02-08-14 01:31 AM
1,393 ... 4243444546 ...
tools
  1. Omnitech's Avatar
    It's an open conversation, isn't it?

    I was having a discussion with a particular individual where I made points specific to that person yet you jumped-in and tried to answer on their behalf despite the fact that I was not addressing you or your personal situation.

    If that is how you engage people in person I would imagine before too long you would end up with more than one black eye.



    My Outlook.com and Office 365 isn't as reliable as my old BIS connection. Email syncing on the phone is a bit of a mess, calendar entries screw up, etc...

    Yes and because of your personal problems with the technology that MUST mean that everyone else suffers from the exact same problems, right? Did it occur to you that you may just not know what you're doing?

    If the tech in general was so completely horrible and useless, I am quite certain it would not have become the global standard. As Bill Gates has rightly pointed-out, in the tech industry if you don't constantly watch your back, someone will come rolling over you without a moment's notice with something better.
    01-29-14 11:08 PM
  2. Bbnivende's Avatar
    Found an old review from June 2011 of BBOS 7 - A LONG time ago in OS years.

    Mobile OS Showdown: Android, BlackBerry, iOS, and Windows Phone 7 | PCWorld

    Some predictions made:

    For BlackBerry, the lack of quality apps is a major problem. Also, the interface is based on the old scroll-wheel OS, which makes no sense for the newer touchscreen devices. RIM will likely address these issues with its QNX-based OS (already out in the PlayBook tablet, and likely in BlackBerry 8). Also, BlackBerrys need better media handling, as well as syncing for nonenterprise users.

    BlackBerry OS 8--with no known release date--will likely be built by QNX, be faster and prettier, and may even run Android apps. That will likely help BlackBerry.
    johnnyuk, Omnitech and Vorkosigan like this.
    01-29-14 11:36 PM
  3. tinochiko's Avatar

    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.

    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.
    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
  4. SalMan50's Avatar
    We're located in Ontario, Canada. We love BlackBerry's, they are the phone for us, we have been using them for many years.

    BB10 is an awesome OS, the Q10 isn't a bad device by far, (got mine in June). For me, the winter months have made me re-think at what I really need out of my phone. Overall we, as a group, still prefer BBOS with the clunkyness and all, go figure. Communication first, I guess.

    If BlackBerry made a BB10 Bold edition, that would be a winner. One device to be reckon with, in enterprise. Call it, BlackBerry Bold T10 (trojan) the workhorse.

    Posted via CB10
    I'm curious, what would you like to see on a BB10 Bold phone. Would it be pretty much like the Q10 except it has a trackpad? Or simply like BB9900 phone with the BB10 OS actually running it?

    Posted via CB10
    01-30-14 01:05 AM
  5. Nine54's Avatar
    Wrong on its face.

    "Fast" and especially "Faster than X" is directly quantifiable.

    "Efficient" is quantifiable if you carefully specify parameters.

    "Simple" is also quantifiable if you carefully specify parameters, though it is often used sloppily.

    Whereas "proper" implies some sort of rule or law that dictates how something is supposed to function or behave.

    Hope that helps.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.
    "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.

    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.

    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.
    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.

    ORLY?
    Huh? Lost me there.

    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.
    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.

    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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?

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    Show me where I claimed "BlackBerry phone sales are terrible is because today's phone users aren't familiar with the old UI".
    Sure. See here:

    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)
    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.
    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.

    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
  6. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    Anybody that thinks I didn't give BB10 a chance is deluded, I went far above and beyond what any consumer should do to make it work.

    First I got a free Z10 at the launch party but soon I hit a big problem, I couldn't reply to emails or send attachments after the first OS update. After about a month of that I was forced to go back to my 9900


    Fast forward to my upgrade time and what did I use it on? A Q10, giving BB10 another chance. Soon after the same email problem happened again and it looked even worse. So I loaded a leak and everything was more or less ok but them just before Christmas it decided to delete all my SMS and 3 months worth of emails.

    Me spending more money to buy EAS in not a solution, and anybody suggesting it is very deluded, it goes against all logic. I bet they wouldn't apply that same logic to any other product.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    01-30-14 02:18 AM
  7. Omnitech's Avatar
    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.

    The conversion of data from my OS 6 device to my Z10 was straightforward and worked flawlessly, using the much-maligned BlackBerry Link on the day the device went on sale on my carrier.

    I personally could not have wished for anything better for a platform upgrade, short of expecting apps from that completely different platform to transfer to BB10 without modification or expense.



    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..

    As I have written many times here in different threads, I really don't think the failure of BB10 so far has much to do with which customers they targeted. It mostly has to do with limited resources, poor execution (including functionality, QA and meeting their own proclaimed date milestones), poor marketing/image management/customer communications, stodgy/frozen corporate culture and in terms of factors outside the company - a society and punditocracy that harbored extremely negative impressions of the company that the company never effectively addressed or neutralized.

    I also think that BlackBerry has been held hostage to their legacy military and government customers that in many ways was like casting concrete around their feet, keeping them locked-into supporting legacy devices because gov/mil had tons of them along with security clearances and certifications that despite their desire to break into something new with BB10, kept them married to those things and tethered to the past. This is a problem that none of their competitors had, which made it much easier for those competitors to make technology shifts.

    Also IMHO BlackBerry 10 should have been the "Privacy OS" to respond to cultural and political shifts and as such I think they could have made a hit out of it - in fact early pre-marketing materials even alluded to that aspect. But the company's tight relationships with gov/mil and NSA etc completely neutered them in that way. If they had tried to push that angle their gov/mil customers would have seen it as a stick in the eye and they didn't want to risk ticking them off.

    Amongst all those things, the fact that BB10 was or was not like legacy OS is simply a triviality.
    01-30-14 05:01 AM
  8. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    The conversion of data from my OS 6 device to my Z10 was straightforward and worked flawlessly, using the much-maligned BlackBerry Link on the day the device went on sale on my carrier.

    I personally could not have wished for anything better for a platform upgrade, short of expecting apps from that completely different platform to transfer to BB10 without modification or expense.






    As I have written many times here in different threads, I really don't think the failure of BB10 so far has much to do with which customers they targeted. It mostly has to do with limited resources, poor execution (including functionality, QA and meeting their own proclaimed date milestones), poor marketing/image management/customer communications, stodgy/frozen corporate culture and in terms of factors outside the company - a society and punditocracy that harbored extremely negative impressions of the company that the company never effectively addressed or neutralized.

    I also think that BlackBerry has been held hostage to their legacy military and government customers that in many ways was like casting concrete around their feet, keeping them locked-into supporting legacy devices because gov/mil had tons of them along with security clearances and certifications that despite their desire to break into something new with BB10, kept them married to those things and tethered to the past. This is a problem that none of their competitors had, which made it much easier for those competitors to make technology shifts.

    Also IMHO BlackBerry 10 should have been the "Privacy OS" to respond to cultural and political shifts and as such I think they could have made a hit out of it - in fact early pre-marketing materials even alluded to that aspect. But the company's tight relationships with gov/mil and NSA etc completely neutered them in that way. If they had tried to push that angle their gov/mil customers would have seen it as a stick in the eye and they didn't want to risk ticking them off.

    Amongst all those things, the fact that BB10 was or was not like legacy OS is simply a triviality.
    Hold on, you went from OS6 to BB10? You never owned a BB7 device? Because you have very strong opinions about BB7 I assumed you must've owned one.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    bobauckland likes this.
    01-30-14 05:27 AM
  9. Omnitech's Avatar
    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.

    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.



    ...there are plenty of examples where someone was lured away by another platform only to return to BB.


    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 in the business of IT training, people are willing to learn.

    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.



    People sought out the iPhone and were willing to learn it.

    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.



    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.)




    Sure. See here:

    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.


    I think it boils down to this: No one is arguing that BBOS was perfect and needed no improvement.

    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.



    Perhaps BIS really is an obsolete paradigm, but as one of the few (only?) true push technologies, I doubt it.

    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
  10. lnichols's Avatar
    Anybody that thinks I didn't give BB10 a chance is deluded, I went far above and beyond what any consumer should do to make it work.

    First I got a free Z10 at the launch party but soon I hit a big problem, I couldn't reply to emails or send attachments after the first OS update. After about a month of that I was forced to go back to my 9900


    Fast forward to my upgrade time and what did I use it on? A Q10, giving BB10 another chance. Soon after the same email problem happened again and it looked even worse. So I loaded a leak and everything was more or less ok but them just before Christmas it decided to delete all my SMS and 3 months worth of emails.

    Me spending more money to buy EAS in not a solution, and anybody suggesting it is very deluded, it goes against all logic. I bet they wouldn't apply that same logic to any other product.





    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    You have also stated that the iPhone doesn't handle your email services well either. Both iOS and BB10 are using the same standards based protocols. So your email is only working properly with a huge data center doing the mail processing, but many people here using other services, don't seem to be having the issues. If I were troubleshooting this issue everything points to your providers being the issue, and BIS is simply masking your service providers subpar service.

    Posted via CB10
    southlander likes this.
    01-30-14 08:10 AM
  11. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    You have also stated that the iPhone doesn't handle your email services well either. Both iOS and BB10 are using the same standards based protocols. So your email is only working properly with a huge data center doing the mail processing, but many people here using other services, don't seem to be having the issues. If I were troubleshooting this issue everything points to your providers being the issue, and BIS is simply masking your service providers subpar service.

    Posted via CB10
    What I stated is the iphone doesn't support imap idle push, however, it does offer iCloud Mail for free. BB10 does support imap idle push but it's nowhere near as fast and reliable as BIS push on the same accounts especially when mobile.

    There is no issue with my service provider. BIS just built up certain expectations over the years and when moving to BB10 those expectations are not met.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    01-30-14 08:25 AM
  12. tinochiko's Avatar
    The conversion of data from my OS 6 device to my Z10 was straightforward and worked flawlessly, using the much-maligned BlackBerry Link on the day the device went on sale on my carrier.

    I personally could not have wished for anything better for a platform upgrade, short of expecting apps from that completely different platform to transfer to BB10 without modification or expense.






    As I have written many times here in different threads, I really don't think the failure of BB10 so far has much to do with which customers they targeted. It mostly has to do with limited resources, poor execution (including functionality, QA and meeting their own proclaimed date milestones), poor marketing/image management/customer communications, stodgy/frozen corporate culture and in terms of factors outside the company - a society and punditocracy that harbored extremely negative impressions of the company that the company never effectively addressed or neutralized.

    I also think that BlackBerry has been held hostage to their legacy military and government customers that in many ways was like casting concrete around their feet, keeping them locked-into supporting legacy devices because gov/mil had tons of them along with security clearances and certifications that despite their desire to break into something new with BB10, kept them married to those things and tethered to the past. This is a problem that none of their competitors had, which made it much easier for those competitors to make technology shifts.

    Also IMHO BlackBerry 10 should have been the "Privacy OS" to respond to cultural and political shifts and as such I think they could have made a hit out of it - in fact early pre-marketing materials even alluded to that aspect. But the company's tight relationships with gov/mil and NSA etc completely neutered them in that way. If they had tried to push that angle their gov/mil customers would have seen it as a stick in the eye and they didn't want to risk ticking them off.

    Amongst all those things, the fact that BB10 was or was not like legacy OS is simply a triviality.
    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 C0008DDD1
    01-30-14 10:16 AM
  13. ssbtech's Avatar
    Yes and because of your personal problems with the technology that MUST mean that everyone else suffers from the exact same problems, right? Did it occur to you that you may just not know what you're doing?
    Yes, I know what I'm doing.

    Let's see, how hard can it be to add an Outlook.com account to a phone? There's nothing to screw up! Same with adding it to Office 365 Outlook. Again, nothing to screw up. It's automatically configured on all devices according to the "spec".

    But when I put things in my calendar and go back to look at them later and see that they're now showing some fields from old appointments, there's something wrong.

    When my phone still shows emails that I deleted via Outlook (and verified via Outlook.com), there's something wrong.

    But hey, the beauty of "standards" is that there's so many of them to choose from, and so many ways to implement them.


    I stand by my comment that EAS is designed for corporate environments where admins have complete control over the Exchange servers and desktop and mobile devices. Why? Because they rigorously test the configurations prior to rolling them out to the employees. Exchange worked well at the college I did tech support at. Exchange is not ready for deployment to the public and the massive plethora of devices it must support.

    You may think POP is useless because it offers very few features, but that's exactly why it works so well.
    01-30-14 12:48 PM
  14. Bbnivende's Avatar
    As BlackBerry continues to sell various BBOS phones, they should at least offer a good phone value to their customers. The 9900 should have the 3.1 inch screen and a bigger battery . The 9720 should have much better build quality. The fact that BB continues to sell hardware with specs from 2010 - 11 just furthers the earned impression that BlackBerry phones are behind the times.
    Last edited by Bbnivende; 01-30-14 at 05:02 PM.
    01-30-14 04:41 PM
  15. Nine54's Avatar
    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.
    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.

    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.
    ssbtech and bobauckland like this.
    01-30-14 08:55 PM
  16. Nine54's Avatar
    I also think that BlackBerry has been held hostage to their legacy military and government customers that in many ways was like casting concrete around their feet, keeping them locked-into supporting legacy devices because gov/mil had tons of them along with security clearances and certifications that despite their desire to break into something new with BB10, kept them married to those things and tethered to the past. This is a problem that none of their competitors had, which made it much easier for those competitors to make technology shifts.
    People say this about Microsoft and I think it's a cop-out. Microsoft had no problems signing those multi-year licensing agreements and cashing those enterprise checks. It's an enterprise software company and there's nothing wrong with that. Supporting legacy products is a "feature" enterprises want, and Microsoft delivers--isn't listening to your customers a good thing?

    The problem is, thanks in part to Apple's clever, though annoying, advertising and Microsoft's paranoia about becoming like IBM, the company tries to be all things to all people through one product (Windows, in this example). But what ends up happening is that it it's a jack of all trades, master of nothing. On the other hand, Apple is a consumer products company and intentionally has not catered to enterprises so it can be free to cut out legacy support and do whatever it wants with its products without any recourse from corporate customers. Apple won't stop enterprises from using its products and may add enterprise features into its products over time, but rarely at the expense of consumers. The priority generally is given to what's best for consumers, which are its primary audience.

    Microsoft's fumbles in the consumer market are an execution problem. The company has had leads in nascent markets, but ends up ceding share to rivals because it fails to predict trends and deliver compelling products that resonate with and "delight" users. Of course, Microsoft could avoid all of this by focusing on being an enterprise software company. Stop trying to compete with Apple and Google and people eventually will stop comparing you to them. When the iPhone was launched, no one turned to Oracle and said, "Where's your response?" But if Microsoft wants to execute better in consumer markets, then it needs to make some tough decisions and avoid trying to serve multiple masters in a single product.

    Also IMHO BlackBerry 10 should have been the "Privacy OS" to respond to cultural and political shifts and as such I think they could have made a hit out of it - in fact early pre-marketing materials even alluded to that aspect. But the company's tight relationships with gov/mil and NSA etc completely neutered them in that way. If they had tried to push that angle their gov/mil customers would have seen it as a stick in the eye and they didn't want to risk ticking them off.
    Agree that a "Privacy OS" was a missed opportunity, but I would have taken a different slant. The problem I see with the privacy theme is that the image and discourse around it often is not palatable to the average person. For example, I think the whole head-down, hoodie-wearing theme of the Blackphone ad just comes off as being too anti-establishment and underground...too tinfoil-hat wearing. People just aren't that extreme in their concerns with privacy, Facebook being a prime example.

    However, I think there is a viable, more mainstream angle around being able to conduct financial transactions confidently, not worrying about someone trying to steal your identity, not worrying about sensitive pictures or files ending up in the wrong hands, etc.
    01-30-14 09:40 PM
  17. Davidro1's Avatar
    Here's the scene from the movie.
    Omnitech and web99 like this.
    01-30-14 10:44 PM
  18. Omnitech's Avatar
    Here's my point: I see "legacy" BlackBerry and physical keyboards as being a lot like manual transmissions in cars. [...]

    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.

    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.



    BlackBerry was like an automotive manufacturer that specialized in manual cars.

    I think that's quite a tortured analogy.



    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.

    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)


    Regarding BIS, "true push" or not, it's more push than most alternatives.

    No it is not.


    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.

    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/
    johnnyuk likes this.
    01-30-14 11:35 PM
  19. Omnitech's Avatar
    [re: supporting legacy products] People say this about Microsoft and I think it's a cop-out. Microsoft had no problems signing those multi-year licensing agreements and cashing those enterprise checks. It's an enterprise software company and there's nothing wrong with that. Supporting legacy products is a "feature" enterprises want, and Microsoft delivers--isn't listening to your customers a good thing?


    #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.




    On the other hand, Apple is a consumer products company and intentionally has not catered to enterprises so it can be free to cut out legacy support and do whatever it wants with its products without any recourse from corporate customers. Apple won't stop enterprises from using its products and may add enterprise features into its products over time, but rarely at the expense of consumers. The priority generally is given to what's best for consumers, which are its primary audience.

    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."


    Microsoft's fumbles in the consumer market are an execution problem.

    Yet they continue to command ~90% of desktop OS market share. That's quite an achievement by any measure.

    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.



    For example, I think the whole head-down, hoodie-wearing theme of the Blackphone ad just comes off as being too anti-establishment and underground...too tinfoil-hat wearing. People just aren't that extreme in their concerns with privacy, Facebook being a prime example.

    I never claimed they should have taken the same approach as BlackPhone.
    01-31-14 12:00 AM
  20. ssbtech's Avatar
    No it is not.
    So if BIS isn't true push, what is it? Last I checked, the BIS servers pushed emails to the device. The device wasn't polling the BIS server.
    01-31-14 12:50 AM
  21. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    So @ Omnitech, have you owned a BB7 device or are you basing your BBOS opinions in BB6 alone when comparing it to BB10?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    01-31-14 01:12 AM
  22. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    So if BIS isn't true push, what is it? Last I checked, the BIS servers pushed emails to the device. The device wasn't polling the BIS server.
    I believe even EAS just pushes email notifications and then the device will poll the email content.

    BIS pushes the email content directly.

    The frequency that the NOCs pool the emails is irrelevant, just because they pool pop3 accounts at 15 minutes intervals doesn't mean it's not push, it's just not instant push, people always confuse them.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    ssbtech likes this.
    01-31-14 01:17 AM
  23. ssbtech's Avatar
    The frequency that the NOCs pool the emails is irrelevant, just because they pool pop3 accounts at 15 minutes intervals doesn't mean it's not push, it's just not instant push, people always confuse them.
    My EAS account doesn't seem to be anywhere near instant. I deleted several messages over 11 hours ago using my PC, yet they still remain on my phone after several refresh attempts.
    01-31-14 01:39 AM
  24. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    My EAS account doesn't seem to be anywhere near instant. I deleted several messages over 11 hours ago using my PC, yet they still remain on my phone after several refresh attempts.
    You mean you don't have a fully equipped IT department to run to your rescue?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    01-31-14 02:43 AM
  25. Omnitech's Avatar
    So if BIS isn't true push, what is it? Last I checked, the BIS servers pushed emails to the device. The device wasn't polling the BIS server.

    You can't push messages from an email server that itself does not support push. This is the case with POP.

    What the RIM NOC does is constantly poll the POP server, and when it sees a new message on it, it forwards the first part of it to the handheld.

    The time delay between the appearance of that message on the POP server and its appearance on the BlackBerry could be as long as 15 minutes, if there are no other delays in the RIM or carrier networks.

    Historically, any other providers other than a very small number that RIM had written a "BIS plugin" for were polled once every 15 minutes only. However in late 2008 RIM reputedly added IMAP IDLE support to BIS so if your provider supported that, in theory you would get new email notifications quickly.

    However RIM's own knowledgebase articles contradict this, here is an article last updated in 2011:

    KB12373-BlackBerry Internet Service real-time delivery of email messages from AOL, Gmail and Yahoo! Mail accounts



    "AOL® Mail, Gmail®, and Yahoo!® Mail allow for real-time delivery of email messages to BlackBerry® Internet Service subscribers. This real-time delivery includes any other email accounts that are hosted by the respective organizations.

    Email accounts that are not hosted by these organizations are polled for new messages every 15 minutes.
    "




    Here's another article last updated in 2012:

    KB13374-Delayed email message delivery to the BlackBerry smartphone



    "The BlackBerry smartphone might receive email messages up to 15 minutes after the messages arrive on the source mailbox. This is by design. The BlackBerry Infrastructure checks for new email messages every 15 minutes. If a new email message is received, it is sent to the BlackBerry and the BlackBerry Infrastructure will check for new email again in 3 minutes. If no email is found, the BlackBerry Infrastructure will wait 15 minutes to check again.

    Note: This delay does not affect all mail protocols. AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo! Mail and MSN, Hotmail, Windows live mail allows real-time delivery of email messages to BlackBerry Internet Services. For more information see: KB12373.
    "

    01-31-14 02:54 AM
1,393 ... 4243444546 ...

Similar Threads

  1. CrackBerry Kevin on CNBC: Happy BBRY committed to hardware
    By Bla1ze in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-23-13, 12:08 AM
  2. BBM z10 to ios 7 issues
    By mhydamacka in forum General BBM Chat
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-22-13, 11:38 AM
  3. plz help! how to check the BB's imformations by the IMEI
    By tophuige in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-20-13, 11:12 PM
  4. How to find prd code on my 9320?
    By adilbashirmirza in forum BlackBerry Curve Series
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-20-13, 11:59 AM
  5. CrackBerry Kevin: Happy BBRY committed to hardware - CNBC
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion & Contests
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-20-13, 10:40 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD