Wikipedia

Talk:BlackBerry Limited/Archive 1

< Talk:BlackBerry Limited
Latest comment: 6 years ago by VoxLuna in topic Financials
Archive 1

Merge with Research in Motion

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I believe that these two articles should be merged, because they both contain identical content. Furthermore, Blackberry is the only brand of Research in Motion. JoshK48 -(talk) 08:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong disagree: RIM is a company, Blackberry is a product/consumer device. I believe this is enough to remove the merger proposal tag. - PeregrineAY 00:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • If it remains, then it would need to be cleaned up such that anything pertaining to company (such as the Patent section) should be deleted and merged with it on the RIM article. Because RIM's only product is Blackberry I believe it should be merged. --JoshK48 (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need to clutter the blackberry pages with the history of the Research in Motion, it's aquisition, stock market value... Esurnir (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS X

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I edited Mac OS X to OS X in the competition section, Apple's official name for the OS running on the iPhone is OS X, not Mac OS X, ref. http://daringfireball.net/2007/01/os_x or http://www.apple.com/iphone/specs.html -- Rocco


Moved to this capitalization; company policy is to capitalize the 'I'. Radagast

178.152.217.178 (talk) 17:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC) The operating system running on iphone is called iOS not OS X.

My reversion

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I reverted the change to this article because it is a cut and paste from current event news. That is against the Copyright Policy of Wikipedia.--Adam  (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Patent Litigation

Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Added section on earlier history of RIM patent litigation. See links for sources.--Nowa 16:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone put reference tags on these, and put the links down in the reference section? I would do it, but I am bogged down at the moment. --Adam  (talk) 16:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Links put in reference section--Nowa 22:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the history of the litigation between RIM and NTP needs to be in one place. The addition of a paragraph to this page detailing one particular bit of it gives a very point of view feel to it - there is also huge amounts missing, and now there is no link to the location of the full detail on the litigation (at NTP, Inc.) as there was before. I'd suggest moving all the material related to the NTP litigation to NTP, Inc. and putting a link across to it. Kcordina Talk 08:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. however, the last 'litigation conclusion' paragraph sould remain and a link added to NTP. PDAgeek 18:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with PDAgeek's edits. There may be milder ways to express it, but it appears that Nowa's edits are all factually correct. Perhaps if someone could edit to remove inflamatory language without diminishing content, that would be acceptable to all.--Glin 21:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I still agree that the story of the litigation should go in one place and I'll lend my support to those that take it on. In the meantime, I think PDAgeek has a good point about POV. I've tried to remove it, but if those interested still see some in there, please remove without diluting content. I also split out the case of RIM v Glenayre. Even if the NTP case is moved out, I'm not sure the Glenayre case should go with it.

I probably got a little wordy with the reexamination so feel free to trim. The basic point I was trying to make is that a reexamination goes on even after two parties settle. NTP, therefore, could still loose the patents despite the settlement. It is normal in these cases to have clauses in the settlement that state that NTP doesn't have to give the money back, even if the patents are held invalid. I didn't want to put that in, however, without a source. Otherwise it would just be speculation--Nowa 00:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reworked the litigation section a fair bit, and I think it's now neutral and more readable. Nowa, I was perhaps a bit merciless in editting your reexam bit, but I do think it fits far better in the NTP article (I've moved it there) - particularly since now the case is settled, it is, as you say, very unlikely to affect RIM. Kcordina Talk 08:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Kcordina, No problem. I like what you've done.--Nowa 17:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why the "American View" tag is in this section. Of course it's an American view, they're US patents. Mojodaddy (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Mojodaddy. That would be like faulting a company from India only having court cases held in India being an 'Indian Worldview' Patent litigation is relevant to the evolution of the product regardless of where the cases were brought up. Manny75586 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Concerns

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have to say, having just read this and the NTP Inc. articles, I'm worried about some possible neutrality issues. While I know the obvious reply is "fix it yourself", I think I ought to mention it to everyone else too. Between the raving of how RIM invented the Blackberry which was a "great product" and "killer app", and description of NTP as a "patent troll" with no qualification, perhaps we're taking an excessively pro-RIM approach here? Plasma 10:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

List of phones

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could somebody put in a chart of phones and features put out by RIM similar to the one on the HTC article? I think that would be very helpful and would make this article more effective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.216.66 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

market cap is 40.19 bn dollars google finance

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

shouldn't that be listed somewhere ? the data sizes it up better putting it in range of nokia at 49.65 bn dollars.Grmike (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Speedy deletion: Self-published and questionable sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

comments from merged Alt-N Technologies talk page. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC) This article is almost entirely supported by sources from the company itself. Most edits are by the same user who appears to have only worked on this article and it's linking from elsewhere, as well as the article of their product MDaemon. This looks like blatant self-promotion and should be speedily deleted. --Gladrim (talk) 10:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

  • The article may still be salvageable, I'd propose exploring a heavy rewrite of the article before pushing for speedy deletion. Calvinhrn (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Content merged from Alt-N Technologies to Research In Motion. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

resource

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RIM Founder Says 'Sorry': BlackBerry Blackout Continues by Daniel Ionescu in PCWorld Oct 13, 2011 6:51 AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

RIM is only 12 dollars on its close

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

RIM is now only around $12 on its last close. View Bloomberg.com stock value for Toronto NASDAQ *Adjkasi* (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Greenpeace in "Environmental Record" section

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I do not think Greenpeace should be mentioned in the Environmental Record, as Greenpeace its self is of highly questionable neutrality, and could compromise the neutrality of the article. Furthermore, I do not think it is worthwhile to include Greenpeace's non-scientific "guide" scores. The rest of the section is fine. Edit: just noticed a similar Greenpeace paragraph in the Sony Ericsson article - and I assume in other mobile phone company articles - I am concerned that the inclusion of Greenpeace's guide in phone company Wikipedia pages is not just for information purposes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ako17 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Ticker symbol

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recommend replacing ticker symbol to first sentence.[1] "Per Nasdaq" was a made up suggestion a month ago which does not have wide support. I do not look at Info boxes, and find them visually difficult to understand, and as such find it difficult to find the ticker symbol, if it is not right after the company name, where it normally appears. Apteva (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move

Latest comment: 11 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Putting the initial error in the move request to one side, it's clear that there is no support for the proposal that the company is the primary topic at this time. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

– The company that owns the brand should be primary especially considering the company is now the brand. Fortunately there is no phone called the BlackBerry BlackBerry Z10. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment this nomination doesn't make sense, you can't move two articles to the same location, so there's something wrong with the second move in the multimove. "BlackBerry" -> "BlackBerry" changes nothing on that count. And merger requests don't use WP:RM. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, sorry about that. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
You might want to create a redirect from "(brand)" while awaiting the results of this move request. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose the line of devices is the primary topic. Especially since the company was until a few days ago, Research in Motion, so hardly qualifies as being the thing known as "BlackBerry". And even if it weren't the case, it's still the line of products and not the company that is known as crackberries/BlackBerries. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Strongest Oppose: The company and brand have two distinct histories, and (until a few days ago) had distinct identities too. And also, well, this isn't a valid "move" either. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for reasons listed above. 75.130.102.69 (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(break to denote comments before correction. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose This may be workable in the future but the company has only been know as BlackBerry for less than a week while the product line has been known as such for over a decade. Thre is no way that the company is better known under this term due to this time frame.--174.93.160.57 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: I'd suggest keeping the BlackBerry brand page where it is right now, but moving this company page to BlackBerry Limited. (Since Research In Motion is/was legally Research In Motion Limited, I'm assuming this would also apply after the rebranding is complete.) I would think that this clears up any possible confusion that may arise between the two, and seeing as though this would get rid of the ugly parenthetical disambiguation, it's like killing two birds with one stone. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Factual Inconsistancies

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

As it stands, the name of the company is still Research in Motion. Thus, the RIM logo should still be in the infobox. Therefor, I propose moving the page back to Research in Motion until the name change is official. However, I think the BlackBerry logo should appear somewhere in the article. Carl Quintinilla, who's at the BlackBerry 10 launch event, just said the name won't change until February 4.

Would a mod please watch the article for vandalism regarding the name and ticker symbols or block edits to that info until February 4? Michealin (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Honest well intended changes are not and have been vandalism. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I got into an edit war with someone and tired of making the same changes over and over. Michealin (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the company is still called Research in Motion Ltd, and should not have been renamed. Danrok (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to change the financial details. Blackberry probably didn't lose 646 BILLION dollars in 2013... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.42 (talk) 04:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The page is continuously edited changing the trading name to BlackBerry when it is still RIM, (for proof search NASDAQ and TSX for BlackBerry, even though the symbols are BBRY and BB respectively, the company is still (registered as) Research In Motion Limited). Yes the public name is BlackBerry, and that is what it should be known as, the trading name is still different. MThinkCpp (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree, WP:COMMONNAME applies here, which is why we have a field for the doing business as part on company infoboxes. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jim Balsillie

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

why is there no mention of Jim Balsillie being a co-founder? currently Mike Lazaridis is listed as sole founder and Jim Balsillie was just an executive — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.67 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


Requested move 22 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

BlackBerry Ltd → BlackBerry Limited – In press releases (e.g. http://press.blackberry.com/) and all other communication I can find from the company it uses the full name. If using the full name is part of a brand and/or image the company is using I don't think it should be abbreviated as that becomes lost information. Relisted Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC) Svgalbertian (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. It is usual practice everywhere to abbreviate "Limited" in company names as "Ltd". -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Fascinating. I guess we don't have a WP:CONSISTENT naming policy on "Limited" yet. So I'll weak support, I guess, since it seems that the company likes using it? Red Slash 01:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) does have a comment on this, "If the legal status is used to disambiguate, it should be included in the article title using the company's own preference for either the abbreviated or unabbreviated form (such as Caterpillar Inc. and Mars, Incorporated)." --Svgalbertian (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I should also note this is how the name is presented at TSX: BB and Nasdaq: BBRY. At both those exchanges there are many companies that use the LTD form in their name, but again here the company chose to go with BlackBerry Limited.--Svgalbertian (talk) 16:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Layout template

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is the layout template still warranted on this page, as it seems to be in proper order?--Soulparadox (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge BlackBerry Priv

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

BlackBerry Priv lacks sufficient notability on its own to merit a stand alone page per WP:PRODUCT.

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on BlackBerry Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on BlackBerry Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on BlackBerry Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on BlackBerry Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Rimjob. We dont like that name so lets call ourselves blackberry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.108.125 (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on BlackBerry Limited. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Financials

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the first sentence in Financials, it is claimed, "The number of active BlackBerry users has increased over time." Then a table in the same section appears to contradict this, showing a peak at 2013, and a loss of 54% by 2015. It is also unclear if the sentence refers to hardware or software. Rather than outright delete what appears to be unverifiable, I placed a {dubious} tag: iOS and later Android are by far the dominant OSes, and Gartner in 2017 reported that Blackberry had "0.0% market share".— VoxLuna ☾ orbitland   07:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BlackBerry_Limited/Archive_1&oldid=1090474905"