RIM: We have no fucking clue


#1181

Not really that surprising. RIM and the author had (have) a genuine, and very fundamental, disagreement about the nature of the market. Pretty similar to the disagreement in the last few posts in this thread. Without any comment on right vs. wrong of the positions, I’m not surprised RIM walked away, and they were correct to do so. Some negotiation is to be expected, but here the parties couldn’t agree on a fair way to frame the question, or honestly even which question they should be framing at all. How on earth would RIM expect to get any value out of that situation?

edit: Separately from that, one can certainly debate whether it’s proper for RIM and the author to have negotiated at all beyond, “Hey, here’s our phone. Want to review it?” Pretty par for the course, though, I gather. If any of you guys who participate in that side of the phone market have insight on that, I’d love to hear it, btw. Was RIM out of line and/or atypical in their attempts to frame the discussion and put pre-conditions on the review?


#1182

From the article:

Even in 2014, with the battle between touch screens and solid keyboards long settled,

If this guy seriously believes [I]this[/I] is the reason why BB failed, then, like RIM, he doesn’t have a clue. It was part of it yes, but the big reason was (and still is) OS and apps. BB apps were garbage compared to those on the first iPhone and remained garbage for several years after.

I do agree that the whole square screen thing, was just a desperate throw to see if it would stick. In the current world of dynamic interfaces, it was always obvious it wouldn’t.


#1183

But it’s fine to think that new form factors have a place. That’s totally cool.

But when the Note came out, it was novel… but Samsung wasn’t like, “Oh, but you can’t compare this to other phones. It’s TOTALLY DIFFERENT.”

Instead, it was presented as a phone with a novel form factor, and it was left to the market to decide whether folks liked it.

If this guy seriously believes this is the reason why BB failed, then, like RIM, he doesn’t have a clue. It was part of it yes, but the big reason was (and still is) OS and apps. BB apps were garbage compared to those on the first iPhone and remained garbage for several years after.

I think that it’s a bigger factor than you’re giving it credit for.

When the iPhone first came out, it didn’t have a bazillion apps. When Android first came out, it didn’t have a bazillion apps.

The capacitive touchscreen, which seems so universal now, really was a huge factor in the success of the iPhone. A lot of it was simply asthetic, but it played a huge role I think… and it was the adoption of the phone, due to that form factor, which resulted in people making a ton of apps for it.


#1184

A capacitive touch screen and a form factor and two different things, I would think.

I first loved the iPhone because it could actually surf and was responsive. It wasn’t the form factor or shape, really.

Form factor was what took me from the iPhone to the Samsung Note.


#1185

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

CEO John Chen on Net Neutrality:

http://blogs.blackberry.com/2015/01/blackberry-net-neutrality/

Unfortunately, not all content and applications providers have embraced openness and neutrality. Unlike BlackBerry, which allows iPhone users to download and use our BBM service, Apple does not allow BlackBerry or Android users to download Apple’s iMessage messaging service. Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. This dynamic has created a two-tiered wireless broadband ecosystem, in which iPhone and Android users are able to access far more content and applications than customers using devices running other operating systems. These are precisely the sort of discriminatory practices that neutrality advocates have criticized at the carrier level.

Therefore, neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system.


#1186

This proposal, first of all, has nothing to do with net neutrality. Chen is saying that app developers should be compelled to develop apps for every mobile platform. Nevermind that creating an app for one operating system is time-consuming and expensive, which is why many apps debut on only iOS or Android.


#1187

That’s the funniest thing I have read for a while.


#1188

Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. This dynamic has created a two-tiered wireless broadband ecosystem, in which iPhone and Android users are able to access far more content and applications than customers using devices running other operating systems. These are precisely the sort of discriminatory practices that neutrality advocates have criticized at the carrier level.

Therefore, neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system.

So… the government should mandate that every application be written for every possible platform?
“Hey Netflix, I just wrote my own OS, which literally ZERO people use. You are required to port your application to my OS. Because of net neutrality!”


#1189

Does he really not realise how absurd he sounds? He can’t really believe that. Must just be using the net neutrality thing as a platform to get some media coverage. Any publicity is good publicity when nobody gives two shits about your products, after all!


#1190

This is blackberry. They’re panicking. They’ve been panicking for the better part of a decade now.


#1191

What’s amazing is that they still exist, given the fact that panicking would normally result in collapse.


#1192

RIM had a $67 [I]billion [/I] market cap when Apple launched the iPhone. It takes a long time to piss away such a vast amount of money.


#1193

Well ,well, well… there are people who still like Blackberry


#1194

Blackberry releases $2380 tablet running on Samsung 10.5 hardware.

For only around 5 times as much money, you can have a version of the Samsung 10.5 that runs Blackberry’s garbage OS instead of Android!
BECAUSE PEOPLE TOTALLY WANT THAT.

“The price point is quite expensive - part of the target base is going to be people who can afford to deploy a tablet at that price,” Mr McQuire added.

Translation: “It’s way over priced, but we’re continuing to bet the farm that there are enough consumers in the market who have more money than brains.”


#1195

Er…

"The Secutablet is compatible with Blackberry 10 and is currently undergoing security certification at the German Federal Office for Information Security. "

In other words, you’re paying for the security certification. 5x is pretty low for that.


#1196

Let’s watch how well it sells.


#1197

Eh - It’ll sell pretty much exclusively to government and government-linked contractors, for which you won’t see retail sale figures.


#1198

#1199

Whaaaat? I’m posting this before rei?

Venice - Blackberry’s first Android phone.


#1200

Every time I see this thread bumped to announce something [I]other[/I] than RIM’s bankruptcy, I get confused and afraid.