[Omnitech]

OmniTech just wondering if you're planning to respond to my reply to you regarding legacy -bb10 transition?

Maybe I missed it. Link?

[WES51]

This whole discussion is turning very much into something that reminds me on the story of the Titanic.

[Omnitech]

Your question can be considered totally irrelevant, useless and probably defaming.
This is the case because Omnitech's credibility is in no way affected by the fact of him having used/not having used an OS7 device.

Basically, I have no interest in being baited into an irrelevant argument with someone who seems to spend all day and all night looking for some kind of pretzel logic with which to try to rationalize his stance on this stuff.

There is no shortage of evidence in this thread and all the other interminable and unending "Old vs New" arguments on Crackberry, that many people using legacy OS devices whether that was version 5, or 6, or 7, were fed up with the problems with that platform. That's the reason BlackBerry bought QNX and developed BB10 in the first place.

Even Lazaridis and Balsillie could see THAT handwriting on the wall.

For the record: I owned 2 legacy BB devices: a 9630 ("Tour") model, and a 9650 ("Bold") model. (I still have both of them and carry the 9650 with me every day, in fact, because there are a couple of apps on it I refer to every once in a while.)

The Tour originally came with OS 5, and was later updated to OS 6. Which was basically a slightly improved version of 5. The 9650 came with OS 6, which I updated a few times. The only full-featured OS7 device (I don't buy pearls or curves) that my carrier ever sold was the 9930, and because of the horrible camera on that model and lack of LTE among other things, it had no appeal to me. As I was getting increasingly tired of all the legacy OS problems, I was still looking for something better. Zero interest in Android, zero interest in Apple, zero interest in Microsoft. So as a former longtime Palm user I decided to take a chance on their new WebOS model, bought one the first week it came out. Returned it within a month, it was clearly not ready for primetime. So I ultimately just waited for BB10 and bought the Z10 the day they were introduced here.

[Omnitech]

It's not push though, the device will have to search for new emails every 15 minutes 24/7.

Just like BIS.

[belfastdispatcher]

Just like BIS.

With BIS the device doesn't have to do it, is that so hard to grasp? The emails are pushed to the device.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[belfastdispatcher]

Basically, I have no interest in being baited into an irrelevant argument with someone who seems to spend all day and all night looking for some kind of pretzel logic with which to try to rationalize his stance on this stuff.

There is no shortage of evidence in this thread and all the other interminable and unending "Old vs New" arguments on Crackberry, that many people using legacy OS devices whether that was version 5, or 6, or 7, were fed up with the problems with that platform. That's the reason BlackBerry bought QNX and developed BB10 in the first place.

Even Lazaridis and Balsillie could see THAT handwriting on the wall.

For the record: I owned 2 legacy BB devices: a 9630 ("Tour") model, and a 9650 ("Bold") model. (I still have both of them and carry the 9650 with me every day, in fact, because there are a couple of apps on it I refer to every once in a while.)

The Tour originally came with OS 5, and was later updated to OS 6. Which was basically a slightly improved version of 5. The 9650 came with OS 6, which I updated a few times. The only full-featured OS7 device (I don't buy pearls or curves) that my carrier ever sold was the 9930, and because of the horrible camera on that model and lack of LTE among other things, it had no appeal to me. As I was getting increasingly tired of all the legacy OS problems, I was still looking for something better. Zero interest in Android, zero interest in Apple, zero interest in Microsoft. So as a former longtime Palm user I decided to take a chance on their new WebOS model, bought one the first week it came out. Returned it within a month, it was clearly not ready for primetime. So I ultimately just waited for BB10 and bought the Z10 the day they were introduced here.

Them why are you so opinionated about BB7 if you never owned one? BB7 was miles ahead of BB6, especially on devices that originally came with BB5.


The difference was night and day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WES51]

There is no shortage of evidence in this thread and all the other interminable and unending "Old vs New" arguments on Crackberry, that many people using legacy OS devices whether that was version 5, or 6, or 7, were fed up with the problems with that platform. That's the reason BlackBerry bought QNX and developed BB10 in the first place.

New could have been released including the some of the old core functions and everybody would be happy.

(please spare me all the technical nonsense, why Blackberry could not pull it off)

If Steve Jobs was alive and in charge of QNX things would have probably looked much different.

I'm glad QNX works for a few enthusiasts, yet, the proof is STILL in the pudding.

[Omnitech]

I do not need BIS and none of the other BBOS owners that I know need BIS. On the other hand I do want a fast browser and the ability to run the top apps . I want Google maps to run as well on a BlackBerry as it does on the iphone or android device.

This is quite a mainstream view, and why BlackBerry rightly determined to put their efforts into BB10, which addresses all of those things and more, and de-emphasize the legacy platform, which is saddled with a vast array of insurmountable limitations that make it uncompetitive.

I realize though that there are consumers out there who need or want BIS. [...] In fact, I think BlackBerry should be selling the Jakarta with BIS and a Jakarta without BIS for markets that lack sophisticated cell phone infrastructure.

BIS requires a substantial, proprietary committment from carriers to run special infrastructure for the sole use of a SINGLE vendor. When BlackBerry was the top product in most global markets, that was a reasonable choice for carriers to make. However today with Blackberry's marketshare eroding to less than 1% in major markets like the USA, a carrier would have to have some sort of masochistic self-destructive management to go out of their way to make such accomodations for such a minor player in the market.

Furthermore, the economics of mobile usage today are much much different than they were 5 years ago during the heyday of BIS. People tout how "cheap" it is, but this is not BlackBerry's decision to make, it is the carrier's decision to make how much they charge for their service. And it is really obvious that carriers are tired of giving that service away for next to nothing, especially since data-usage expectations today are VASTLY higher than they were 5 years ago. You can't expect a car that has a top speed of 195 mph to sell for the same price as a car whose top speed is 65mph.

In addition, in emerging markets I am told that many carriers now offer plans for ie Android devices that are just as cheap as ye-olde BIS plans for BlackBerries. So this so-called "price advantage" for BIS isn't a foregone conclusion either.

I see nothing wrong with BlackBerry selling an upgraded 9900. There are users who are willing to pay a premium for such devices.

And there are surely people somewhere in the world who might pay to have an 8-track tape player in a Prius, too. But the numbers of those people and the amount they would be willing to pay for such a feature are a microscopic fraction of the numbers needed to make engineering, producing and supporting such a feature a worthwhile business decision. Same goes for an "upgraded 9900". The market for such a device is puny and shrinking fast.

[Omnitech]

Interesting, because new messages show up just fine. Deleting a message on the phone deletes it from the mailbox and Outlook is updated on the next send/receive operation.

Which sounds suspiciously like you have at least one endpoint (probably Outlook) connected via IMAP, not EAS. Or else your home network is blocking long-lived open TCP sockets, which will break "push". (common problem with home networks using crappy routers)

Also having issues with the calendar showing data from fields from the wrong appointment.

How many calendars do you have configured on the device?

That sounds like an OS bug.

[Omnitech]

Are you disputing this?

BIS polls the email server, that we know. Email server to BIS is NOT push. We all know that.

BIS to the phone IS push. There might be a delay, but it is pushed to the phone.

The entire path, email server to BIS to the phone might not be push in the sense EAS is, but the final portion of the path certainly is push.

All of which is immaterial.

All that matters is how long it takes to get a new message. If it takes 15 minutes under normal conditions IT'S NOT PUSH.

And of course you realize that BIS doesn't even give you the whole message anyway. It gives you the first part. If the message is not very short, you have to keep asking it to send you more. Until it reaches the BIS attachment size limit, and then you are just out of luck and have to find another way of sending that attachment.

[WES51]

However today with Blackberry's marketshare eroding to less than 1% in major markets like the USA, a carrier would have to have some sort of masochistic self-destructive management to go out of their way to make such accomodations for such a minor player in the market.

So why do they still do it then?

[Bbnivende]

Them why are you so opinionated about BB7 if you never owned one? BB7 was miles ahead of BB6, especially on devices that originally came with BB5.


The difference was night and day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does it matter that BBOS 7 was better than 6 at this point in time? I can not run any of the latest apps and the browser is rather slow.

The html5test.com score on my 9900 is only 275 and the real world test is even slower.


We might see a resurrection of BIS but not BBOS. As you might say "mind the gap".

[Omnitech]

The original poster I was quoting said POP is just fine. My response is BB10 supports POP the way it was intended to work. Now if we say you have to have a massive data center sucking massive amounts of power, bandwidth, etc., constantly polling this POP account to make it appear to work like an instant email push protocol account, can we really say this is more efficient?

Notice how BlackBerry service revenues are dropping? Do you think that the HVAC, power, real estate, Internet bandwidth, etc. that is required to run a data center, or in BlackBerry's case data centers because places like India and Middle East have to have them local so they can tap them, is cheap. All of this so you can make a 1990's mail protocol act like a push service.

You guys ponder all that, really think about all that is involved to make that antiquated POP account do what you want it to do, and wonder why BlackBerry decided to move this processing off onto the phone.

Well put.

Unfortunately, similiar points have been made many times for at least a year now, and they fall on deaf ears. They want what they want, if the facts and data don't match their view they will block it out and soldier on. Lather, rinse, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat....

I should just practice what I preach and ignore them, and recommend everyone else do the same. All of us who reply just keep the under-the-bridge population thriving.

[Omnitech]

Any particular reasons why you're answering questions for Omnitech?

Nobody asked you.

Please tell ssbtech the same when he tries to answer on your behalf.

At least if you have any desire for credibility.

[Omnitech]

(please spare me all the technical nonsense, why Blackberry could not pull it off)

And that, dear friends, sums up the traditionalists argument here. Thanks for that.

"I don't care that you think there are reasons why I can't buy a brand new 1957 Chevrolet in the showroom today, all this BS about safety standards and leaded gasoline and inability to automate production and unavailability of raw materials and so on.... JUST DO IT BECAUSE I WANT IT!!!.

[Omnitech]

[re: BIS]So why do they still do it then?

Because they are supporting existing customers and the infrastructure is already in place.

That has nothing to do with whether they WANT to be doing that.

I think it's rather obvious that BlackBerry's long-term plan was to migrate everyone to BB10 devices and un-saddle both themselves and carriers around the world from the expenses and liabilities of having to run a giant global network to support a fast-shrinking group of customers. And I think it's obvious that carriers have been pushing for this too.

But they miscalculated various things, including the reasons people were using the legacy platform and the appeal of the new platform. (not helped by all their failures to produce an appealing product due to delays, missing features, bugs, marketing/PR/communication problems etc.)

[tinochiko]

Maybe I missed it. Link?

http://forums.crackberry.com/showthread.php?p=9932352
Post number #1087

TechCraze C0008DDD1

[Nine54]

It may interest you to know that my car has a manual transmission.

Ha! Awesome. Good thing they're still supported... (and yes, i'm just messing)

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.

Right, except you keep conflating old technology with old products. I'm not saying BlackBerry should continue to support the Bold 9000 or OS 4 devices. What I'm saying is, if old technology--just like the manual transmission--still has value, maybe it should continue to be developed and innovated.

Maybe BBOS fundamentally warrants being put out to pasture, or maybe it warrants being innovated on, I don't know. Obviously, though, BlackBerry's already made that decision. But, if you don't think the platform has any value, then the only logical reason BBOS devices must be outselling BB 10 devices is price. I think price is likely a key factor, since there are cheaper Android devices than BBOS devices, it can't be the only factor.

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)

Again, conflating two different points. I'm not advocating "resurrecting" anything, but regardless, it's not resurrecting. The manual transmission didn't need to be resurrected because it never went away...just like Unix never went away and Windows never went away. There were countless times when these technologies could have been blown away and started over with a clean slate, but they weren't. Instead, they were continuously developed and enhanced.

But let's forget about all that for a minute and just focus on the customer side. You buy product x because it's good at something important to you. It's not as good at some things as some other products in its class, but you stick with x because it's better at your priorities. Of course, you hope for improvements and are happy to hear about product y, which promises to fix all the issues you don't like about x. Sweet! However, when you get x, you realize that yes, it did fix the things you didn't like, but not it's not as good at your highest priorities.

That is what I'm garnering from at least some folks in the discussion. Fundamentally, they're not saying to resurrect an old platform or support product x until infinity. They're simply saying that product y is not as good at some things they cared about as product x was. That's it.

For the record, I had a 9900, bought a Z10 off contract upon release, and then recently switched to an Android device. And while I definitely like and miss some things about the 9900, I likely could not switch back to it due to the camera alone and, to a lesser extent, the browser. That said, while BB 10 is good and I like it, it just doesn't feel as "BlackBerry" yet.

[tinochiko]

Because they are supporting existing customers and the infrastructure is already in place.

That has nothing to do with whether they WANT to be doing that.

I think it's rather obvious that BlackBerry's long-term plan was to migrate everyone to BB10 devices and un-saddle both themselves and carriers around the world from the expenses and liabilities of having to run a giant global network to support a fast-shrinking group of customers. And I think it's obvious that carriers have been pushing for this too.

But they miscalculated various things, including the reasons people were using the legacy platform and the appeal of the new platform. (not helped by all their failures to produce an appealing product due to delays, missing features, bugs, marketing/PR/communication problems etc.)

Then it would have made total sense for BlackBerry to first, or at least heavily advertise primarily to legacy users, and it's still useful now..

TechCraze C0008DDD1

[Nine54]

#1, Microsoft desktop OSs and the desktop operating system market in general have very different specific details that make such comparisons to smartphone OS's pretty much irrelevant.

#2, you are mis-directing into a non-sequitur: nothing I wrote about legacy product support had anything to do with promoting "not listening to customers".

If the US DoD had standardized on Windows 98 as of the year 2010, refused to give it up and demanded Microsoft continue to support it until 2015 or they would find another desktop OS supplier, that would be a more accurate comparison. But they didn't so we can't make such a comparison.

Again, conflating products--that is, technology that is packaged and sold--with platforms/technology on which the products are based. I'm not advocating supporting an in-market product forever. Microsoft shouldn't still be supporting Windows 98. But how much of the Win98 code was repurposed in later version? Even better, how much of the XP code is in Windows 8, since this release merged the old consumer code base with the NT code base? While Windows has evolved through several paradigm shifts (16-bit to 32-bit, 32-bit to 64-bit, x86 to ARM, etc.), code from one version has carried through to the next and each version still has remained "true" to Windows.

And that is precisely what I was talking about when I wrote this:

"This is a problem that none of their competitors had, which made it much easier for those competitors to make technology shifts."

It's only a problem if you're trying to target customers who don't value backwards-compatibility. To me, one of BlackBerry's questionable decisions was not making BB 10 devices compatible with previous BES versions (other than BES 10). And I think all people like the idea of their investment being protected and having some longevity. But, knowing when to pull the plug is important, too.

Yes, like most companies they got caught out by Apple's recent inroads. Interestingly, Apple's success was heavily supported by precisely the same thing that Microsoft got into antitrust trouble over: "Network Effects". Specifically, Apple parlayed their iPod franchise, and then their iPhone franchise into a dominant position in tablets, supported by their retail operations and overall "walled garden" approach. Worked very well for them.

Agree. But from a DOJ perspective, did Apple's dominance in one market give them an unfair advantage in another? At some point, Apple stopped worrying about winning the desktop. Instead, it worried about winning devices, and eventually, it paid of as more and more of our computing engagement shifted from the desktop to devices.

I never claimed they should have taken the same approach as BlackPhone.

Well, you did say "Privacy OS," which I figured was a reference to PrivatOS... But care to elaborate then?

[Bbnivende]

There are markets around the world where BlackBerry was King. In Nigeria and Indonesia for example the BlackBerry was a both a status symbol and a requirement for messaging. In these countries BBOS is in decline too but a market does not go to zero overnight. BBOS sales are falling that is the take away. Whether or not BB10 can replace those sales is the unknown. The known is that BBOS is fading away and will eventually or stop altogether if BlackBerry can not make a go of it with BB10.

To go along with the car analogy. The old VW beetle had a long run long after production ended in Germany. They could have kept on improving the old beetle but at some point it could no longer compete even in these emerging markets.

[tinochiko]

It's only a problem if you're trying to target customers who don't value backwards-compatibility. To me, one of BlackBerry's questionable decisions was not making BB 10 devices compatible with previous BES versions (other than BES 10). And I think all people like the idea of their investment being protected and having some longevity. But, knowing when to pull the plug is important, too.

Isn't that a bit like playing ps3 games on a ps4? It means blackberry can earn more revenue as companies invest in bes10

TechCraze C0008DDD1

[belfastdispatcher]

There are markets around the world where BlackBerry was King. In Nigeria and Indonesia for example the BlackBerry was a both a status symbol and a requirement for messaging. In these countries BBOS is in decline too but a market does not go to zero overnight. BBOS sales are falling that is the take away. Whether or not BB10 can replace those sales is the unknown. The known is that BBOS is fading away and will eventually or stop altogether if BlackBerry can not make a go of it with BB10.

To go along with the car analogy. The old VW beetle had a long run long after production ended in Germany. They could have kept on improving the old beetle but at some point it could no longer compete even in these emerging markets.

Well how can they not fall away when BB7 is 3 years old? It a testament to the platform that it still sells at all. It's actually amazing that it still sells in the millions a quarter.

Think about it for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tinochiko]

Well how can they not fall away when BB7 is 3 years old? It a testament to the platform that it still sells at all. It's actually amazing that it still sells in the millions a quarter.

Think about it for a minute.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TechCraze C0008DDD1

[belfastdispatcher]

TechCraze C0008DDD1

Yeah, we're talking BB7 and how it continues to sell 3 years later.

If I'm not mistaken BB10 sales are also dropping


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk