Wow! I completely feel the synergy of BB10 devices...
Anononon: Yes, more competition is better. But because of how standards work and such... there can only be a few systems for a market to support. Go back to the 1980s, there were about 100+ different computer platforms. The C=128 didn't play C=64 games, it just ran in C=64 mode to play such games.
The Ti/99, Trash80s, Apple, Atari 8 & 16bit as well as those made in Europe and Asia were incompatible with each other. The TOWNSfm computers (Japan) had an intel CPU yet had some Amiga like specs. There used to be a European version of the Trash80 (Radio Shack's TRS-80) that was 99% the same thing other than video spec and software tweaks to make them incompatible to share software.
Today: Windows, MacOS and a bit of LINUX is what's left for desktops.
As an Amiga lover... with Amiga computers that have NOT been powered up for years, being the BEST doesn't mean success. When the Amiga computers & OS first came out in 1986, it blew everything else out of the water. Not a single IBM PC could touch it. Macs were still black and white - unless you spent $6000~8000 on the Mac II! Yet it was a $1000 computer in 86 before the $600/$1400 models came out in 87. For that money, all you got was a 7Mhz CPU with .5/1MB of RAM and a floppy.
It would take MS 10 years to come up with a half-ass OS that was usable, but still substandard to AmigaOS... not until XP did they finally make something for consumers that was proper... and yet, it still has the MS-DOS screen for installing the OS! AmigaOS would boot into a full functional GUI system, click on "HD TOOLS" to format and install the OS, pop-out the floppy and reboot to HD. Even MacOS didn't have multi-tasking until 2000/1 with OS-X, which was a completely different OS than previous versions.
Yet.. Amiga is a failure because of the dumb-assess who ran the company into the ground. Not because it was badly made hardware. I see the same stupidity with RIM... that is what many people in the industry ALSO sees in RIM. I also see HP and MS doing very stupid things as well... but they have far more money and patents to keep them alive for decades.
BB10 is most likely powerful... but really, other than the multi-tasking... I see nothing that grabs me. My Android phone does pretty much everything I need.
Also Anononon... yes Android 4.x functions very much like Android 2.x. But in actual use, 4.0 smokes 2.x. Its very stable, its smooth, its UI is much improved over 2.x. Until I got my new AtrixHD phone, I had a Galaxy S1 model... and I never cared much for Android 2.x. I wanted a WP7 Lumia 800 phone badly... I love how METRO (WP7 UI) looked and worked on the small screen... and with ANDROID, I was able to use Launcher7 to get much of the look and feel of WP7 and then some. Even WP8 doesn't do what Launcher7 does. (rotate the tiles to correct orientation of the phone).
I needed a new phone, couldn't wait for WP8.. and I already hated Windows8 and I knew I could run Launcher7/8 on my new phone... so I got another Android. After an hour or so of using Android 4.0... I decided I didn't need the WP7/8 UI... its not useful for me. Android does what I want now.
RIM being 2+ years late with their phone has sunk the company. Many people have moved on... many of those will never return. That is the problem. There is NO good reason to take 2 years to make BB10.