The Research in Motion story is back in the news because of the (great-looking!) Blackberry movie that’s set to hit on May 12th — and we covered the story intensely during our early years when it wasn’t a guarantee that the iPhone and Android would come to dominate the smartphone market. Here’s our deep-dive feature from back then, which holds up. (Apart from the layout being a little broken. Apologies — it has been a long decade for legacy web pages.)
Nilay Patel

Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
More From Nilay Patel

CEO James Daunt explains how Barnes & Noble is different than Amazon.
I am not going to apologize for reaching to post about this personally emotional moment except: major sports news breaking on a Pat McAfee livestream with over 450,000 live viewers is a notable situation, and ESPN’s Adam Schefter having a full charge in low power mode is an incredible way to live.
Joshua Benton at Nieman Lab looks at Gannett, the largest newspaper chain in the country, which merged with the second-largest company in 2019. The two companies promised a lot, but in the end the deal resulted in a much smaller company with far fewer journalists:
In other words, Gannett has eliminated more than half of its jobs in the United States in four years. It’s as if, instead of merging America’s two largest newspaper chains, one of them was simply wiped off the face of the earth.
Obviously the internet has changed the entire nature of news, but not having strong local journalism around the country is a very bad thing.

CEO Steve Bandrowczak thinks the office printer is where the workplace revolution begins.
Ferrari’s new Purosangue SUV (base price: $398,350) doesn’t have a traditional infotainment display — there’s a screen in front of the passenger that can run CarPlay and Android Auto, but things like climate controls and seat adjustments are located on a motorized knob with a display. Sure!
You’ll almost certainly hear a lot about NYT v Sullivan in the coming election cycle — the landmark 1964 case setting the boundaries for defamation cases by public figures has already come up in our coverage a few times this year, and the “actual malice” standard it lays out is at the heart of the big Fox News election denial case. Vox has a good explainer on how Ron DeSantis is attacking it head-on — and weakening press freedom along the way:
Without Sullivan, government officials could potentially use defamation suits to impose financially devastating liability on their political enemies — which is what an Alabama official tried to do in Sullivan itself. And a wealthy individual who disagrees with a newspaper’s coverage could potentially fund lawsuits targeting any false statement made by that newspaper, no matter how minor, until the sheer cost of defending against these suits bankrupts the paper.


