or qualitative.
Danger Will Robinson. When people write "plenty of examples" it's basically meaningless as any sort of comparator. So excuse me if I take such claims with a big giant rock of salt.
As someone who knows about the diversity of humanity, sweeping generalizations such as the one you made there are laughably dumb. Furthermore, if most people on earth were truly willing to learn things simply because of an appeal to rationality, then the world would not be composed of many billions of people under the spell of ancient religious mythologies and essentially poised with arrows and daggers pointed at those who pray to a slightly different deity than the one that they do.
Actually they did not really seek it out in the beginning. As Steve Jobs famously said, most people don't even know what they themselves want until you show it to them and tell them why they want it. And that little axiom is, in my view, at the core of Apple's success. Furthermore, I can tell you from my years in the retail business that Apple knows exactly what they are doing in that regard. People want to be led. True individualists are rare as hen's teeth, regardless what American cultural mythology says.
Huh? Lost me there.
It's an "internetism". In response to your sage observation that "traditionalists" might not like something new.
Because you cannot support traditional things forever, it saps your product development and production and support resources for something of interest to a tiny fraction of people that are either unable or unwilling to provide even a fraction of the revenue necessary to continue to produce old-fashioned products for them. It's like building an 8-track tape player into a Prius. I'm sure there might be a few people in this world that would think its cool (and who might actually still have 8-track tapes they want to play in their new-fangled contraption), but the cost and tradeoffs entailed in doing such a thing would not even remotely be covered by any revenue such a feature might hope to generate.
Once again, I would think that such things should be obvious. Software companies no longer release their software on 5.25" floppy disks either.
And that is a key reason why I fled retail and ended up doing technology consulting for businesses. Unlike the "consumer" market which is irrational and capricious as hell, at least most decently-run businesses are comprised of people who are capable of seeing how technology might benefit them and doing at least a half-*ssed job of judging its cost/benefit. In this role I regularly get much appreciation from business-owners for solving problems for them and helping their business succeed, which makes it all worthwhile, to me. Whereas in the retail world what you usually get (besides the occasional nugget) is a lot of whining crybabies who want to be pampered, who pretend to come to you for advice and then ignore it, who make decisions based on fashion trends, opinions of ill-informed friends or how impressed their friends will be when they see it in their living room*, rather than a product's actual benefits or detriments. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that.
*(If you want to understand life as a hi-fi salesman, the scene from "Ruthless People" in the hi-fi shop is scarily close to reality. I know that particular reality quite well. Of course, "hi-fi salesman" in general is sort of an anachronism in these days of crappy MP3 players and battery-powered Bluetooth speakers. FWIW, I was also in the photographic equipment business and general home electronics business.)
My comment there was observational, not cause/effect. When a product has a 1% market share, that generally means that not only do most people not use that product, most people have never even seen that product. When I said "which is why" that was sloppily constructed. The point is - BlackBerry's marketshare today is miniscule, and the VAST majority of people in the world PREFER an all touchscreen device, even Crackberry users, by-and-large - by my observation.
Yet we have certain die-hards who endlessly conflate failure of BB10 with the alleged "success" of legacy BBOS, which is absurd, as has been pointed-out repeatedly.
As a newcomer to a thread which has gone on for a month now and ~1100 posts, I think that's a bit presumptious to be speaking on behalf of everyone here.
Secondly, I never claimed people thought it needed "no improvement", but you will find that the loudest partisans arguments here are actually not that far removed from that sentiment.
If only what you wrote there about "true push" were actually true.
The kind of "push" that the major proponents here are fond of is not actually "true push" at all, as has been pointed-out many times in this thread and the constant march of similiar threads that those same few squeaky-wheels perpetuate for months on end here.
Makes me wonder if you are not a veteran of such discussions yourself, making such a claim.
And FWIW, there is no inherent value in a term like "true push" or "untrue push" or whatever you want to call it. The end-result is the value, regardless of how "true" someone thinks some technology is.01-30-14 05:58 AM - 1) I wasn't talking about conversion of data, I didn't mean or I believe state transmission of information, but rather of features, if people pick up a Q10 expecting it to work like a Bold for example, it at create a barrier for them in using a the phone and add confusion etc I'll give an example, I had a 8520 at some point, I was able to add my school email (outlook) with absolute ease (something which I couldn't even do on an iPhone) it was just a matter of entering username, password and off i go, I expected the same from a Z10 and found it could no longer do so,(at least not easily) and up to now I havent figured it out, me being me I just forwarded my emails to one that I could get on the Z10 but this meant I couldnt send emails from my school account from my phone... I'm quite a 'newbie' to the inner workings of BlackBerry so I don't know if that's anything to do with BIS but it's just one example anyway.. another thing I expected was themes..
3) I understand and mostly agree with the other factors started, but from what I've learnt, target market was something interwoven with at least some of the other problems e.g. there was a document some time ago now form an ex blackberry employees who described the 'alleged' events that took place surrounding bb10 and he said that the team making bb10 worked separately to those that maintained legacy which to him was a mistake as it meant a lot of features and functionality didn't cross over, and I think the analogy given in a comment above portray it well 'replacing greasy burger with turkey burger' which is not necessarily bad it was just the road they tool, we can argue for days over what could have happened, but like I said it's done, better concentrate on what can be done now..
I think it's going too far to call it trivial.
Using the car analogies since they've proved popular
if ferrari released. Anew model of a car and about 3 quarters later, they were selling more of the old model than the new, someone's head would roll..
Just to make it clear, I love bb10 and whilst I may be leaning towards being the type of person @BelfastDespatcher describes who mostly used a legacy device for bbm brick breaker that mole word game and a bit of email and I don't think it's fair to say if.you didn't connect your BlackBerry to a BES07 that you had an inferior device; different customers different needs, I do appreciate that more attention should have been paid to legacy users and their needs both business and consumers, if they couldn't improve the software anymore then make hardware that does better and whilst bb10 may have been a let down,.. the advantage to making a device open to the regular individual is just that, they can sell phones to regular individuals..
TechCraze C0008DDD101-30-14 10:16 AM - I'm going to skip rebutting to each point to avoid devolving the thread into philosophical rhetoric so the discussion can stay on track. Here's my point: I see "legacy" BlackBerry and physical keyboards as being a lot like manual transmissions in cars. Manual transmissions were wildly popular at one point (still popular in some regions); all else being equal for the sake of illustration, it was boom times for manufacturers of manual transmission cars.The comment that I followed-up to, and which you commented-upon with your "fast/efficient/simple" comparison was the one about BB10 not having "proper buttons".
I stand by what I wrote. "Proper" has nothing to do with "fast/efficient/simple". One is authoritative, the other are quantitative or qualitative.
Danger Will Robinson. When people write "plenty of examples" it's basically meaningless as any sort of comparator. So excuse me if I take such claims with a big giant rock of salt.
As someone who knows about the diversity of humanity, sweeping generalizations such as the one you made there are laughably dumb. Furthermore, if most people on earth were truly willing to learn things simply because of an appeal to rationality, then the world would not be composed of many billions of people under the spell of ancient religious mythologies and essentially poised with arrows and daggers pointed at those who pray to a slightly different deity than the one that they do.
Actually they did not really seek it out in the beginning. As Steve Jobs famously said, most people don't even know what they themselves want until you show it to them and tell them why they want it. And that little axiom is, in my view, at the core of Apple's success. Furthermore, I can tell you from my years in the retail business that Apple knows exactly what they are doing in that regard. People want to be led. True individualists are rare as hen's teeth, regardless what American cultural mythology says.
It's an "internetism". In response to your sage observation that "traditionalists" might not like something new.
Because you cannot support traditional things forever, it saps your product development and production and support resources for something of interest to a tiny fraction of people that are either unable or unwilling to provide even a fraction of the revenue necessary to continue to produce old-fashioned products for them. It's like building an 8-track tape player into a Prius. I'm sure there might be a few people in this world that would think its cool (and who might actually still have 8-track tapes they want to play in their new-fangled contraption), but the cost and tradeoffs entailed in doing such a thing would not even remotely be covered by any revenue such a feature might hope to generate.
Once again, I would think that such things should be obvious. Software companies no longer release their software on 5.25" floppy disks either.
And that is a key reason why I fled retail and ended up doing technology consulting for businesses. Unlike the "consumer" market which is irrational and capricious as hell, at least most decently-run businesses are comprised of people who are capable of seeing how technology might benefit them and doing at least a half-*ssed job of judging its cost/benefit. In this role I regularly get much appreciation from business-owners for solving problems for them and helping their business succeed, which makes it all worthwhile, to me. Whereas in the retail world what you usually get (besides the occasional nugget) is a lot of whining crybabies who want to be pampered, who pretend to come to you for advice and then ignore it, who make decisions based on fashion trends, opinions of ill-informed friends or how impressed their friends will be when they see it in their living room*, rather than a product's actual benefits or detriments. I could go on and on, but I'll leave it at that.
*(If you want to understand life as a hi-fi salesman, the scene from "Ruthless People" in the hi-fi shop is scarily close to reality. I know that particular reality quite well. Of course, "hi-fi salesman" in general is sort of an anachronism in these days of crappy MP3 players and battery-powered Bluetooth speakers. FWIW, I was also in the photographic equipment business and general home electronics business.)
My comment there was observational, not cause/effect. When a product has a 1% market share, that generally means that not only do most people not use that product, most people have never even seen that product. When I said "which is why" that was sloppily constructed. The point is - BlackBerry's marketshare today is miniscule, and the VAST majority of people in the world PREFER an all touchscreen device, even Crackberry users, by-and-large - by my observation.
Yet we have certain die-hards who endlessly conflate failure of BB10 with the alleged "success" of legacy BBOS, which is absurd, as has been pointed-out repeatedly.
As a newcomer to a thread which has gone on for a month now and ~1100 posts, I think that's a bit presumptious to be speaking on behalf of everyone here.
Secondly, I never claimed people thought it needed "no improvement", but you will find that the loudest partisans arguments here are actually not that far removed from that sentiment.
If only what you wrote there about "true push" were actually true.
The kind of "push" that the major proponents here are fond of is not actually "true push" at all, as has been pointed-out many times in this thread and the constant march of similiar threads that those same few squeaky-wheels perpetuate for months on end here.
Makes me wonder if you are not a veteran of such discussions yourself, making such a claim.
And FWIW, there is no inherent value in a term like "true push" or "untrue push" or whatever you want to call it. The end-result is the value, regardless of how "true" someone thinks some technology is.
Then, someone came along and was like, "Why do we even need to shift the gears in cars ourselves? Why can't this be automated?" And so the automatic transmission was born. Fast forward a few decades and the popularity of manual transmissions plummeted. Most car manufacturers adopted the automatic transmission and gradually phased out manuals or confined them to niche vehicles. If you're in the U.S., good luck finding them; you'll have to settle for a comparatively narrow range of vehicles.
But, some people still like manual transmissions; they prefer the more "active driving" experience and greater control over the vehicle, which are advantages in applications like motorsports, off-roading, towing, etc. Of course, these people represent a niche market, but that doesn't mean they're backwards, stubborn, and unwilling to learn new technology. It also doesn't mean that manual transmissions are a "bad" technology or obsolete or anything like that. In fact, quite the opposite.
Let's go back to that same scenario where someone asked why cars can't shift themselves. This person sought to automate the entire shifting process by replacing the clutch with a torque converter, allowing the car's own kinetic energy to shift gears. Fast forward a few decades. Someone else--who recognized the advantages of a manual, clutch-driven transmission--came along and said, "How can we improve manual transmissions through the use of electronics and hydraulics?" And so, semi-automatic and automated manual transmissions were born. The goal wasn't to replace the shifting process; rather, it was to improve it by decreasing shift times, decreasing the physical effort involved, and reducing human error.
BlackBerry was like an automotive manufacturer that specialized in manual cars. Once the iPhone came out, demand for its products start declining and the company found itself with aging technology and a choice: either compete with the new players by adding modern touchscreen devices to your line-up and start phasing out physical keyboards and the old OS; or, transition the company into other markets and business models. Despite a few false starts like the Storm, the company tried just doing the status quo, but this wasn't a viable option since its suddenly niche market didn't warrant a company of its size. Yet, the problem with trying to compete with the new players is that Blackberry's core competencies were not around making consumer-centric devices.
Eventually, BlackBerry decided to compete and set out on building new, consumer-centric devices. And just like with the automatic transmission, instead of fixing the problems with the platform, BlackBerry just replaced it. OK, great, but now users who preferred a lot of things about the old platform--as niche as these users might be--were under-served in the market. Furthermore, iOS and Android already were replacement platforms; if BlackBerry's strategy was platform replacement, it didn't have to invent its own.
And I think that might be what some folks around here are saying: what they wanted was a better BlackBerry, but what they got was an up-and-coming Android/iOS counterpart. Sure, it had less of the issues the old platform had, but also had less of what they liked about the old platform.
Regarding BIS, "true push" or not, it's more push than most alternatives. And regardless, in this time of hyper-connectedness and desire for instant notifications, I'm hard-pressed to see how a fast, data-efficient, and battery-efficient communications network like BIS isn't an advantage and potentially something that could be productized for companies in the social media space and other markets.01-30-14 08:55 PM -
It may interest you to know that my car has a manual transmission.
In short, I have no blanket, inherent bias against something strictly because some people associate it with "old-fashioned" or because some form of it preceded some other more modern form.
However in the technology and communications field, this is not just a vanity or style issue. It is a matter of compatibility, supportability, and functionality. I gave many examples of this earlier.
I think that's quite a tortured analogy.
I have made the same argument here many times, feel free to search my posting history.
However you are making these broad abstract sweeping generalizations which dismiss the details of the subject at hand. I happen to agree that there are some features of the legacy platforms I'd like to see BB10 incorporate. So what? I also can think of a long list of features that OTHER platforms have that I wish BB10 had, that BlackBerry has NEVER had. Big whoop. The fact that there were a few interesting features on legacy BBOS has little to nothing to do with whether Blackberry should essentially resurrect that platform, as the traditionalists here are regularly suggesting. (Or their fantasies essentially amount to the same thing for all practical purposes)
No it is not.
Asked and answered umpteen times on Crackberry. No time to re-hash that for literally the 250th time here right now.
For the moment I will leave you with this - something I created after getting fed-up with the same whining and explanations over and over and over and over and over here:
http://forums.crackberry.com/blackbe...de-bis-786880/01-30-14 11:35 PM
Why does OS7 continue to outsell BB10?
Similar Threads
-
CrackBerry Kevin on CNBC: Happy BBRY committed to hardware
By Bla1ze in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 20Last Post: 12-23-13, 12:08 AM -
BBM z10 to ios 7 issues
By mhydamacka in forum General BBM ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 12-22-13, 11:38 AM -
plz help! how to check the BB's imformations by the IMEI
By tophuige in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & RumorsReplies: 1Last Post: 12-20-13, 11:12 PM -
How to find prd code on my 9320?
By adilbashirmirza in forum BlackBerry Curve SeriesReplies: 1Last Post: 12-20-13, 11:59 AM -
CrackBerry Kevin: Happy BBRY committed to hardware - CNBC
By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion & ContestsReplies: 0Last Post: 12-20-13, 10:40 AM