03-08-16 10:14 AM
60 123
tools
  1. early2bed's Avatar
    It turns out that BlackBerry has pretty much taken the same path as Palm did. Remember that webOS was out there before Android but was overtaken because multiple hardware companies jumped in with the latter.
    03-04-16 07:01 AM
  2. mousii's Avatar
    Nope, no question about it.

    Powered by BB10
    03-04-16 07:05 AM
  3. Jerry A's Avatar
    Interesting question. One thing that comes to mind is that BlackBerry had the reputation of being the phone for business people. In my opinion, it took a step backwards with os10. As much as I loved the new os, things like no longer being able to synch with Outlook, losing business related apps that never updated to os10, and the loss of BIS, actually made it less productive for business. I think a good argument could be made that they would have been better off upgrading the old OS and incorporating better hardware (top of the line cameras etc). I think the final answer is that sales and marketing sucks and it didn't matter how good the product was.
    Businesses weren't using BIS - they were using BES.

    BIS was too limited to be useful in the business markets BlackBerry was targeting.

    If you weren't using BES and licensing a few hundred seats BlackBerry considered you a commercial/retail customer.
    03-04-16 07:16 AM
  4. pdizzle27's Avatar
    Outlook sync was a feature left over from the days of POP email. Having native Exchange available on BB10 made it unnecessary for almost any business of size. As for apps, if the developers didn't want to convert from BBOS to BB10 there wasn't much BlackBerry could do about it, and likely any company relying on BBOS that heavily for their app audience is long gone now anyway. BIS was also a legacy product, and helped the downfall of BlackBerry. They were caught flatfooted by the adoption of LTE since BIS all but assumed a 2G data connection. Carriers also didn't want to pay the added fees, especially with market share dropping for the devices.

    There was nowhere left to build out BBOS. The memory limitations of the platform were all but obvious to anyone who saw what a comparable iOS or Android device of the time were capable of, especially since they were built on modern frameworks and platforms as opposed to a core OS long since pulled and kludged to offer more features.

    BlackBerry made the nearly fatal mistake of not dumping BBOS soon enough. All of this has been covered time and again here. This whole thread is more of the wrong headed thinking that previous success correlates to future success by staying the course. It doesn't work in technology, or any field.

    Posted via CB10
    I'm sure you know what you're talking about, but I'd point out that you used the phrase," business of size.". Let me give you some specific examples of how I, as a self employed person used it. First, I used outlook on my computer through the day, as I scheduled appointments dealt with emails, and a to do list. At the end of the day, I used a USB chord to synch my BlackBerry and went on my way. Immediately upon getting a new BlackBerry, I was no longer able to do this. Apps that were used for voip, conference calls, and quoting software from different carriers were available on the old software. By getting a new BlackBerry, I immediately no longer had access to that. Those companies are not out of business, and neither am I. In regard to BIS, it gave the small business, self employed, or any individual some of the benefits of BES, without having an exchange server. To me, this was one of the major benefits of having a BlackBerry. I don't know the technology of it, but I know that it takes longer to receive my emails on os10, than it did on bb7. A lot longer. That was evident from day one. It was a bunch of things like this that made me feel as if the so called business phone, all of a sudden sucked as a business phone. After several upgrades, I love os10. I do think the op raised a good question though. Personally, I would have been content with better hardware and a fast browser, on an updated os.
    03-04-16 07:21 AM
  5. Cozz4ever's Avatar
    The problem is BBOS is java based. It can handle small run routines pretty well but it gets out of control in much bigger rolls such as complex apps. Java was only able to handle one string of information at a time. If the program expected a return line and didn't receive one, it would hang. Pretty much freezing the app or OS. You can build an error handler around it but it only takes more time, more code and debugging and no app was ever truly bug proof. Java was never able to guarantee support future media sockets like flash. And the apps that did took more than usually needed power to run them. It simply wasn't efficient at more complex rolls.

    Posted via CB10
    03-04-16 08:34 AM
  6. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    The problem is BBOS is java based. It can handle small run routines pretty well but it gets out of control in much bigger rolls such as complex apps. Java was only able to handle one string of information at a time. If the program expected a return line and didn't receive one, it would hang. Pretty much freezing the app or OS. You can build an error handler around it but it only takes more time, more code and debugging and no app was ever truly bug proof. Java was never able to guarantee support future media sockets like flash. And the apps that did took more than usually needed power to run them. It simply wasn't efficient at more complex rolls.

    Posted via CB10
    It wasn't Java's fault.
    Its was the architectural decisions made/not made by BlackBerry.
    This article and especially the corresponding comments are interesting reading. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/black...ntent_res_name
    PantherBlitz and terminatorx like this.
    03-04-16 09:20 AM
  7. Jerry A's Avatar
    It wasn't Java's fault.
    Its was the architectural decisions made/not made by BlackBerry.
    This article and especially the corresponding comments are interesting reading. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/black...ntent_res_name
    Thanks for this! Fantastic (if not a bit sad) read.

    Now I feel bad about the smartring comment.
    03-04-16 10:08 AM
  8. ljfong's Avatar
    It wasn't Java's fault.
    Its was the architectural decisions made/not made by BlackBerry.
    This article and especially the corresponding comments are interesting reading. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/black...ntent_res_name
    Art Goldberg and Martin Zimmerman's comments on the post are really fun to read. It is all down to mix of arrogance, failure of communication and lack of resources.
    03-04-16 04:45 PM
  9. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Art Goldberg and Martin Zimmerman's comments on the post are really fun to read. It is all down to mix of arrogance, failure of communication and lack of resources.
    The impression I got from reading the book is Mike for one reason or another froze them out intentionally.
    03-04-16 04:47 PM
  10. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    BBRY did recognize they needed developers. For a long time they tried to drum up the interest, from both small and big developers. But it never took off.
    Exactly.

    Meet the man who would make BlackBerry apps cool - CNET
    03-04-16 05:58 PM
  11. RubberChicken76's Avatar
    It turns out that BlackBerry has pretty much taken the same path as Palm did. Remember that webOS was out there before Android but was overtaken because multiple hardware companies jumped in with the latter.
    I think Android was out in 2008, while Palm Web OS was out in 2009. You're right about the hardware manufacturers and also Verizon put its weight behind the Droid phone.

    I liked Web OS, but Palm was in awful financial shape by the time it launched. There's a reason why BlackBerry was able to release devices over several years as an independent company and Palm was quickly acquired by HP.

    For their flaws, one of Mike and Jim's strengths was fiscal responsibility. It's probably why there's even still a BlackBerry to talk about in 2016.

    The rumours of BlackBerry's bankruptcy have been happening for years.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04...n_1400838.html
    03-04-16 06:03 PM
  12. dracolnyte's Avatar
    i think the ideal situation would have been rebuild BB7 with QNX/micro-kernel and call it BB8, with the same user interfaces. That way people dont get an interface shock, yet it is still familiar to use but much more smooth.
    terminatorx likes this.
    03-04-16 07:28 PM
  13. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    For their flaws, one of Mike and Jim's strengths was fiscal responsibility. It's probably why there's even still a BlackBerry to talk about in 2016.
    I agree with this completely, and I give them full credit for this. Had they had a bunch of debt back in 2008, they'd have been liquidated years ago.
    03-04-16 11:27 PM
  14. thurask's Avatar
    i think the ideal situation would have been rebuild BB7 with QNX/micro-kernel and call it BB8, with the same user interfaces. That way people dont get an interface shock, yet it is still familiar to use but much more smooth.
    Again, putting decorations up all over a corrugated metal shack does not eliminate the fact that it's still a shack.
    rthonpm likes this.
    03-04-16 11:32 PM
  15. terminatorx's Avatar
    Again, putting decorations up all over a corrugated metal shack does not eliminate the fact that it's still a shack.
    You clearly didn't read or properly comprehend the linkedin post and comments from above.
    03-05-16 03:28 AM
  16. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    You clearly didn't read or properly comprehend the linkedin post and comments from above, mr 'ambassador'.
    BBOS consists of the native OS and the JVM. Dracolnyte proposes to swap out the native OS but leave the JVM.
    Zimmerman suggests that the JVM is where the bulk of the klugery is.

    "The JVM consumed a huge amount of memory, with a large portion of that dedicated to how it managed it's internal file system."
    Sounds like a hot hairy mess to me.

    From the article I get the impression the OS team and the the JVM team had some "us and them" problems.

    The shack analogy seems apt to me.
    Elephant_Canyon likes this.
    03-05-16 05:35 AM
  17. Cozz4ever's Avatar
    It wasn't Java's fault.
    Its was the architectural decisions made/not made by BlackBerry.
    This article and especially the corresponding comments are interesting reading. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/black...ntent_res_name
    Blackberry made a lot of bad decisions. But Java is no jewel either. There are limitations. Same thing goes to a lot of older languages like BASIC. The best thing is to walk away from java

    Posted via CB10
    03-05-16 06:22 AM
  18. DrBoomBotz's Avatar
    Blackberry made a lot of bad decisions. But Java is no jewel either. There are limitations. Same thing goes to a lot of older languages like BASIC. The best thing is to walk away from java

    Posted via CB10
    If you were to back up your opinion about JAVA with some evidence I and others might give your words more consideration.
    Thanks for the warning about older languages though.
    Silly me preferring C all these years.
    Last edited by DrBoomBotz; 03-05-16 at 06:54 AM.
    03-05-16 06:34 AM
  19. Slash82's Avatar
    Not at all!
    BBOS is what brought BlackBerry in that situation.
    It was JAVA based and not open at all.

    BlackBerry is still suffering from jumping on OS10 way too late.
    If they'd adopted OS10 about 2 years earlier - they would still be on top.
    Developers lost interest on BlackBerry because of Java - customers jumped on other platforms and never came back - just like the developers.
    jas1978 likes this.
    03-05-16 06:53 AM
  20. Blacklatino's Avatar
    No matter how many ways you ask the question, the answer is still No.
    True.

    Legacy BlackBerry owners were saying the same thing about switching to a new OS that the BB10 owners are now saying about having the Android-Berry device as an alternative a year ago. Now, IMO, the only choice at this point.....if we want a handset with the BlackBerry name attached to it.

    Glass half-full people: Quit complaining and just refill the glass. /SM-G928A 😎
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    03-05-16 07:18 AM
  21. TgeekB's Avatar
    True.

    Legacy BlackBerry owners were saying the same thing about switching to a new OS that the BB10 owners are now saying about having the Android-Berry device as an alternative a year ago. Now, IMO, the only choice at this point.....if we want a handset with the BlackBerry name attached to it.

    Glass half-full people: Quit complaining and just refill the glass. /SM-G928A
    People adjust over time. I'm seeing more and more posts from previous Android haters saying they bought the Priv and "Android isn't that bad". Of course it's not BB10, but it still gets the job done for 99% of people.
    DrBoomBotz and Blacklatino like this.
    03-05-16 07:21 AM
  22. fattyacid's Avatar
    This should have been done outright. BB7 to BB8. BB10 is great but the cursorless nav killed it. If classic was introduced first then they wouldn't be facing obsolescence.

    Posted via CB10
    anon(9710735) likes this.
    03-05-16 07:33 AM
  23. crucial bbq's Avatar
    Well, it's all about perspective I suppose. In my opinion if they had kept the design concepts of BBOS yet modernized the code BBOS 8 phones would have sold better than BB10.


    No.

    How is it that people accept technical obsolescence from Apple and Google but not from BlackBerry? Software releases from each ensure that their older devices slip into irrelevance.

    (Perhaps, I am paying more attention to BlackBerry comments...)

    Posted via CB10
    I have been using Macs for two decades now, I got OSX the day it launched in late 1999. The design philosophy of OSX has not changed; side-by-side, v10.0 looks rather similar to v10.11 yet it's not the same OS--it has been vastly improved upon. Same with iPhoneOS to iOS9.3. Apple intentionally avoided messing with the aesthetics to help retain familiarity between versions which makes it easier for users to transition/upgrade. Look at how long Windows XP remained popular; for what 15 years? Even after Vista and W7 many still refused to upgrade. MSFT released XP v5.1/Service Pack 3 in what 2008/2009 and it was not until 2014 when MSFT ceased all updates to XP and the adoption of W7 became more widespread.

    OS9.3 is available to all iPhones as far back as the iPhone 4, iirc, and to the iPad 2, btw.

    Agreed. BB made significant efforts to bring over developers, big and small. They understood how important this was. The problem was that this was all happening in 2011-12, a good while before the launch of BB10, but after it was already clear to most of the market that iOS and Android were going to be the OSX and Windows of the mobile industry, leaving nothing but scraps for everyone else to fight over.
    According to IDC, the issue that devs had with RIM/BlackBerry/BB10 was that BB continued to build and ship BBOS 7 handsets and that BBOS handsets where outshipping BB10 handsets through 2013. Even in early 2014 Chen put the order in for a run of Bolds. What IDC was getting at was that devs where confused: BBX/BB10 was the future but BBOS was still going full-steam as far as BlackBerry was concerned. Had BlackBerry demonstrated absolute commitment to BB10, and developed an EOL roadmap for BBOS, things may have turned out better for them and the devs. Same with WinPhone: how many iterations of the OS have wee seen over the last five years? Three? Four? Devs like iOS because of its stability--they know that iOS10 and iOS11 are likely to not be radical departures from iOS9. Devs like Android because of its sheer popularity. Devs do not like WinPhone because no one knows what the OS will like next year. Devs do not like BB10 because it is such an unpopular OS.

    For virtually half the world some version of Android other than Google Android is used. CyanogenOS is expected to become the 3rd most popular OS behind iOS and Google Android. Going with Android is the best thing that BlackBerry has done for handsets in a long time; whether some of us like it or not. However in order for them to make a dent they need to show total commitment to the platform--meaning that Chen needs to stop hinting that BB10 may continue on or that devices may be scrapped altogether.
    03-05-16 10:09 AM
  24. TgeekB's Avatar
    Interesting concept and perhaps it could have kept a niche market. Yet you can't argue that 99% of people want something more modern and that can do more than the BBOS devices could do.
    Android is the future (if there is one) for Blackberry.
    GadgetTravel and Bbnivende like this.
    03-05-16 10:28 AM
  25. thurask's Avatar
    You clearly didn't read or properly comprehend the linkedin post and comments from above.
    I did read it. In fact, let's quote it:

    BlackBerry, RIM at the time this was happening most definitely needed a better/newer operating system than BlackBerry OS and Java. The BlackBerry OS and Java were inefficient, and would only get worse with deeper pipelines of newer processor architectures that were already in the market with more coming (ARM v7, v7a - Cortex-A8, Cortex-A9, Cortex-A7/15...). Further, a multi-core architecture was clearly coming and the old BlackBerry OS and Java really was not designed for that. Sure, some limited load sharing could have been created, but really it was way, way past time for retirement. The Herculean efforts needed to get BB7 out was proof as well that something newer was needed.
    Here, it is admitted that the shortcomings of BBOS made themselves quite evident by the time competitors arrived on the market. Attempting to extend the inflexible hunk of junk pager OS was why BBOS rapidly spiraled into irrelevancy. Putting up fancy wallpaper and plush carpeting does not magically turn a slum into a mansion.

    The BlackBerry OS had both a public and private existence, what the public believed was the OS, was primarily the Java JVM, the public had very little exposure to or even knowledge of the existence of the actual OS that powered the JVM. So many of the issues and performance were from the JVM, and a strong reluctance from the JVM group to implement changes suggested and recommended by the OS group. Some of the big performance improvements in BB7 were a result of the JVM group *finally* implementing some of those suggestions. Those changed could have been done years before. The JVM consumed a huge amount of memory, with a large portion of that dedicated to how it managed it's internal file system. There was an internal project that introduced a native file system at the OS level, that would have reduced the memory footprint by the JVM significantly. The OS portion of the project was completed, and the native file system even supported a POSIX API. The code never made it into production, it was cancelled by the JVM team because it would have required significant changes to the JVM, and the group didn't have the resources for the job. There were implementations of the BlackBerry JVM running on PlayBook, and later on BB10. At least two separate teams had this working. The memory requirements (as mentioned previously) were significant. The same was true about the Android runtime, the reality was that there wasn't enough memory for both to co-exist, only one could be present, and Android was the winner.
    "Rebuilding an OS with a different kernel just cause" smacks of not knowing anything about the underlying architecture of how an OS works. The OS experience is not just the kernel, it's device support (for which QNX is lacking), application ecosystem (ditto), etc; whatever masturbatory info one might have heard about how the QNX microkernel is inherently better is mostly fantasy created to reassure the crowd that BB10 will capture the market, right, guys?

    Symbian was a microkernel, so by that logic it should be tearing up the consumer market. Hell, Android runs Linux, which is not a microkernel, so it should be down in the dumps right about now. Of course, that's a stupid idea, since it was created based on stupid pretenses.

    The evidence above points to the fatal flaws of BBOS being the old, clunky and poorly managed Java bits, even more so than the core OS. Replacing the kernel, assuming BlackBerry could pull it off without breaking anything, wouldn't replace the JVM. We would still be stuck with the same inadequate pile of crap that happened in our reality, except BlackBerry would throw hundreds of millions into buying QNX and attempting to shove the kernel into BBOS for whatever ill-advised reason they could think of rather than spinning QNX into BB10. While our timeline isn't much better, dropping BBOS like a hot stone is first and foremost amongst the myriad "what might have been"s about BlackBerry, and for good reason.
    03-05-16 12:03 PM
60 123

Similar Threads

  1. Would a decent PKB attachment for the G5 be the final nail for BB?
    By asublimeday in forum General BlackBerry News, Discussion & Rumors
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 04-26-16, 04:02 PM
  2. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 04-26-16, 04:01 PM
  3. BlackBerry Passport(Unlocked)
    By BallJohnsonDance in forum Buy, Sell, Trade - Sold / Archived
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-31-16, 07:44 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD