>He points to wearables such as Google Glass as one obvious category. But then he rightly says that such devices already seem a little boring — “remarkably like

>He points to wearables such as Google Glass as one obvious category. But then he rightly says that such devices already seem a little boring — “remarkably like tiny iPhones bolted to our heads and fastened to our wrists.” So Apple's iPhone compared to Blackberry's offerings was a paradigm shift that killed all potential innovation, but Google Glass compared to the iPhone is just an iPhone strapped to your face. Not the most compelling analysis. >This could be the end of any radical innovation in mobile, period. Even Apple has run its course: Where else can it go? Almost egotistical how the author rests the lack of future innovation squarely upon his lack of imagination. >Imagine a phone that could go for a month of heavy use on one charge, which, alongside other improvements, could give us constant location awareness we could actually depend on. Maybe the author missed the announcement about the M7 chip, but that is exactly the type of innovation that allows for dependable location awareness. And longer battery life is an innovation that is currently in the works and will get there. Just because it hasn't happened soon enough doesn't mean nobody has thought of it and reached for it. That is being innovated. Now. Also, Blackberry is responsible for Blackberry's failures. There were many strategies available to it when the shift began. It chose wrong and executed what it did choose poorly. Contrast that with Samsung, often derided for completely apeing and copying Apple and using Google's aped OS to do so. Quibble with that narrative all you want, but even adopting the most unflattering version of it, it proved to be a smart business decision, which, at the end of the day, is almost all that matters as they are extremely profitable and BB just gutted its workforce and may never make a phone again. BB didn't fail because there were no innovative paths available to it as the author suggests. Not only is that premise wrong, but it assumes they had to innovate to succeed in the first place, which is also wrong. When it comes to execution and innovation, they failed on both counts.