[DonHB]

Now you have gone and given Don hope.... there is one person willing to pay $1000+ for a new BB10-style modern OS - phone would be extra....

Only 999,999 more to go....

I think he is ready to spend $1K on handset with software built usinig Linux. Wonder if he thinks hardware root of trust is worth it.

[Chuck Finley69]

I think he is ready to spend $1K on handset with software built usinig Linux. Wonder if he thinks hardware root of trust is worth it.

What is your actual end goal? What are you considering YOUR completion? I ask this because you don’t seem to want to move forward to next stage.

[DonHB]

I doubt your going to find "links" to this kind of information... some things just happen.

Who said they are migrating to handset SoC for automotive? Yes the CPU is based on a handset design, but in the end the EUC going to be much larger than any handset SoC. But QNX and Qualcomm have been working together on the Automotive CPUs for years.... there is no migration going on, just the natural update progression

Back in 2014 they were using the SD602A... might actually have been some synergy back then with the Passport's SD601. I suspect BlackBerry lost millions back then on the Passport... but it kept revenue flowing and gave them time to build a software company from almost nothing.

But in 2020 there is no point in loosing millions to generate a little revenue.

You regularly misread what I write. I wrote that handset SoC designs are chosen to use in (or migrate to) SoCs used for automotive. The choice used for the Defender is the SD 820 Ar. It was based on the 820 introduced in 2016 and happens to be about three years newer than the 801 used in the Passport.

Because of this migration, I had thought that QNX could in partnership with Qualcomm or Samsung choose a handset SoC which will eventually migrate to automotive and start working on implementing support on a handset. Apparently, trying to spread costs across platforms delivers no cost savings. Would love to read a paper that documents this finding.

[conite]

Even Android Oreo and above come with Android Verified Boot (AVB).

"Verified Boot strives to ensure all executed code comes from a trusted source (usually device OEMs), rather than from an attacker or corruption. It establishes a full chain of trust, starting from a hardware-protected root of trust to the bootloader, to the boot partition and other verified partitions including system, vendor, and optionally oem partitions. During device boot up, each stage verifies the integrity and authenticity of the next stage before handing over execution.

In addition to ensuring that devices are running a safe version of Android, Verified Boot checks for the correct version of Android with rollback protection. Rollback protection helps to prevent a possible exploit from becoming persistent by ensuring devices only update to newer versions of Android.

In addition to verifying the OS, Verified Boot also allows Android devices to communicate their state of integrity to the user."

[DonHB]

Knox improves on this by verifying the version of the loaders used are not rolled back. But few would argue that Android with GSF provides sufficient privacy. I had hoped for an acceptable solution that would pay returns while working toward a better solution.

Something along the lines of BlackBerry Workspaces, but more transparent by being a part of the OS. This product is very different than its namesake in Balance or Android

[DonHB]

What is your actual end goal? What are you considering YOUR completion? I ask this because you don’t seem to want to move forward to next stage.

What do you believe that to be?

[bb10adopter111]

Even Android Oreo and above come with Android Verified Boot (AVB).

"Verified Boot strives to ensure all executed code comes from a trusted source (usually device OEMs), rather than from an attacker or corruption. It establishes a full chain of trust, starting from a hardware-protected root of trust to the bootloader, to the boot partition and other verified partitions including system, vendor, and optionally oem partitions. During device boot up, each stage verifies the integrity and authenticity of the next stage before handing over execution.

In addition to ensuring that devices are running a safe version of Android, Verified Boot checks for the correct version of Android with rollback protection. Rollback protection helps to prevent a possible exploit from becoming persistent by ensuring devices only update to newer versions of Android.

In addition to verifying the OS, Verified Boot also allows Android devices to communicate their state of integrity to the user."

As Conite indicates above EVERY trustable device requires a hardware root of trust. BBOS had it. BB10 had it. IOS has it. Android has it available if OEMs choose to implement it. And a Linux device trustable on enterprise networks would also require it.

That isn't necessarily what all users want, however. An absolute hardware root of trust like BlackBerry provides renders a phone unrootable. A compromise like Samsung's blows a digital "fuse" when the phone is rooted that can't be reset once blown.

The Librem 5 Linux phone does NOT provide a hardware root of trust because it's intended to appeal to people who want to control every aspect of their phones. But it offers many compensatory security and privacy advantages (though it's not really ready for the masses, and may never be).

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[conite]

Knox improves on this by verifying the version of the loaders used are not rolled back.

Vanilla Android (Oreo and above) has rollback protection as well, as detailed in my prior post.

But few would argue that Android with GSF provides sufficient privacy. I had hoped for an acceptable solution that would pay returns while working toward a better solution.

Then just sell an Android device with AOSP. With respect to privacy, you gain nothing by spending millions updating BB10.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

You regularly misread what I write. I wrote that handset SoC designs are chosen to use in (or migrate to) SoCs used for automotive. The choice used for the Defender is the SD 820 Ar. It was based on the 820 introduced in 2016 and happens to be about three years newer than the 801 used in the Passport.

Because of this migration, I had thought that QNX could in partnership with Qualcomm or Samsung choose a handset SoC which will eventually migrate to automotive and start working on implementing support on a handset. Apparently, trying to spread costs across platforms delivers no cost savings. Would love to read a paper that documents this finding.

A handset SoC has many components on it. The 820a is just a modular CPU designed to fit into a socket like any Intel or AMD chip.

QNX and Qualcomm's partnership goes way back to the SD602a in 2014, which should have been related to the Passports SD601. I pointing out this "synergy" could have happened long ago already.... and it ran out of gas.

I'm pointing out that maybe they knew of a way to get a portion of the needed drivers for BB10.

Bottom line is we don't always have all the answers of why a company does something... but it's pretty clear that BB10 was the work of 1000s and it cost were more than the sales supported.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Vanilla Android (Oreo and above) has rollback protection as well, as detailed in my prior post.



Then just sell an Android device with AOSP. With respect to privacy, you gain nothing by spending millions updating BB10.

That's really the thing... if there are millions that want what Don wants... they should be supporting some of the existing endeavors in this area, in stead of wasting time on BB10.

Project eelo
Librem 5
CopperheadOS
LineageOS
/e/

Librem 5 is now up for pre-order in the USA....

Display : 5.7″ IPS TFT screen @ 720×1440
Processor: i.MX8M (Quad Core) max. 1.5GHz
Memory: 3GB
Storage : 32 GB eMMC internal storage
Wireless : 802.11abgn 2.4 Ghz / 5Ghz + Bluetooth 4
Baseband : Gemalto PLS8
GPS : Teseo LIV3F GNSS
Smartcard: Reader with 2FF card slot (SIM card size)
Sound : 1 earpiece speaker, 3.5mm headphone jack
External Storage: microSD storage expansion
Accelerometer: 9-axis IMU (gyro, accel, magnetometer)
Front Camera: 8 MPixel
Back Camera: 13 MPixel w/ LED flash
Vibration motor: included
USB Type C: USB 3.0 data, Charging (Dual-Role Port), Video out
Battery: User replaceable – 3,500 mAh

I bet if 25K BlackBerry folks put their money forward... they'd make a PKB version of the Librem 5. Secure Supply Chain, Hardware kill switches - Privacy, Security and Freedom.

With an adder for a PKB module... maybe $150 extra, that would make it a low, low price of $2,149.00 for the made in the US Variant.

[Chuck Finley69]

What do you believe that to be?

Because not a single answer to your questions matter. BlackBerry Limited has all the answers to all your questions but you refuse to discuss with them as if their answer isn’t anything you’re really wanting to hear.

Discussing with CrackBerry keeps your illusions possible even when not probable. Discussing with BlackBerry only brings reality crashing down.

[bb10adopter111]

That's really the thing... if there are millions that want what Don wants... they should be supporting some of the existing endeavors in this area, in stead of wasting time on BB10.

Project eelo
Librem 5
CopperheadOS
LineageOS
/e/

Librem 5 is now up for pre-order in the USA....

Display : 5.7″ IPS TFT screen @ 720×1440
Processor: i.MX8M (Quad Core) max. 1.5GHz
Memory: 3GB
Storage : 32 GB eMMC internal storage
Wireless : 802.11abgn 2.4 Ghz / 5Ghz + Bluetooth 4
Baseband : Gemalto PLS8
GPS : Teseo LIV3F GNSS
Smartcard: Reader with 2FF card slot (SIM card size)
Sound : 1 earpiece speaker, 3.5mm headphone jack
External Storage: microSD storage expansion
Accelerometer: 9-axis IMU (gyro, accel, magnetometer)
Front Camera: 8 MPixel
Back Camera: 13 MPixel w/ LED flash
Vibration motor: included
USB Type C: USB 3.0 data, Charging (Dual-Role Port), Video out
Battery: User replaceable – 3,500 mAh

I bet if 25K BlackBerry folks put their money forward... they'd make a PKB version of the Librem 5. Secure Supply Chain, Hardware kill switches - Privacy, Security and Freedom.

With an adder for a PKB module... maybe $150 extra, that would make it a low, low price of $2,149.00 for the made in the US Variant.

CopperheadOS on a Pixel is the best current method for avoiding Google on a very private and secure phone.

The Librem 5 is a very worthy project, but it's going to be a long haul and currently is only for the dedicated early adopter who can afford a phone that has a long ways to go to be a daily driver.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[Chuck Finley69]

CopperheadOS on a Pixel is the best current method for avoiding Google on a very private and secure phone.

The Librem 5 is a very worthy project, but it's going to be a long haul and currently is only for the dedicated early adopter who can afford a phone that has a long ways to go to be a daily driver.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

Not that I care personally. However, didn’t CopperheadOS stall when it’s founder left and created new GrapheneOS afterwards. Any reason you like Copperhead over Graphene?

Anybody else, please also explain viewpoints on either of these as well. Seriously, not interested with fantasies but actual real existing solutions are pretty awesome

[bb10adopter111]

Not that I care personally. However, didn’t CopperheadOS stall when it’s founder left and created new GrapheneOS afterwards. Any reason you like Copperhead over Graphene?

Anybody else, please also explain viewpoints on either of these as well. Seriously, not interested with fantasies but actual real existing solutions are pretty awesome

No. I saw that the two founders of Copperhead had a falling out, and there was a lawsuit, etc. I don't have a preference and haven't used either on my own phone. In suspect they are largely equivalent.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Not that I care personally. However, didn’t CopperheadOS stall when it’s founder left and created new GrapheneOS afterwards. Any reason you like Copperhead over Graphene?

Anybody else, please also explain viewpoints on either of these as well. Seriously, not interested with fantasies but actual real existing solutions are pretty awesome

There are issue with those trying to use AOSP for Android Compatibility...



I really think basic Linux is the better route for some of these groups... but it's more work than a one or two man show with a group of volunteers (or maintainers) can really manage. Got to be a revenue stream to support the amount of work needed. Be that some rich benefactor, or an overall business endeavor. But in the end.... where do you get the apps?

And until I see a major government signing up... just because the intent was to build something more private than Android, doesn't mean they really succeeded.

[bb10adopter111]

There are issue with those trying to use AOSP for Android Compatibility...



I really think basic Linux is the better route for some of these groups... but it's more work than a one or two man show with a group of volunteers (or maintainers) can really manage. Got to be a revenue stream to support the amount of work needed. Be that some rich benefactor, or an overall business endeavor. But in the end.... where do you get the apps?

And until I see a major government signing up... just because the intent was to build something more private than Android, doesn't mean they really succeeded.

You're spot on in terms of the need for a business model. Copperhead's mistake was that their model was similar to Blackphone in that they imagined selling their reconfigured phones to governments and individuals. But that's a dead end, IMO.

One reason I like Purism is that I've heard interviews with their executives, and they are business people, not just hobbyists. They have identified a market segment (privacy enthusiasts) and are systematically developing products that check all the critical boxes that privacy enthusiasts care about.

As far as app availability goes, one great thing about targeting privacy enthusiasts is that they are much less concerned with the Google Play Store and mainstream apps.

The other thing I like about Purism is that they are not trying to do what Essential did. They focus on cash flow instead of scale and are not raising money for the Librem phone until they have product-market fit.

It's still a high risk endeavor, much riskier than BlackBerry Mobile. But it's also not doomed, like Essential was, by relying on an impossible business model.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[DonHB]

Vanilla Android (Oreo and above) has rollback protection as well, as detailed in my prior post.

It has roll back protection for the OS. Knox prevents various boot loaders from being rolled back which could compromise anything loaded after. The initial release I am proposing would not be much difference from what you are suggesting. However, if you look at the products that BlackBerry has (and we don't know what is coming) suggests that the company is in a good position to change how information is shared.

I had mentioned BlackBerry Workspaces. It it is essentially DRM. Extended and incorporated into the OS would be more transparent and capable than its namesake in Android Work or Balance in BB10. It also has applications to IoT. Enhanced DRM would be applicable to any IP, both personal (e.g. photographs) and that of business (e.g. software).

The goal is to allow controlled sharing of information and that this would positively impact privacy. Funding would in a sense be like crowd funding because people would be voting with their money. The difference is that an actual product would be delivered upon payment. I also thought that BlackBerry could choose in partnership with its existing partners, Samsung or Qualcomm, a handset based upon a SoC that would later be migrated into an automotive version. This would allow sharing of costs among platforms based on QNX 7. Looking at the features in the Defender (e.g. eSIM) suggests that commonality of code with cellular, automotive and IoT should grow. However, contributors to this thread have claimed that this sharing of costs (i.e. reuse of code) among platforms would be negligible and would not merit reinvestment in an EoL'd product. Would like to better understand the economics of software development in this regard.

[conite]

It has roll back protection for the OS. Knox prevents various boot loaders from being rolled back which could compromise anything loaded after. The initial release I am proposing would not be much difference from what you are suggesting. However, if you look at the products that BlackBerry has (and we don't know what is coming) suggests that the company is in a good position to change how information is shared.

I had mentioned BlackBerry Workspaces. It it is essentially DRM. Extended and incorporated into the OS would be more transparent and capable than its namesake in Android Work or Balance in BB10. It also has applications to IoT. Enhanced DRM would be applicable to any IP, both personal (e.g. photographs) and that of business (e.g. software).

The goal is to allow controlled sharing of information and that this would positively impact privacy. Funding would in a sense be like crowd funding because people would be voting with their money. The difference is that an actual product would be delivered upon payment. I also thought that BlackBerry could choose in partnership with its existing partners, Samsung or Qualcomm, a handset based upon a SoC that would later be migrated into an automotive version. This would allow sharing of costs among platforms based on QNX 7. Looking at the features in the Defender (e.g. eSIM) suggests that commonality of code with cellular, automotive and IoT should grow. However, contributors to this thread have claimed that this sharing of costs (i.e. reuse of code) among platforms would be negligible and would not merit reinvestment in an EoL'd product. Would like to better understand the economics of software development in this regard.

So we're back to the beginning like no discussion has been had at all.

[DonHB]

A handset SoC has many components on it. The 820a is just a modular CPU designed to fit into a socket like any Intel or AMD chip.

QNX and Qualcomm's partnership goes way back to the SD602a in 2014, which should have been related to the Passports SD601. I pointing out this "synergy" could have happened long ago already.... and it ran out of gas.

I'm pointing out that maybe they knew of a way to get a portion of the needed drivers for BB10.

Bottom line is we don't always have all the answers of why a company does something... but it's pretty clear that BB10 was the work of 1000s and it cost were more than the sales supported.

I started this thread remarking on the cellular features of the Defender. These feature are also going into another Land Rover. I think these features parallel the requirements for a handset. But claims made here suggest that this functionality is too tied to the underlying hardware to be to be reused in a handset. So, eSIM support in the defender is in no way like eSIM support in a handset. The dialer code also can't be reused at any level has also been implied as with the voice codecs or the OTA updates that was a big requirement for Land Rovrer. Hard to believe, but apparently that is the way it is.

Also, it seems that no one here sees the applicability of other products that BlackBerry owns.

[Chuck Finley69]

It has roll back protection for the OS. Knox prevents various boot loaders from being rolled back which could compromise anything loaded after. The initial release I am proposing would not be much difference from what you are suggesting. However, if you look at the products that BlackBerry has (and we don't know what is coming) suggests that the company is in a good position to change how information is shared.

I had mentioned BlackBerry Workspaces. It it is essentially DRM. Extended and incorporated into the OS would be more transparent and capable than its namesake in Android Work or Balance in BB10. It also has applications to IoT. Enhanced DRM would be applicable to any IP, both personal (e.g. photographs) and that of business (e.g. software).

The goal is to allow controlled sharing of information and that this would positively impact privacy. Funding would in a sense be like crowd funding because people would be voting with their money. The difference is that an actual product would be delivered upon payment. I also thought that BlackBerry could choose in partnership with its existing partners, Samsung or Qualcomm, a handset based upon a SoC that would later be migrated into an automotive version. This would allow sharing of costs among platforms based on QNX 7. Looking at the features in the Defender (e.g. eSIM) suggests that commonality of code with cellular, automotive and IoT should grow. However, contributors to this thread have claimed that this sharing of costs (i.e. reuse of code) among platforms would be negligible and would not merit reinvestment in an EoL'd product. Would like to better understand the economics of software development in this regard.

So what's BlackBerry Limited response?

[DonHB]

So what's BlackBerry Limited response?

I am still waiting. Is that a good sign? Blackberry isn't in the habbit of preannouncing product.

[Chuck Finley69]

I am still waiting. Is that a good sign? Blackberry isn't in the habbit of preannouncing product.

You have your answer with the "no response" but until they do you're wasting time and effort. BlackBerry Limited has all the answers to your present and future questions. BlackBerry Limited has actually made business decisions that answer some of your questions indirectly already. If they wanted to implement any of your ideas, they could have been done long ago when it would be less illogical than now.

BlackBerry pre-announced BB10 for like 2-3 years.

[Chuck Finley69]

I am still waiting. Is that a good sign? Blackberry isn't in the habbit of preannouncing product.

You have your answer with the "no response" but until they do you're wasting time and effort. BlackBerry Limited has all the answers to your present and future questions. BlackBerry Limited has actually made business decisions that answer some of your questions indirectly already. If they wanted to implement any of your ideas, they could have been done long ago when it would be less illogical than now.

BlackBerry pre-announced BB10 for like 2-3 years.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

You're spot on in terms of the need for a business model. Copperhead's mistake was that their model was similar to Blackphone in that they imagined selling their reconfigured phones to governments and individuals. But that's a dead end, IMO.

One reason I like Purism is that I've heard interviews with their executives, and they are business people, not just hobbyists. They have identified a market segment (privacy enthusiasts) and are systematically developing products that check all the critical boxes that privacy enthusiasts care about.

As far as app availability goes, one great thing about targeting privacy enthusiasts is that they are much less concerned with the Google Play Store and mainstream apps.

The other thing I like about Purism is that they are not trying to do what Essential did. They focus on cash flow instead of scale and are not raising money for the Librem phone until they have product-market fit.

It's still a high risk endeavor, much riskier than BlackBerry Mobile. But it's also not doomed, like Essential was, by relying on an impossible business model.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

Problem is.... it's more a desktop Linux than a mobile OS . Heck they even sell the phone optionally paired with a Monitor, keyboard and mouse.

I do like the idea of the Matrix... but again that's only a solution if others have the phone as well. Kinda a BBM solution without a centralized server... that also allows developers to Plug In and utilize the secure communications for their apps.

But the without "the" apps... I'm not sure that right now a seven year old BB10 phone isn't just as good.

[conite]

But the without "the" apps... I'm not sure that right now a seven year old BB10 phone isn't just as good.

That's the issue. Since we all operate outside of the Apple walled garden, access to Android apps is the key to making any platform successful - certainly in the way that Don is intending to use it.

Privacy is limited to the apps one chooses to use - which means it doesn't matter what the underlying kernel is.

Using BB10 (with an ART) instead of AOSP brings nothing to the table with respect to said privacy.