[DonHB]

If you look at the cellular features in this SuV you'll find TWO Qualcomm SnapDragon SoCs running QNX 7. Each SoC is paired with a X12E modem supporting dual eSIMs. Not clear if that means four eSIMs total. The SoCs are automotive (Am) versions of the 820.

Makes you wonder, with all this tech running on QNX's OS and BlackBerry's experience with Android's internals, if BlackBerry is reconsidering its license for Google's Android due to the OS's inability to provide sufficient privacy to both business and individuals. Further, if QNX's OS returns to use in handsets it could drive what SoCs (or features) are targeted to automotive.

Maybe there is more to the BlackBerry Mobile story.

[conite]

Makes you wonder, with all this tech running on QNX's OS and BlackBerry's experience with Android's internals, if BlackBerry is reconsidering its license for Google's Android due to the OS's inability to provide sufficient privacy to both business and individuals.

Further, if QNX's OS returns to use in handsets it could drive what SoCs (or features) are targeted to automotive.

1) BlackBerry is not considering anything for themselves. They simply licenced BlackBerry Android to any takers. BB10 was offered too, but no one was interested.

2) BlackBerry has zero interest in returning to the handset business.

3) QNX makes up only a very tiny part of a smartphone OS/UX.

[co4nd]

If you look at the cellular features in this SuV you'll find TWO Qualcomm SnapDragon SoCs running QNX 7. Each SoC is paired with a X12E modem supporting dual eSIMs. Not clear if that means four eSIMs total. The SoCs are automotive (Am) versions of the 820.

Makes you wonder, with all this tech running on QNX's OS and BlackBerry's experience with Android's internals, if BlackBerry is reconsidering its license for Google's Android due to the OS's inability to provide sufficient privacy to both business and individuals. Further, if QNX's OS returns to use in handsets it could drive what SoCs (or features) are targeted to automotive.

Maybe there is more to the BlackBerry Mobile story.

Hopefully QNX will be more reliable than the rest of the vehicle.

[DonHB]

2) BlackBerry has zero interest in returning to the handset business.

3) QNX makes up only a very tiny part of a smartphone OS/UX.

Since you brought it up:

2) If referring to "handsets" you mean hardware I hope not. BlackBerry Ltd. is a software company now.

3) You don't acknowledge all the QNX software in the vehicle that integrates communications with the passenger side interactive software that runs on top of QNX 7. Nor do you acknowledge the resource managers (AKA drivers) that work with the two Qualcomm SnapDragon SoCs and dual modems. Also, there is GPS and other sensors in the vehicle. Communications in the vehicle isn't just for over the air software updates to vehicle modules. How much of foundational software QNX developed for the Defender can be reused (repurpoesd?) to support a Samsung Knox device? Of course in this scenario there is the concomitant lack of PKB and BlackBerry hardware branding. But does hardware branding fit with BlackBerry's software strategy?

I think you missed the point.

[app_Developer]

You should write this new idea into a proposal and send it to Samsung.

[DonHB]

You should write this new idea into a proposal and send it to Samsung.

I think you meant BlackBerry.

What do you know about forward compatibility of software on SnapDragon SoC's and modems?

[app_Developer]

I think you meant BlackBerry.

Both, really, if you want this to maintain Knox's integrity check. But Chen won't stop laughing if he read this. So maybe Samsung would be a better start.

[DonHB]

Both, really, if you want this to maintain Knox's integrity check. But Chen won't stop laughing if he read this. So maybe Samsung would be a better start.

It is interesting that you don't want to acknowledge the amount of investment that has been made to support Qualcomm hardware on QNX 7.

[app_Developer]

It is interesting that you don't want to acknowledge the amount of investment that has been made to support Qualcomm hardware on QNX 7.

It's interesting that some folks are having a really hard time accepting that BB and their partners are doing what they are paid to do: make investments in viable, profitable, and growing businesses. Products where there is a clear and viable path to market, and path to profits.

Like, for example, the car industry for BB. We all expect that BB will continue to invest in support for the hardware that QNX runs on in that market. How else will they maintain and grow the market which they dominate?

Since this is the armchair CEO forum, I'll point out this is a basic mgmt skill. Invest your companies time/money where it will yield the best overall expected profit.

[howarmat]

It is interesting that you don't want to acknowledge the amount of investment that has been made to support Qualcomm hardware on QNX 7.

Because none of this matters. Its not that your ideas are possible. Its all easily to do for engineers and coders with money. That isnt the stopping point. The reason why none of this matters is because Blackberry doesnt care, this is not the business they are in. Samsung already is doing just fine and there is no logical reason for them to consider this for even a second. Bottom line is no one is interested as it doesnt gain anything worthwhile

[Troy Tiscareno]

People were talking about BB10's dominance being assured because QNX was used in nuclear power plants and in submarines and so forth - but we know how that worked out. No one is doubting QNX or even BB10's technical achievements - we're just saying that those are irrelevant when there is absolutely zero business case for any further investment into QNX/BB10 for smartphones. The fact that there is still investment in distantly-related hardware (which DOES have a business case to exist) doesn't change that.

[DonHB]

Communications technologies developed for cars are not as distantly related as you think. BlackBerry developed a means to update components of the car over the air. NO Knox device inventory would be locked in as BlackBerry's OS would not be preloaded.

Why did Sony partner with Sailfish?

[app_Developer]

Communications technologies developed for cars are not as distantly related as you think. BlackBerry developed a means to update components of the car over the air. NO Knox device inventory would be locked in as BlackBerry's OS would not be preloaded.

Why did Sony partner with Sailfish?

I would agree the hardware isn't that different, but the industries are extremely different.

BB has already sold QNX to the majority of the car business. Our business and our focus is making cars/trucks, so given that we are standardized on QNX, it's unlikely we will make the investment to switch. (although having said that, we do have one or two platforms on AGL where I work)

So QNX has massive incumbent advantage, and it's a very inexpensive bit of software (a couple of dollars per unit), [QNX, is basically the Android of cars!] so as long as QNX stays current with our needs they will do fine and own the majority of our market. Individual car buyers don't get to choose the OS of their car, so they don't have to worry about consumer trends here. And 3rd party app integration is handled by Apple and Google integration anyway, so QNX has a safe and stable position in this business.

Sony might be an interesting partner for your idea. Sony has an open bootloader program where they encourage/allow hobbyists to buy their phones and then install whatever they like. Sailfish is part of that program. BB could be part of that also, except for 3 problems:

1.) Sailfish is well funded by entities who want to maintain a mobile OS that is independent of the US. BB has no such sponsors.

2.) Sailfish doesn't offer root of trust as a feature, meaning it doesn't need hardware root of trust. BB needs integration with the device manufacturer because of hardware root of trust. (See the integration they had to do with TCL manufacturing process)

3.) Sailfish and Sony are in the phone business still. BB is not.

[DonHB]

Regarding item 2: an autoloader would require a transfer of keys, but not require any changes to manufacturing. As I wrote, no inventory would be dedicated to this because the buyer would be responsible for having the OS loaded.

Regarding item 3: Are you saying BB has not been the phone business since they stopped producing devices?

[app_Developer]

Regarding item 2: an autoloader would require a transfer of keys, but not require any changes to manufacturing. As I wrote, no inventory would be dedicated to this because the buyer would be responsible for having the OS loaded.

So, go back to Samsung and explain to their security team how you will be sending BB the signing keys needed to produce a cryptographically verifiable autoloader.

Note that BB themselves were not willing to share this with TCL, which is why BB explained that they were injecting the root keys into the Key devices through a process integration.

Regarding item 3: Are you saying BB has not been the phone business since they stopped producing devices?

BB are not in the business of making phones or operating system for phones. They are (barely) still in the business of making apps for phones, but I doubt that will last very long.

BB's current business lines are clearly articulated in their reports to shareholders and the investor calls.

[Chuck Finley69]

Regarding item 2: an autoloader would require a transfer of keys, but not require any changes to manufacturing. As I wrote, no inventory would be dedicated to this because the buyer would be responsible for having the OS loaded.

Regarding item 3: Are you saying BB has not been the phone business since they stopped producing devices?

Why do you ask these questions to CB Forum members? There’s zero impact here even for those people that support your hypothetical situations.

What does BlackBerry say to your questions when you ask them?

[DonHB]

So, go back to Samsung and explain to their security team how you will be sending BB the signing keys needed to produce a cryptographically verifiable autoloader.

Note that BB themselves were not willing to share this with TCL, which is why BB explained that they were injecting the root keys into the Key devices through a process integration.

Samsung Secure Boot Key (SSBK) has a private and public part. Which means that BlackBerry would have to rely on Samsung's boot loaders.

[DonHB]

Why do you ask these questions to CB Forum members? There’s zero impact here even for those people that support your hypothetical situations.

What does BlackBerry say to your questions when you ask them?

There may be an issues that I am unaware.

[app_Developer]

Samsung Secure Boot Key (SSBK) has a private and public part. Which means that BlackBerry would have to rely on Samsung's boot loaders.

yes, that is how pki works. It is not possible for anyone outside of Samsung to make an OS for their phones that maintains Knox integrity (and passes the boot loader verification), unless Samsung decides to share the private key(s) with a partner OR Samsung agrees to let a partner inject keys into their process (as TCL did). Those are your options.

Or find a partner like Sony who doesn't do any of this for their open phones. Or just make an OS for normal (non-Knox) Samsungs and drop the hardware root of trust.

There is no magic answer here. It's all work that needs to be done for very little reward.

There may be an issues that I am unaware.

There are multiple issues of which you are seemingly not aware! The question I have is whether you want to be aware of them? It doesn't seem as though you learn much from these threads, so I think you really should just talk to BB and see if they share your belief that any of this is a good investment for them.

[Chuck Finley69]

There may be an issues that I am unaware.

If anyone knows of any issues with your hypothesis, BlackBerry would definitely be the one. BlackBerry would know things we couldn’t know. The reverse isn’t the same and most likely couldn’t be disclosed since those here aren’t BlackBerry employed.

That leads us to second problem, of employees. There are none as the infrastructure was ripped apart, stomped on and then sold off for scrap. It would take a significant amount of physical and economic resources to build the necessary infrastructure. Which leads us to problem #3 for this plan.

That, BlackBerry has neither the physical or economic resources to implement such a plan. All those resources went into the acquisition of Cylance and now are supporting Cylance in place of the old mobile division.

[conite]

There may be an issues that I am unaware.

There are multiple issues of which you are seemingly not aware! The question I have is whether you want to be aware of them? It doesn't seem as though you learn much from these threads.

This is what I've been repeating for 3 years every time we have this same discussion.

Don asks for thoughts, people spend a lot of time providing knowledgeable answers, and then everything resets to zero on the next iteration.

[SteinwayTransitCorp]

Hey Now....

[DonHB]

yes, that is how pki works. It is not possible for anyone outside of Samsung to make an OS for their phones that maintains Knox integrity (and passes the boot loader verification), unless Samsung decides to share the private key(s) with a partner OR Samsung agrees to let a partner inject keys into their process (as TCL did). Those are your options.

There are a number of integrity checks during boot. BlackBerry with TCL took it upon themselves to provide to TCL all this functionality including at manufacturing.

Samsung has done all this themselves. It is the OS itself that needs to be replaced in the firmware image. Also, Samsung has upgraded the secure boot process several times making it reasonable to rely on Samsungs methodology for device integrity.

The primary reason for this exercise is that while the privacy of Android and iOS have become acceptable to business this "feature" has not been extended to individuals. Further, both Balance and Workspaces assume a single employer and do not facilitate sharing of IP with business partners. The control of business IP and personal "IP" should be handled in the same way and should be extended to IoT.

Having full control of a platform would make delivering solutions to the above easier...

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

There are a number of integrity checks during boot. BlackBerry with TCL took it upon themselves to provide to TCL all this functionality including at manufacturing.

Samsung has done all this themselves. It is the OS itself that needs to be replaced in the firmware image. Also, Samsung has upgraded the secure boot process several times making it reasonable to rely on Samsungs methodology for device integrity.

The primary reason for this exercise is that while the privacy of Android and iOS have become acceptable to business this "feature" has not been extended to individuals. Further, both Balance and Workspaces assume a single employer and do not facilitate sharing of IP with business partners. The control of business IP and personal "IP" should be handled in the same way.

Having full control of a platform would make delivering a solution to the above easier...

Samsung's (Tizen) or Huawei (HarmonyOS) are in a much better positions to try and get one platform "together" to break the Android and iOS domination. But they know they don't have the power to do it....

BlackBerry and QNX is just not even in their league....

[DonHB]

But point to a company which is best positioned to protect privacy.

This is not about breaking the duopoly.

It is serving people who want their privacy protected on devices that store much of their lives. This, currently, is a small market, but I believe privacy will grow in peoples' concerns.

It is also about providing a more universal means for sharing and protecting IP. Perhaps, monetizing the sharing of that IP whether personal (while maintaining individuals' control) or corporate.

The first can mostly be provided by upgrading the Android Player and modernizing the included Browser in BB10. The latter could be made a foundational element of a future QNX OS for use in IoT and most everything electronic is Internet connected.