[HereticHermit]

I intended this to be a response post in some other thread(s) that were largely wondering aloud/lamenting/ whining/calling on Santa/Please give us BB10 Priv/I want new BB10 Z50/Why can�t Blackberry use Android hardware and simply code with in-house coders with improved android runtime and release new BB10 and so on. But decided to have a thread about it.
But it does not matter what we think about want from BB10 in future. Release of new BB10 will be a corporate decision and possibility looks rather bleak. Much as I love BB10 and not going android anytime soon (at least not without fully comprehending what security Chen is bringing on board with Priv, the boot sequence checkup, GrSecurity and such jazz aren�t really up there with BB10s baked in features, as I understand secure android are attempts aimed at securing the device itself and not effective against data trolling of Google and Google enabled aaps) I am not optimistic about a BB10 release of Priv or even new BB10 devices because Google OHA will somehow manage to screw Blackberry about runtime on their new devices. A new BB10 without an android runtime will be a very cold and very dead thing in hands of even die hard BB fan boys. We, who love BB10 are most likely bummed out.
In another thread few were asking why does Google have to arm twist Blackberry in total submission and vouch to not release any new phone with traces or and/or parallel android runtime. And few others felt very perplexed why it is so hard to use the hardware and tweak some codes and release BB10 on Priv. In the replies to these naive people (including me) why it is impossible, the reference of OHA kept popping up very frequently. Especially, Conite said in replies, drawing from his experience and understanding the implications of OHA that Google will not slack OHA for Blackberry just for laughs and various other technical reasons. Not disagreeing with Conite and many others who know their stuff about hardware/coding and general politics around OS implementation I want to propose that having OHA compliant stooges for co- conspirators is not the end of everything and society cannot be made to suffer endlessly.
It is given that managing OHA and other underpinning agreements is a very fine and complex art which Google has mastered to its full advantage. Legal teams and lawyers are paid huge sums to keep them watertight and be able to defend them at the drop of a hat. Blackberry or any phone manufacture going to Google and begging to use Android will be subject to (and Google is entitled to it) whims/OHA of Google or what mood the meeting head is in, on a particular day. Google have plethora of legal framework and agreements to hide behind or attack from, depending on the situation. It is all okay up to this point. But....
But... laws and/or OHA induced limitations are not Act of God. Corporate or man made legal frameworks in ever evolving society cannot find precedence over need of society to prosper and get benefits for the greater good. Yes having OHAs and legal framework help the interest of a corporate and they have to be honoured because corporate do not like to operate in a Banana Republic (Unless the corporation is running the banana republic itself, which isn�t the case with elected governments in this case) but no corporate can be allowed to create a banana republic like situation for much too long under the garb of their OHA and alike agreements.
When the monstrosity of having to choose between android or iOS, the discomfort speaks for itself. Public opinion may not be as strong at this point of time but people are talking. Antitrust investigations may not seem big on it today but Public resentment can skew the change the opinion of investigator even if they have to work in a given framework because the finding will not be for one or few individual. Finding/investigations are for the society at large and investigators will not consider or get awed by a corporate Giant who has all possible legal hassles covered up with water tight legal management or their OHAs has way too many participants to rally around in investigation.
By way of reference, when times were simple and everything was not bound with legal management paranoia. A company invented wood laminates under trade name of �Sunmica� but lost their right to stop people from �addressing� every other mica as �Sunmica� because that word became so generic that it lost the exclusiveness and enforceability as a Trade name. Times changed and even with better legal management �Xerox� had hard times to stop people from saying �will you Xerox these docs in set of two�. Every photocopier simply came to be referred as �Xerox machine�.
Google and likes of them learned from these mistakes and sought to enforce their OS (I do understand OS is not a trade name but above example was given by way of a simile) exclusivity by whatever means possible, so yes, they are so far successful in asserting their claim as inventors and ability to enforce OHA requirements but this enforceability effect the convenience and life of their OS users. This is where antitrust pressure groups and public at large wakes up and take notice.
I am not referring to data mining/trolling/usability of an OS here because that is a separate logic and discussion but a world forced to live with bi-OS environment? This will not go forever.
What are your views?

[Cashgap]

Fortunately, things don't work this way.

I think what you are saying is, the government should punish the winners (Apple and Google) because a tiny minority of users, too small to be commercially viable, want something no one is willing to offer.

Not sure what, but I think you mean a Priv that violates the agreement Blackberry signed with Google, or iOS on non-Apple hardware, or something. To be honest, I skipped a few of your paragraphs.

I hope we never live in a world where the government is used as a bludgeon against winners, to mollify losers.


Sounds to much like .

[HereticHermit]

Laissez faire is a well recognized system and works very well around the world where ever elected governance is at the helm of affairs. No one is questioning that logic here. Unfortunately you have gone TL;DR which is all right. No one is calling anyone losers here. Please read through before posting and just running away with it.

[Soulstream]

My view is that just like the desktop market is mostly Windows, with MacOSx as the premium brand and lots of smaller linux distributions fighting for attention, the same will happen to the mobile space, only with Android in the place of Windows.

Anti-competitive practices should be enforced where necessary, but I don't think anything will change for some time now (just like market-share percentegaes haven't really changed in the desktop market for at least a decade now).

[Troy Tiscareno]

Google isn't stopping anyone from competing in the marketplace (that's what anti-competition laws are about). There is iOS, WinPhone, Tizen, Sailfish, Firefox, Ubuntu, and likely others, not to mention BB. They are all competing in the smartphone market. Likewise, Google doesn't prevent developers from developing for other platforms - neither does iOS or WinPhone. Devs are free to develop for any platform they choose - it is the responsibility of the platform owner to entice developers to their platform.

What Google is doing is preventing companies from using Google's rightful property - Google Services and the Play Store - which they spent billions of dollars and likely millions of man-hours to develop and build, to compete against Google. That's completely reasonable for Google to do.

If the government said otherwise, that would be like the government telling Walmart that they must use their distribution centers and delivery truck fleet, which they spent years and billions of dollars to develop, build, buy, and optimize, to supply Target and Costco as well, for free, since Target and Costco didn't or couldn't develop as big or as efficient a distribution system of their own. If that happened, people would correctly say that the government was crazy, and way overstepping their boundaries.

Or, another example: it would be like Major League Baseball telling the Yankees that they had to give the Oakland A's $20M per year in player payroll, because it wasn't "fair" that the Yankees have triple payroll of the A's, and the A's don't get to compete fairly. Don't hold your breath for that to happen either.

BB was way ahead of the game in 2008, when Android was released - they owned 40% of the smartphone market to Android's 0%. They had relationships with developers, they had distribution, they had carrier agreements all over the world, etc. BB had every advantage, while Google had none of those. Whose fault is it that BB squandered all of these advantages, and stood on the sidelines for years while iOS and Android ate their lunch, and while both platforms gave developers what developers were asking for - rather than what BB grudgingly chose to give them.

Google and Apple didn't cheat and they didn't steal - they simply worked both harder and smarter than BB, were much more attuned to the needs and desires of consumers, created and maintained much better relationships with developers, and in the process, they won the market. That's called competition. If BB had competed well, and owned 80% of the market, no one here would be complaining that BB needed the government to step in and give away their hard-earned ecosystem. Why should Google do so?

[bakron1]

Google isn't stopping anyone from competing in the marketplace (that's what anti-competition laws are about). There is iOS, WinPhone, Tizen, Sailfish, Firefox, Ubuntu, and likely others, not to mention BB. They are all competing in the smartphone market. Likewise, Google doesn't prevent developers from developing for other platforms - neither does iOS or WinPhone. Devs are free to develop for any platform they choose - it is the responsibility of the platform owner to entice developers to their platform.

What Google is doing is preventing companies from using Google's rightful property - Google Services and the Play Store - which they spent billions of dollars and likely millions of man-hours to develop and build, to compete against Google. That's completely reasonable for Google to do.

If the government said otherwise, that would be like the government telling Walmart that they must use their distribution centers and delivery truck fleet, which they spent years and billions of dollars to develop, build, buy, and optimize, to supply Target and Costco as well, for free, since Target and Costco didn't or couldn't develop as big or as efficient a distribution system of their own. If that happened, people would correctly say that the government was crazy, and way overstepping their boundaries.

Or, another example: it would be like Major League Baseball telling the Yankees that they had to give the Oakland A's $20M per year in player payroll, because it wasn't "fair" that the Yankees have triple payroll of the A's, and the A's don't get to compete fairly. Don't hold your breath for that to happen either.

BB was way ahead of the game in 2008, when Android was released - they owned 40% of the smartphone market to Android's 0%. They had relationships with developers, they had distribution, they had carrier agreements all over the world, etc. BB had every advantage, while Google had none of those. Whose fault is it that BB squandered all of these advantages, and stood on the sidelines for years while iOS and Android ate their lunch, and while both platforms gave developers what developers were asking for - rather than what BB grudgingly chose to give them.

Google and Apple didn't cheat and they didn't steal - they simply worked both harder and smarter than BB, were much more attuned to the needs and desires of consumers, created and maintained much better relationships with developers, and in the process, they won the market. That's called competition. If BB had competed well, and owned 80% of the market, no one here would be complaining that BB needed the government to step in and give away their hard-earned ecosystem. Why should Google do so?

Troy, your right on the money, it's called basic business concepts 101.

[the1]

I begrudgingly have to agree with Troy..lol. j/k

But in all seriousness, no one is to blame for the current situation except those who sat around (with the exception of WebOS; they were so ahead of the time regarding their operating system but you know, people get stuck in their ways and *cringe* apps). Windows and BBOS were very popular and truth be told, Blackberry has years to make something happen, because their marketshare didn't truly plummet until around 2011. While Google does a lot of things that I don't agree with and some just downright hate, their is nothing wrong with the way OHA is set up. Google played their hand regarding those services and won. Is it for everyone? No, I personally hate gmail, youtube (post Google), maps, etc, but majority of the world loves them. They won that bet fair and square.

[MikeX74]

Yeah, unless W10 mobile is a home run.

[HereticHermit]

Google isn't stopping anyone from competing in the marketplace (that's what anti-competition laws are about). There is iOS, WinPhone, Tizen, Sailfish, Firefox, Ubuntu, and likely others, not to mention BB. They are all competing in the smartphone market. .............................................. If BB had competed well, and owned 80% of the market, no one here would be complaining that BB needed the government to step in and give away their hard-earned ecosystem. Why should Google do so?

Thank you Troy for well written post. It appears that what I have tried to say came across as anti google/android rant. I don't deny liking BB10 over any other OS but that does not mean there is no scope for others to develop.
Win10 is in the process of refining their roadmap and many others have been so insignificant that most of users outside of die-hard fans do not even know them, let alone device manufactures making them in hordes. So for not tech savvy end users the choice is very limited or rather there is hardly any choice.
Google or any other enterprise will have it within their right to do, howsoever conduct their business and come against competition; this is all very well when propagated with argument that 'they are entitled because they did x and got y result'. But what I was saying about a world communication running only two of major OS systems is more of pedantic address to social engineering. I don't think in today's business model govt can just punish or break a company for being successful or being so competitive that they run away with all the available commercial profits offered by society. But it is very much within right of any Govt. to probe and look into the business model of a company when it start affecting the everyday life of society at large. Social cause when directly put to test against monopoly have to be looked into beyond what has been so far suggested in replies.
Mea culpa, I had put fourth a scrupulous view point in a larger perspective of world only to be reminded the two governing elements that spins the world today; success and money.

[prplhze2000]

Quattro.... Lotus...... wordperfect.....

Posted via CB10

[ghostface147]

Quattro.... Lotus...... wordperfect.....

Posted via CB10

Wordstar.

[Soulstream]

Thank you Troy for well written post. It appears that what I have tried to say came across as anti google/android rant. I don't deny liking BB10 over any other OS but that does not mean there is no scope for others to develop.
Win10 is in the process of refining their roadmap and many others have been so insignificant that most of users outside of die-hard fans do not even know them, let alone device manufactures making them in hordes. So for not tech savvy end users the choice is very limited or rather there is hardly any choice.
Google or any other enterprise will have it within their right to do, howsoever conduct their business and come against competition; this is all very well when propagated with argument that 'they are entitled because they did x and got y result'. But what I was saying about a world communication running only two of major OS systems is more of pedantic address to social engineering. I don't think in today's business model govt can just punish or break a company for being successful or being so competitive that they run away with all the available commercial profits offered by society. But it is very much within right of any Govt. to probe and look into the business model of a company when it start affecting the everyday life of society at large. Social cause when directly put to test against monopoly have to be looked into beyond what has been so far suggested in replies.
Mea culpa, I had put fourth a scrupulous view point in a larger perspective of world only to be reminded the two governing elements that spins the world today; success and money.

The same is happening in the desktop market with Windows dominating, MacOSX a distant second and a lot of linux distributions fighing for scraps. While Microsoft was under fire for anticompetitive practices, nothing has really changed in the desktop market for more two decades now.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Thank you Troy for well written post. It appears that what I have tried to say came across as anti google/android rant. I don't deny liking BB10 over any other OS but that does not mean there is no scope for others to develop.
Win10 is in the process of refining their roadmap and many others have been so insignificant that most of users outside of die-hard fans do not even know them, let alone device manufactures making them in hordes. So for not tech savvy end users the choice is very limited or rather there is hardly any choice.
Google or any other enterprise will have it within their right to do, howsoever conduct their business and come against competition; this is all very well when propagated with argument that 'they are entitled because they did x and got y result'. But what I was saying about a world communication running only two of major OS systems is more of pedantic address to social engineering. I don't think in today's business model govt can just punish or break a company for being successful or being so competitive that they run away with all the available commercial profits offered by society. But it is very much within right of any Govt. to probe and look into the business model of a company when it start affecting the everyday life of society at large. Social cause when directly put to test against monopoly have to be looked into beyond what has been so far suggested in replies.
Mea culpa, I had put fourth a scrupulous view point in a larger perspective of world only to be reminded the two governing elements that spins the world today; success and money.

At least we have two mobile OS out there competing.....

With PC's we really just had one, as both Linux and Apple didn't account for much combined.

I am sorry to see BB10 go... if it had been released seven years ago, and if BlackBerry had changed internally to a more consumer oriented company (better hardware specs, more focus on the consumer experience) things would have been different. But it's really up to each Company to make their products a success. I look at MS and how much energy and effort they have put into Windows Mobile over the years.... yet it's not what people want. Maybe if the can get the ecosystem right they'll figure it out... but so far they don't seem to have a clue.

I look at their tablet selection.... one of the main things a lot of people do on a tablet (or even some on their phones). Is read books. Yet MS hasn't created a truly great epub reader - along the lines of iBook. They just don't look at what might make the end users experience better for that type device.

[TCB on Z10]

One factor in BlackBerry' s decline was that shortsellers manipulated the stock market through the media. Remember the "analyst" who falsely claimed more Z10s were being returned than were being sold! The lie was eventually exposed but the damage was done . Anything negative about BlackBerry was reported big time but positive things ignored


BB, Still the One

[Cashgap]

The same is happening in the desktop market with Windows dominating, MacOSX a distant second and a lot of linux distributions fighing for scraps. While Microsoft was under fire for anticompetitive practices, nothing has really changed in the desktop market for more two decades now.

Windows dominating market share, and hardware makers cutting each other's throat to see who can make the cheapest, most minimally functional commodity hardware at .00001% profit.

Apple gathering the lion's share of affluent users, and making extraordinary hardware profits because people will gladly pay 20% more for something 50% better.

Android/iOS seems to be shaking out the same way. Only difference is Microsoft makes Windows to feed the Office money maker, Google makes Android to feed the ad money maker.

[BBerryPowerUser]

As a "Marketing Guy", I believe the downward spiral of Berry was simply due to a failure to react to market trends years ago. I posted in another thread how many once large companies are now former shadows of themselves because of failure to adapt to the marketplace at large.

In the U.S., the best example is the Railroad Companies. At one point in American history the Railroad companies were Leviathans. They controlled all the land, had billions (back then) in raw cash, and had all the power to get what they wanted. But they failed to react to the emerging technologies and market trends. They basically got entrenched in "The Lore of Railroading" and rode that rail almost to extinction. They are now mere shadows of what they once were. Many are out of business. Had they adapted and changed their corporate focus from "Railroading" to "Transportation" and became Airline and Trucking companies, they most likely would still be among the larges corporations in America. Instead, they stayed focused on Railroading and the results showed.

I personally think the window of opportunity for Berry to redirect their focus to a new platform is long passed. I do not think Priv will be successful, and I believe that we'll all be using Legacy phones in the not to distant future if we stay with BlackBerry. HOWEVER, I have no problem with Berry's legacy platforms. I still use a 9900 for business. It's still a very functional platform for me. I have a BB10 that I truly like for my personal line. I'm on the cusp of putting a new Z30 into service as I'm growing weary of Physical Keyboards on phones. Time marches on. Things change. Consumer Demand changes. Just ask Henry Ford. Sooner or later the Model T had to go. You could try and buff it up with all the bells and whistles you wanted, but its time had passed. I believe the same is true for BlackBerry. The time has passed. But so what. I still like and use their products. And as a plus, their phones and especially accessories are bargain priced. That's fine with me.

You're left with Google VS Apple. I cheer for both because I do not want one platform dominating the world. I hope both do well and continue to press each other to develop new and cutting edge hardware and software. That's the best we can hope for in what's left of the market.

[Soulstream]

Windows dominating market share, and hardware makers cutting each other's throat to see who can make the cheapest, most minimally functional commodity hardware at .00001% profit.

Apple gathering the lion's share of affluent users, and making extraordinary hardware profits because people will gladly pay 20% more for something 50% better.

Android/iOS seems to be shaking out the same way. Only difference is Microsoft makes Windows to feed the Office money maker, Google makes Android to feed the ad money maker.

Exactly. And I think the market is better off with Google (rather than Microsoft) leading the mobile market. Microsoft leading both desktop and mobile would have been bad.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[app_Developer]

If the government said otherwise, that would be like the government telling Walmart that they must use their distribution centers and delivery truck fleet, which they spent years and billions of dollars to develop, build, buy, and optimize, to supply Target and Costco as well, for free, since Target and Costco didn't or couldn't develop as big or as efficient a distribution system of their own. If that happened, people would correctly say that the government was crazy, and way overstepping their boundaries.

Great example!

BB was way ahead of the game in 2008, when Android was released - they owned 40% of the smartphone market to Android's 0%. They had relationships with developers, they had distribution, they had carrier agreements all over the world, etc. BB had every advantage, while Google had none of those.

People forget this. I remember coming back from WWDC in 2008 extremely excited about the apps I wanted to build. Our CEO and CTO where I worked back then laughed at me. "Silly kid, why on earth are you going to build apps for 1M Apple users when there are so many tens of millions of BlackBerry users?! Let's us lecture you on market size..." Answer: I wanted to make iPhone apps because Apple was letting me build apps for their platform that you simply couldn't build with the total garbage 1990's style SDK that BB offered at the time.

So I quit a week later because I wasn't going to sit this revolution out just because senior management couldn't see it. But BlackBerry did sit it out. That's not Google's fault or Apple's fault or the government's fault or the Illuminati or my vision-challenged old CEO or anyone else other than BB.

[Originalloverman]

Troy said it all, but to be honest as well I didn't read all of your novel word for word.

Posted via CB10

[Originalloverman]

Great example!



People forget this. I remember coming back from WWDC in 2008 extremely excited about the apps I wanted to build. Our CEO and CTO where I worked back then laughed at me. "Silly kid, why on earth are you going to build apps for 1M Apple users when there are so many tens of millions of BlackBerry users?! Let's us lecture you on market size..." Answer: I wanted to make iPhone apps because Apple was letting me build apps for their platform that you simply couldn't build with the total garbage 1990's style SDK that BB offered at the time.

So I quit a week later because I wasn't going to sit this revolution out just because senior management couldn't see it. But BlackBerry did sit it out. That's not Google's fault or Apple's fault or the government's fault or the Illuminati or my vision-challenged old CEO or anyone else other than BB.

Hmm so u tell me you quit your job because ur paying job didn't want you to in there opinion waste valuable company time, as lots of os failed and got scrapped.. your story seems fishy, just saying.

Posted via CB10

[app_Developer]

Hmm so u tell me you quit your job because ur paying job didn't want you to in there opinion waste valuable company time, as lots of os failed and got scrapped.. your story seems fishy, just saying.

Posted via CB10

I quit my job because someone else (in my case multiple people) were ready to pay me to do something forward-thinking and interesting. Risky, of course, but it worked out.

Developers do this all the time. It's how our industry moves forward. Think of all the people who took that plunge in 2008 with iOS and by about 2010 with Android.