4 ms·

The reason it is a problem is not because of Blackberry (or any other company) losing out. It's because there can only be one or two big app stores and so the

The reason it is a problem is not because of Blackberry (or any other company) losing out. It's because there can only be one or two big app stores and so the market for phones - be it Apple and Google, Microsoft and Blackberry, or Samsung and Nexus. Duopolies are bad. Telling the story from Blackberry's perspective ("the loser") or from Apple's perspective ("the winner") misses the point. The perspective to look at this from is the consumer's vantage point, where more a more even playing field means more competition.

ekianjo 12y ago
Nothing prevents Blackberry from making an Android phone, though, and having their own store instead of the regular Google Store, thus reaping the benefits of Android applications sold on their platform without having to ask developers to make entire new versions of app for a losing standard. That's what Amazon does.
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  My worry is that this like saying (in the 90s) that Apple (or Honeywell, Novell, Amiga, whatever) should make a Microsoft PC - 'focus on the hardware, stop asking developers to make an entirely new version of software for their losing standard' - instead of taking due anti-trust action against the fixers of the market. That's akin to saying "Okay, we found a winner - all OS sales will be to this one (or two - whatever) companies. Everyone else can compete underneath the vertical on the final consumer product of this mono(duo)poly but they can not compete to make a better OS/platform/marketplace/social website". I mean, I think we both understand each other here. We both understand that there are companies that monopolize parts of the software industry, and prevent others from competing. Can I try to say what I think you're getting at? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if this is not right. Your analysis, I think, is trying to say that there are other places that a company can compete when corners of the information industry are monopolized; and that companies can bide their time in an attempt to win the 'next big thing'; that the nature of the information industry and its companies is to leapfrog one over another by 'disrupting' the current paradigm and finding a throne in the next (wary, thereon, of being similarly usurped). In this analysis someone would point to competition being fair in the sense that everyone has some relatively fair chance at being the next big paradigm setter. Maybe someone who believed that would say to someone like me that I'm looking at competition in the market on too small a scale. That I'm look at a fair phone market when soon everyone will be wearing smart glasses (or whatever) instead. Someone who believed that might say to Blackberry that if they want to be a top dog again they can't do it in phones - they have to go make some digital glasses.

ekianjo 12y ago

Nothing prevents Blackberry from making an Android phone, though, and having their own store instead of the regular Google Store, thus reaping the benefits of Android applications sold on their platform without having to ask developers to make entire new versions of app for a losing standard. That's what Amazon does.

xnull2guest 12y ago
My worry is that this like saying (in the 90s) that Apple (or Honeywell, Novell, Amiga, whatever) should make a Microsoft PC - 'focus on the hardware, stop asking developers to make an entirely new version of software for their losing standard' - instead of taking due anti-trust action against the fixers of the market. That's akin to saying "Okay, we found a winner - all OS sales will be to this one (or two - whatever) companies. Everyone else can compete underneath the vertical on the final consumer product of this mono(duo)poly but they can not compete to make a better OS/platform/marketplace/social website". I mean, I think we both understand each other here. We both understand that there are companies that monopolize parts of the software industry, and prevent others from competing. Can I try to say what I think you're getting at? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please correct me if this is not right. Your analysis, I think, is trying to say that there are other places that a company can compete when corners of the information industry are monopolized; and that companies can bide their time in an attempt to win the 'next big thing'; that the nature of the information industry and its companies is to leapfrog one over another by 'disrupting' the current paradigm and finding a throne in the next (wary, thereon, of being similarly usurped). In this analysis someone would point to competition being fair in the sense that everyone has some relatively fair chance at being the next big paradigm setter. Maybe someone who believed that would say to someone like me that I'm looking at competition in the market on too small a scale. That I'm look at a fair phone market when soon everyone will be wearing smart glasses (or whatever) instead. Someone who believed that might say to Blackberry that if they want to be a top dog again they can't do it in phones - they have to go make some digital glasses.