Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 18:59 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless I doubt Research In Motion really knew what hit them back when the iPhone launched. I doubt they really knew what hit them when Android steamrolled the smartphone market. And, today, I still doubt they really know what the heck they are supposed to do to turn their sinking ship around. Update: RIM contacted us with a statement on the matter - they state everything in the BGR article is wrong. Read on for the full statement.
Order by: Score:
"Our source has communicated to us"
by mullerm on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 19:28 UTC
mullerm
Member since:
2010-08-18

"Our source has communicated to us" that

- I will win 1 billion dollar
- Microsoft will be bought by apple
- China will free all political activists

Sorry, osnews. What the hell???

Reply Score: 3

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

A very controversial part of journalism law (cf Wikileaks) is that if sources want their name to be hidden, as an example because they fear backslash if their employer finds out about their identity, they have the right to ask so.

Not stating that a big pinch of salt is not needed, as Thom mentioned, but rumors on unreleased products rarely have a name behind them. And when they do, you get the gizmodo hardware prototype debacle...

Edited 2011-12-22 20:03 UTC

Reply Score: 4

karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

A very controversial part of journalism law (cf Wikileaks) is that if sources want their name to be hidden

True in general, but BGR doesn't exactly strike me as trustworthy (bottom feeder is more like it), so I'll go with the OP on this one.

I'm not saying that all is well at RIM, but the fact that BGR quotes a "company source" in the title but falls back to "one of our most trusted sources" in the actual article smells of link bait to me.


RT.

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

True in general, but BGR doesn't exactly strike me as trustworthy (bottom feeder is more like it), so I'll go with the OP on this one.


Yeah, these are the same clowns that told us Sprint was going to have an exclusive on the iPhone 5 (4s).

http://www.osnews.com/story/25210

Why does OSNews (or anyone else for that matter) still take them seriously? They're full of more shit than a colostomy bag.

Edited 2011-12-23 00:43 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

"True in general, but BGR doesn't exactly strike me as trustworthy (bottom feeder is more like it), so I'll go with the OP on this one.


Yeah, these are the same clowns that told us Sprint was going to have an exclusive on the iPhone 5 (4s).

http://www.osnews.com/story/25210

Why does OSNews (or anyone else for that matter) still take them seriously? They're full of more shit than a colostomy bag.
"

I wasn't aware of BGR's reputation - I can't know everything, obviously ;) .

Reply Score: 1

WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Dude, you posted the bogus Sprint story ;)

Reply Score: 4

robojerk Member since:
2006-01-10

It might still happen ;)

Reply Score: 2

Blackberry email, I don't get it
by MacMan on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 20:00 UTC
MacMan
Member since:
2006-11-19

OK, so I get that before around 2005 or so, it was hard to get IP on a mobile device, hence the need for Blackberry's proprietary messaging network. Its kind of like CompuServe or AOL before the advent of the internet.


But today, I really can't think of a single 'smart phone', or any other mobile device that does not have internet access, so could someone explain what's the point of Blackberry's proprietary messaging network on an internet enabled device? Does it save save enough bandwidth enough to allow for a reduced data plan?

Reply Score: 2

sphere2k Member since:
2009-04-17

... so could someone explain what's the point of Blackberry's proprietary messaging network on an internet enabled device? Does it save save enough bandwidth enough to allow for a reduced data plan?


Maybe it does save some bandwidth, but it's not 2002 any more, when carriers sold 20 MByte/month packages. Today's mobile data packages start at about 250 MByte, so if ActiveSync or IMAP are a bit more chatty -- who cares?

BlackBerry OS is going to die, so maybe RIM should focus on something else. Their "Mobile Fusion" [1] software looks interesting. I think there is going to be considerable demand for a unified mobile device management solution.

[1] http://us.blackberry.com/business/software/mobilefusion/

Edited 2011-12-22 20:38 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

OK, so I get that before around 2005 or so, it was hard to get IP on a mobile device, hence the need for Blackberry's proprietary messaging network. Its kind of like CompuServe or AOL before the advent of the internet.


But today, I really can't think of a single 'smart phone', or any other mobile device that does not have internet access, so could someone explain what's the point of Blackberry's proprietary messaging network on an internet enabled device? Does it save save enough bandwidth enough to allow for a reduced data plan?


Most of the companies I know that still use BBs are because they are very robust (Hardware is tough) way better batt life then most smart phones, better security and higher level encryption and also BES servers offer way more remote control of devices then most other services like Good for enterprise.

The thing that killed RIM where is that we got off MS Exchange and went to Google Apps. Now it's all web based so any device can be used including personal ones. Bye, bye RIM.

Reply Score: 2

uncalled for
by fran on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 20:29 UTC
fran
Member since:
2010-08-06

In RIM's defense Blackberry OS 10 is unreleased and still in development. It will be released at the end of next year which is a long time when you have a team of dedicated developers working on it.

A product should not be ruined by reputation even before it is finished and released. And trashing a product in beta state should not make it to reputable websites and even less if it is based on rumours.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by robojerk
by robojerk on Thu 22nd Dec 2011 21:07 UTC
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

I doubt there is anything RIM could stop the bleed of Blackberry costomers.
When the iPhone came out I bet they thought that was a "cute" product, but RIM was all about business, and pretty much owned that market and thought their dominance would never be threatened. Then the tsunami of mobile apps happened, and businesses started dropping BB for iPhones.

So what can RIM do to stay in business?
Considering the patent laws in the US I could imagine that they'll start "definding" any IP they own.

They could pull a Nokia and partner with Microsoft or Google and become yet another handset maker. Not saying Apple wouldn't partner with them, it's unlikely though IMO. I think the PR of Apple single handily killing RIM would show their dominance in the market and strengthen their brand to consumers, yet somehow Android's market share will probably be added as a small footnote.

There have been rumors RIM has been approached to be bought out by Microsoft, Amazon, and Google. I think if the share holders invest heavily into resuscitating the Blackberry brand and fail this will probably be what will happen. Their IP would be beneficial to Apple's/Google's/Microsoft's/Amazon's war chest.

Not saying RIM will fail, but they need to make the product appealing in some way, and stright competing with iOS and Android obviously isn't working.

There's still a lot of consumers that haven't jumped on the "smart phone" bandwagon and have no interest to. I think if any handset maker could make a phone device to cater to these consumers, yet utilize a modern mobile OS that could run some apps that could fill the niche nicely. Like a handset with no 3g/4g antenna but with wifi so when at home they could use some apps, but it's still a phone first and foremost.

Edited 2011-12-22 21:09 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by Codester on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 00:51 UTC
Codester
Member since:
2008-10-24

iOS didn't get multitasking until version 4. Are we to believe that multitasking QNX ported to the BlackBerry doesn't have multitasking?

Symbian had multitasking before iOS.

I have a BlackBerry PlayBook and the OS seems fine to me. You use your finger to select, scroll, etc. It will be interesting to see how long Apple fanboys can claim there is a significant difference between an Apple tablet/phone and a reasonably priced tablet/phone.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by tony on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 01:21 UTC in reply to "Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

iOS didn't get multitasking until version 4. Are we to believe that multitasking QNX ported to the BlackBerry doesn't have multitasking?

Symbian had multitasking before iOS.

I have a BlackBerry PlayBook and the OS seems fine to me. You use your finger to select, scroll, etc. It will be interesting to see how long Apple fanboys can claim there is a significant difference between an Apple tablet/phone and a reasonably priced tablet/phone.


Apple-haters always rail on the multitasking bit. Apple has its faults, but that wasn't one of them. True multi-tasking for a mobile device was highly overrated.

Even with iPhone OS 1, when you went to the home screen, you didn't "quit" the app, at least not in the way we're used to. The application would suspend, and when it ran again it would be at the same point it was before. True multitasking? No. But it worked great. It also solved a major issue that I had with my previous phone, Windows Mobile 5, which processes could go out of control, eat up battery, and be tough to kill. I don't want a friggin' task manager on my phone. I don't want or need to do process and memory management.

For regular users, this was great. Even for myself, I found it refreshing and far more convienient. Plus, there wasn't a single thing I wanted to do that I couldn't with Apple's "false multitasking".

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by Codester on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 01:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
Codester Member since:
2008-10-24

What does iOS have that makes it worth paying a premium for?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by dsmogor on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 11:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

A kickass usability for typical mid scenarios in hand sized form factor.
I wouldn't buy IPhone bc of its restrictions but every time I get to use one I can feel the amount of fine tunning that went into the device. It's not only about the os but how well the shape, form factor and screen layout, gestures and touch screen surface friction that play with each other. (That's why I believe Apple won't hurry up introducing 4.3'' and keyboard phones).
This is not something that can be easily replicated without years of work.
As far as usability is concerned it's no shame to be worse than even IOS v.1. Nothing comes even close to it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by karunko on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 08:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

Apple-haters always rail on the multitasking bit.

Haters? Like them or not, facts are facts. Real multitasking had been fairly common on other "less cool" devices.

Plus, there wasn't a single thing I wanted to do that I couldn't with Apple's "false multitasking".

Then you didn't listen to internet radios, use Skype or maybe even good old IRC? Because these were the sort of applications that got disconnected as soon as you switched to the home screen, and the fact that you didn't have to launch them again once you were done is irrelevant: you had to start from scratch anyway.


RT.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by tony on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"Apple-haters always rail on the multitasking bit.

Haters? Like them or not, facts are facts. Real multitasking had been fairly common on other "less cool" devices.
"

You're confusing facts for feature check-offs. Fact: Windows Mobile 5 had multitasking. iPhone didn't have "true" multi-tasking. Winner Windows, right? Wrong. Windows Mobile 5 multitasking hampered the platform.

No one really cared, especially not your average user. Haters point to multi-tasking like it's some gotcha. It wasn't.


"Plus, there wasn't a single thing I wanted to do that I couldn't with Apple's "false multitasking".

Then you didn't listen to internet radios, use Skype or maybe even good old IRC? Because these were the sort of applications that got disconnected as soon as you switched to the home screen, and the fact that you didn't have to launch them again once you were done is irrelevant: you had to start from scratch anyway.
"

I don't listen to Internet radio, Skype, or IRC on my iPhone, nor have I had any desire to. If I do any of those, I do it on a regular laptop or desktop.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by Alfman on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 19:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tony,

"I don't listen to Internet radio, Skype, or IRC on my iPhone, nor have I had any desire to. If I do any of those, I do it on a regular laptop or desktop."

With all due respect, that answer is a cop out.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by tony on Sat 24th Dec 2011 03:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

tony,

"I don't listen to Internet radio, Skype, or IRC on my iPhone, nor have I had any desire to. If I do any of those, I do it on a regular laptop or desktop."

With all due respect, that answer is a cop out.


Why is it a cop-out? Those are things I've never done (and I don't know anyone that does). I mean, IRC? Any smartphone would be terrible for that. Internet radio? If I'm listening to music on my phone I'm on a plane, so it's locally stored music. Skype? Maybe that'd be handy. It would only be handy internationally for me, and then only with a decent Wifi connection.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by Alfman on Sat 24th Dec 2011 03:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

tony,

It's a cop out because those are all reasonable things to have a smart phone do without a computer, and you said you can just use a computer for the things your smartphone doesn't do well. You're answer, while being true, doesn't say anything to justify the shortcoming.

To exaggerate the point for effect, I could say it doesn't matter if my smart phone doesn't receive phone calls reliably because I can always take them on my land line. While the statement is true, it doesn't justify the deficiency.


Your answer was a cop out in the same way.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by tony on Sat 24th Dec 2011 04:32 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

tony,

It's a cop out because those are all reasonable things to have a smart phone do without a computer, and you said you can just use a computer for the things your smartphone doesn't do well. You're answer, while being true, doesn't say anything to justify the shortcoming.

To exaggerate the point for effect, I could say it doesn't matter if my smart phone doesn't receive phone calls reliably because I can always take them on my land line. While the statement is true, it doesn't justify the deficiency.


Your answer was a cop out in the same way.


It would be a cop out if the iPhone can't do those things. But it can, and I just don't.

I mean, common, IRC? For direct messages, through SMS/BBM/iChat, it works fine. In a chat room? It's like saying you could write a novel on a smartphone. Yeah, you could, but why would you want to?

I can do Pandora on my iPhone (and in the background), but I don't. Maybe not a bad idea for when I'm running, but most of the time when I'm listening to music I'm on a plane. No Internet access. I usually use Pandora or Last.fm if I'm sitting down and cranking out work. And that involves a laptop (although I've done a few articles on an iPad with a bluetooth keyboard).

Same with Skype.

So no, not a copout.

Edited 2011-12-24 04:34 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by karunko on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 22:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28

I don't listen to Internet radio, Skype, or IRC on my iPhone, nor have I had any desire to. If I do any of those, I do it on a regular laptop or desktop.

So whatever you don't need is irrelevant and whatever is good for you should be enough for everybody else? Okay, then! ;-)

Also, has it ever occurred to you that maybe you don't need a smart/app/whatever phone. Looks like you'd be fine with a dumb phone...


RT.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by tony on Sat 24th Dec 2011 03:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"I don't listen to Internet radio, Skype, or IRC on my iPhone, nor have I had any desire to. If I do any of those, I do it on a regular laptop or desktop.

So whatever you don't need is irrelevant and whatever is good for you should be enough for everybody else? Okay, then! ;-)

Also, has it ever occurred to you that maybe you don't need a smart/app/whatever phone. Looks like you'd be fine with a dumb phone...


RT.
"

And for an equally as obnoxious response:

Has it ever occurred to you that there are dimensions to the success of Apple products that you're incapable of perceiving?

Edited 2011-12-24 03:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by karunko on Sat 24th Dec 2011 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
karunko Member since:
2008-10-28


Has it ever occurred to you that there are dimensions to the success of Apple products that you're incapable of perceiving?

And how this is relevant to what we were discussing, exactly?

As pointed out by someone else, the lack of "good enough" multitasking (let alone true multitasking) was a shortcoming that even Apple felt necessary to address. Eventually. Case closed.


RT.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by SeeM on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 14:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
SeeM Member since:
2011-09-10

"The application would suspend, and when it ran again it would be at the same point it was before. True multitasking? No. But it worked great."

Just as in PalmOS. ;) But in palmos it was better. I can start typing a memo and, without saving it, switch to calendar, then again to memo and continue typing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?
by tony on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Worse than iPhone iOS 1.0?"
tony Member since:
2005-07-06

"The application would suspend, and when it ran again it would be at the same point it was before. True multitasking? No. But it worked great."

Just as in PalmOS. ;) But in palmos it was better. I can start typing a memo and, without saving it, switch to calendar, then again to memo and continue typing.


You could always do that in iOS as well.

Reply Score: 1

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

It actually had to be implemented by the developer. Up till iOS 4, applications WOULD quit when going to the homescreen. That's why now they are quick to reload while before you'd have to wait a little.

Reply Score: 3

Good riddance
by Phloptical on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 01:41 UTC
Phloptical
Member since:
2006-10-10

We can soon finally pull the plug on our BES server.

Bye-bye crack-berry, how I'll miss the whining sales people holding their phones and complaining about their unimportant calendars not syncing.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Good riddance
by frderi on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 10:00 UTC in reply to "Good riddance"
frderi Member since:
2011-06-17

+1

Not to mention the pain associated with emails not arriving on the device, the high price of BES Server upgrades, the problems with devices losing their association with the users randomly requiring you to re-link them, or the high failure rate of the hardware.

February, 1st will be the day I pull the plug out of my BES Server.

Reply Score: 2

English Riots
by M.Onty on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 01:57 UTC
M.Onty
Member since:
2009-10-23

But the rioters love their Blackberry Messenger, they'll keep the company afloat.

Reply Score: 3

No specifics makes it a Apple fanboy post
by Codester on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Codester
Member since:
2008-10-24

"The source further added that RIM is betting the company on a platform that won't even be as good as iOS 1.0"

What exactly does the platform lack that prevent it from being as good as iOS 1.0? It can't be Blackberry Messenger, because iOS 1.0 didn't have that. So is the that the lack of an email app (which apparently the author believes will never be written) is what makes iOS 1.0 superior to QNX on a BlackBerry?

No won

Reply Score: 2

No specifics makes it a Apple fanboy post
by Codester on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 03:12 UTC
Codester
Member since:
2008-10-24

"The source further added that RIM is betting the company on a platform that won't even be as good as iOS 1.0"

What exactly does the platform lack that prevent it from being as good as iOS 1.0? It can't be Blackberry Messenger, because iOS 1.0 didn't have that. So is the that the lack of an email app (which apparently the author believes will never be written) is what makes iOS 1.0 superior to QNX on a BlackBerry?

No wonder Apple gets to charge a premium on all their products with articles like this floating around.

Reply Score: 3

What of QNX
by mfaudzinr on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 07:11 UTC
mfaudzinr
Member since:
2008-02-13

What's going to happen to QNX if RIM goes bust? QNX is a fantastic little OS. Hate to see it go another open source route then oblivion. I for one would like to see RIM succeed to a certain degree and I look forward to purchasing a QNX based BB phones. Even Blackberry Playbook is fav of mine when it comes to tablets. It's refreshing. A few caveats here and there but nothing too bad. Maybe what's wrong is those 2 bozos running RIM. Are they necessary at all?

Reply Score: 1

RE: What of QNX
by dsmogor on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 11:40 UTC in reply to "What of QNX"
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

QNX may be a newcomer in the arena of phone oses, but is strongly established in the industry computing and telecomunications.
It could easily become a self sustainable spinoff again, heck, Blackberry could reduce itself to supporting existing QNX customers.

Reply Score: 3

It's not about features!
by spiderman on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 07:31 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

No email? No messenging? This is a feature. Those of you who think you need email, think again. Emails are for geeks. What you need is a device for grand mother with extra smooth animations, blinking screen and special FX to transition between states. Win.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's not about features!
by dnebdal on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 13:43 UTC in reply to "It's not about features!"
dnebdal Member since:
2008-08-27

No email? No messenging? This is a feature. Those of you who think you need email, think again. Emails are for geeks. What you need is a device for grand mother with extra smooth animations, blinking screen and special FX to transition between states. Win.


I don't know; email seems to work ok for older people. It's a fairly simple system, easy enough to explain (with mail metaphors, if needed), fairly useful, and they can get pictures of the grandkids with it. At this point, email is for employees, those of us old enough to have started using it before myspace (and then facebook) took off, and "old" people.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: It's not about features!
by spiderman on Fri 23rd Dec 2011 19:23 UTC in reply to "RE: It's not about features!"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Actually I was sarcastic. Sorry if that was not clear. It was a reference to the iOS 1.0 days when people told us features were not important and that only smooth animation counts. Actually my opinion is that smooth animation is cool but if all you can do with the phone is call and surf the web, I prefer to stick to my Nokia 3330 which can do that for much cheaper and for several weeks with a single battery charge.

Reply Score: 2