[conite]

And we're once again back to the very beginning.

Nothing that anyone has written here has made any difference.

575 posts for nothing.

[eshropshire]

And we're once again back to the very beginning.

Nothing that anyone has written here has made any difference.

575 posts for nothing.

I agree. I was going to respond to Don's post above, but there is no point. You need to work around data and files at the enterprise level to understand the complexity of the issues. So many companies are working in these areas. The problems outlined touches on some of the use cases. I will say I am completely baffled by the suggestion that any of the mentioned technologies bring anything to the table. They do not, BlackBerry Limited is not in this field.

[conite]

I agree. I was going to respond to Don's post above, but there is no point. You need to work around data and files at the enterprise level to understand the complexity of the issues. So many companies are working in these areas. The problems outlined touches on some of the use cases. I will say I am completely baffled by the suggestion that any of the mentioned technologies bring anything to the table. They do not, BlackBerry Limited is not in this field.

He believes that because some things that BlackBerry does are tertiary to a small subset of what he is discussing, by throwing in the word "synergy" he can connect it all together into a cohesive, working OS model through which he can usher in the new paradigm shift in mobile. Throw in a lot of unrelated jargon, and you now have an executable business plan.

[joeldf]

Finally, the question you don't answer and no-one arguing against my proposition does is whether QNX-7 architecturally makes these things more difficult to implement than Linux (the migration of the underlying SoC to automotive and then to IoT should mitigate the driver availability difficulties). Remember, part of what QNX touts is its POSIX compatibility. What I am suggesting isn't compatible with Linux either. From a business perspective, should a solution it created, that brings DRM to the Gig economy, be OSS?

The question has been answered... many times over. You're just ignoring it all.

CAN what you suggest be done?

Sure.

Is there enough market interest and is it enough of a differentiator to make it economically feasable for anyone to bother trying it?

Apparently not.

You keep thinking your proposition is somehow easy, and that's the sticking point. At the same time, you toss out hurdle after hurdle that this idea needs to cooperate with to make it work - "idea A just needs to work with app B and OS C and D no matter where information Z goes. No problem."

That IS the problem.

That takes your idea way outside where you started and way beyond "minimal investment".

I don't understand all of what's discussed here - I just draw pretty pictures of buildings for construction companies to build. But, I get the gist of what you propose. To me, you describe what is essentially an information Utopia where no one can get to what you have that shouldn't be able to get it. But you seem to suggest that somehow QNX, because it's "magic" or something, can do it all with the code they have. All they have to do is sweet-talk every app developer, every OS in existence, every hardware manufacturer of SOCs, computers, car parts, home systems, etc... into working with them... for free.

Is that about right?

[Troy Tiscareno]

All they have to do is sweet-talk every app developer, every OS in existence, every hardware manufacturer of SOCs, computers, car parts, home systems, etc... into working with them... for free.

Is that about right?

Not quite right. All of those many and varied people and companies should be PAYING BB for the privilege of working on this BB-created OS that implements this world-changing DRM system - so that BB can then invest all that money into bringing back BB10, which is the whole point of this discussion. Because if they're using QNX, then obviously BB10 will be fully developed somehow.

It's all so simple!

[DonHB]

No. Actually, the reverse. The idea is that BB10 would be the starting point...

[app_Developer]

No. Actually, the reverse. The idea is that BB10 would be the starting point...

Starting point, indeed.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackb...125310078.html

[joeldf]

No. Actually, the reverse. The idea is that BB10 would be the starting point...

Which is old, and doesn't work with any current systems, and has so little of actual QNX code (much less "current" code) that BB would - as has been stated over and over again, and you keep ignoring - have to recode from scratch.

Again, yes, it could be done. But the investment in time, personnel and negotiating licenses with the rest of the entire tech world, is way, way, way more extensive than you're thinking it is.

[conite]

No. Actually, the reverse. The idea is that BB10 would be the starting point...

So spend hundreds of millions, or billions, on resurrecting a dead OS that its developer has long forgotten, and THEN move on to change the world with it - even though it's no better constructed to do any of the things you want it to.

And all of this has to happen in a world that has already rejected said OS.

Around and around and around we go.

[DonHB]

Which is old, and doesn't work with any current systems, and has so little of actual QNX code (much less "current" code) that BB would - as has been stated over and over again, and you keep ignoring - have to recode from scratch.

Again, yes, it could be done. But the investment in time, personnel and negotiating licenses with the rest of the entire tech world, is way, way, way more extensive than you're thinking it is.

If you don't have the OS you could make do with an app. You could end this by describing how incompatible the QNX version in BB10 is with 64-bit QNX-7.

[conite]

If you don't have the OS you could make do with an app. You could end this by describing how incompatible the QNX version in BB10 is with 64-bit QNX-7.

Let's try this again.

The ENTIRE QNX filesystem that contains EVERYTHING you need to run the QNX 6.5 platform (from which BB10 was forked and built around) is 98MB.

BB10 is over 2GB !!

That's 5%.

And you can no more just swap in QNX 6.5 SP1, or QNX 6.6, as you can QNX 7.

[app_Developer]

Let's try this again.

The ENTIRE QNX filesystem that contains EVERYTHING you need to run the QNX 6.5 platform (from which BB10 was forked and built around) is 98MB.

BB10 is over 2GB !!

That's 5%.

Yeah, but microkernel adaptive programming AI kernel distributed work IPC compiler cloud 64-bit hot swappable Cylance protect Chen BBM elliptic curve.

It’s going to take over the world. You read it here first.

[DonHB]

The question has been answered... many times over. You're just ignoring it all.
.
.
.
Is that about right?

Not really. Maintaining a system should not require the same number of people as required to create a new platform. This is even more true if no major work would be invested in the proprietary application development tools. Aside from the numbers presented for the people working on creating BB10, most answers (app_Developer being an exception) were more opinion and not well substantiated. Not a perfect analogy, but how many people do you need to design and build a building verses maintaining it afterward (including the everyday personnel and for the sake of argument: replacing the elevators)? The point was not to start moving BB10 forward without enough buy-in, but to deliver a few needed upgrades to generate some revenue. Specifically, modernizing the browser, upgrading the Android Player and replacing QNX 6.5 with 7.x using existing code while keeping the customer support structure as is. Not easy (i.e. not cheap), but sufficient buy-in would be a vote for moving development forward in the area of privacy.

[conite]

Specifically, modernizing the browser, upgrading the Android Player and replacing QNX 6.5 with 7.x using existing code .

These are massive undertakings and can't possibly be funded by a few hundred customers.

Even if every one of the 200k remaining BB10 users paid $1000 each, it wouldn't be enough.

[Chuck Finley69]

Not really. Maintaining a system should not require the same number of people as required to create a new platform. This is even more true if no major work would be invested in the proprietary application development tools. Aside from the numbers presented for the people working on creating BB10, most answers (app_Developer being an exception) were more opinion and not well substantiated. Not a perfect analogy, but how many people do you need to design and build a building verses maintaining it afterward (including the everyday personnel and for the sake of argument: replacing the elevators)? The point was not to start moving BB10 forward without enough buy-in, but to deliver a few needed upgrades to generate some revenue. Specifically, modernizing the browser, upgrading the Android Player and replacing QNX 6.5 with 7.x using existing code while keeping the customer support structure as is. Not easy (i.e. not cheap), but sufficient buy-in would be a vote for moving development forward in the area of privacy.

There’s no longer maintaining BB10 since it was abandoned four + years ago in final maintenance version 10.3.3 mode. It hasn’t been actively developed since probably 6-12 months before that. For that matter, BB10 is just frozen in time mere 5-6 years ago.

[DonHB]

These are massive undertakings and can't possibly be funded by a few hundred customers.

Even if every one of the 200k remaining BB10 users paid $1000 each, it wouldn't be enough.

And what I am proposing most of BB10 is being left alone. Though bringing back in app purchasing to BBW should be considered. To be blunt it is a fund raising exercise for future R&D related to privacy. Hence the transition to QNX 7 being part of the proposition.

Where do you get the 200K figure? Would you consider funding such R&D without getting an autoloader? How much?

[conite]

And what I am proposing most of BB10 is being left alone. Though bringing back in app purchasing to BBW should be considered. To be blunt it is a fund raising exercise for future R&D related to privacy. Hence the transition to QNX 7 being part of the proposition.

Where do you get the 200K figure? Would you consider funding such R&D without getting an autoloader? How much?

I have shown you how that figure was derived many times already.

I would not pay the requisite 4 figures for any BB10 related project.

From another post:

According to Statista, there are 3.2 billion active smartphone users in the world as of 2019.

According to GlobalStats, BB10/BBOS devices accounted for 0.02% of devices.

That leaves a maximum of 640,000 users (maybe 320k of each).

Now if we reduce it down to those using BBOS/BB10 as primary devices, I would expect that number to drop by at least a third - so 215k of each.

[app_Developer]

And what I am proposing most of BB10 is being left alone. Though bringing back in app purchasing to BBW should be considered. To be blunt it is a fund raising exercise for future R&D related to privacy. Hence the transition to QNX 7 being part of the proposition.

Where do you get the 200K figure? Would you consider funding such R&D without getting an autoloader? How much?

If you want to raise money to build a project to help people maintain their privacy, then just focus on that.

Any time or money you spend on resurrecting an old OS, that adds absolutely nothing to your privacy project, is wasted.

[DonHB]

Suppose you are suggesting AOSP as the platform? You acknowledged that there is no curated store in existence. How much do you think it would cost to build just this as compared to BlackBerry which already has Cylance, a cybersecurity consultancy and BBW?

[conite]

How much do you think it would cost to build just this as compared to BlackBerry which already has Cylance, a cybersecurity consultancy and BBW?

None of those things would help in the least bit.

Anyone can scan apks with Cylance, or anything else they wish.

Companies already short list apps for deployment within an EMM solution.

The trick is to get developers interested in your storefront - but why would they when the current solutions can hit 99.99% of the market?

Your "solutions" always require massive buy-in from other parties - with absolutely nothing in it for them.

[app_Developer]

Suppose you are suggesting AOSP as the platform? You acknowledged that there is no curated store in existence. How much do you think it would cost to build just this as compared to BlackBerry which already has Cylance, a cybersecurity consultancy and BBW?

Cylance can scan for viruses and malware in apps. That's it. There is way more to curating a store than that. This is the same BB-centric nonsense as before. Just because Cylance does ML, doesn't mean they have some sort of universal AI. There is a giant tech world outside of BB, believe it or not.

As for building on BBW, sure that makes sense if you can get BB to participate in your idea. See what they say. I'm sure BBW can be modified to be a curated store for operating systems that most people use. You still have to build the curation operation, which BBW did not really do very well at all.

BTW, it's quite possible a curated store has no actual demand to speak of. But at least you'll lose less money trying to do that than trying to resurrect an entire OS.

[DonHB]

I would not pay the requisite 4 figures for any BB10 related project.

I am not asking how much would be required I am asking how much would you contribute to getting it done.

Just curious do you think QNX will support the RaspBerry Pi?

[conite]

I am not asking how much would be required I am asking how much would you contribute to getting it done.

Just curious do you think QNX will support the RaspBerry Pi?

$10.

On second thought, $0.

Solutions already exist that are far more powerful and supported.

[app_Developer]

$10.

I'll add $8. So now we have $18.

[Chuck Finley69]

I'll add $8. So now we have $18.

I’d offer to kick in the money, $10/year, for my BBMe for iOS app subscription because I’m canceling that since BB can’t even get that fixed.

So we’re, by my calculations, $28 or so...