[DonHB]

They cut 9000 people in 2012-2013 and that was before most all of the ventures they are involved in today started. Most was related to BBOS winddown and bb10 failure

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-18631702

https://www.therecord.com/news-story...early-1b-loss/

They have aprox 4000 now

Curious if the staffing was as efficient as possible: Mythical Man Month and all.

[DonHB]

My perspective is that from a compatibility standpoint, not only is ART 4.3 frozen in time for many solutions, BB10, even without it, has become frozen in time.

I would like the Android player to be replaced and the Browser updated. Don't know if there is any way to shoehorn Pie into the Dalvik VM and don't know how hard it would be to replace it with ART.

[conite]

I would like the Android player to be replaced and the Browser updated. Don't know if there is any way to shoehorn Pie into the Dalvik VM and don't know how hard it would be to replace it with ART.

It's hard and it's expensive. The end.

[DonHB]

Whatever remained of the window from your perspective closed when BlackBerry purchased Cylance essentially moving from one software product to another.

Why do you think BlackBerry has become Cylance? I think it is about leveraging Cylance tech in other products even while it is relying on its income during development.

[DonHB]

It's hard and it's expensive. The end.

I think QNX has Android running on QNX, but what about using the included 32-bit apps (i.e. Calendar) on 64-bit QNX 7? That is just a "pocket bit" of code?

[Chuck Finley69]

Why do you think BlackBerry has become Cylance? I think it is about leveraging Cylance tech in other products even while it is relying on its income during development.

BlackBerry is being forced to pour all it’s cash flow into Cylance and QNX Auto because it’s facing increased competition in the Cylance space.

[conite]

I think QNX has Android running on QNX, but what about using the included 32-bit apps (i.e. Calendar) on 64-bit QNX 7? That is just a "pocket bit" of code?

BlackBerry is being forced to pour all it’s cash flow into Cylance and QNX Auto because it’s facing increased competition in the Cylance space.

Yes. This would be a stupid distraction - let alone another monumental loss.

[DonHB]

Yes. This would be a stupid distraction - let alone another monumental loss.

You really think the included apps and all the code for the the Hub and Flow are "a tiny bit of useful code...in small isolated pockets"?

[conite]

You really think the included apps and all the code for the the Hub and Flow are "a tiny bit of useful code...in small isolated pockets"?

Yes.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

You really think the included apps and all the code for the the Hub and Flow are "a tiny bit of useful code...in small isolated pockets"?

Of course "isolated pockets" could be interpretted as "secure and hidden" - isolated: no entity slurping the data, pocket: protects items from exposure. Not necessarily a "bad condition".

[DonHB]

Yes.

So, what would complete the needed code?

[conite]

So, what would complete the needed code?

The other 99%.

[app_Developer]

I think QNX has Android running on QNX, but what about using the included 32-bit apps (i.e. Calendar) on 64-bit QNX 7? That is just a "pocket bit" of code?

Did you ever figure out if QNX supports mixed mode use? (armv7 and 8 at same time)

And where were you planning to pick up this modern web browser?

We can argue all day long about whether the LoE is 2000 engineers or 500 or 5. But anything more than 5 and you’re close to outnumbering the people who will actually pay a subscription to install a different OS on their Knox.

For the record, to me this is an effort in the hundreds of engineers if you find truly qualified engineers who want to waste their time on this.

I would work on the opposite problem: making sailfish or some other OS more efficient for certain workflows.

[early2bed]

So, what would complete the needed code?

In 2015, Apple apparently had 800 employees working on the camera alone. Lord knows how many they have now as they certainly haven’t backed off camera development since then.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/20/...eam-800-people

Of course, all modern smartphones don’t have to match what the iPhone cameras did in 2015 but you can’t put a garbage camera in a premium phone. The same goes for every other smartphone funcdtion that QNX doesn’t currently do to modern specs. There’s a good chance that your target customer’s kids will be taking photos with an iPhone so regular comparisons will be unavoidable.

[app_Developer]

Huawei has thousands of engineers working on Harmony and that doesn’t include apps. A modern OS is a big undertaking.

[Chuck Finley69]

Of course "isolated pockets" could be interpretted as "secure and hidden" - isolated: no entity slurping the data, pocket: protects items from exposure. Not necessarily a "bad condition".

So, what would complete the needed code?

Regardless, it doesn’t matter. Security has morphed from where BlackBerry was using BBOS architecture to BB10 to Android/iOS BlackBerry UEM solutions. The Cylance acquisition redefined the space for BlackBerry and shifted it to where things were evolving. It needs to keep the pedal to floor hoping to stay ahead of Apple, Google, Microsoft and the other Enterprise players. A 1 billion acquisition was all there real expendable capital. The major players have 10x the resources to spend on buildout and to make acquisitions. BlackBerry has no incentive to look backwards @ 100+ MPH to look for dropped change on the highway on the way to sales appointments

[Troy Tiscareno]

So, what would complete the needed code?

To use yet another analogy, it would be like assuming that Chrysler could make the Dodge Demon without billions of dollars of development over 50 years just because they made muscle cars in the 1960s. While those 60s cars were much-loved by many at the time and even since, the reality is that they are terrible cars by modern standards in virtually every way, and a modern Demon would absolutely annihilate any of those 60s cars, whether on a drag strip, oval, or road course - and they make decent daily drivers too.

Tech moves at a MUCH faster pace than cars, and the 8 years without substantial development has left BB10 far, FAR behind. SoCs are different, memory architecture is different, modems are different, sensors are different, etc., and unlike anything built on Linux, any components made for QNX will have to have special, custom drivers written for them, and that would have to be done at BB's expense. Then BB would need to spend a year or more (assuming a full-sized development team of 3000-5000 developers) putting all of that together and getting it all optimized, because who would pay for this OS if it killed the battery in your phone in 3 or 4 hours, or crashed all the time? It's also likely that BB's contract with Google is still in force, which would mean BB would have to remove the Android runtime entirely - forget about updating it.

But what about apps? BB World is dead (or, perhaps, a zombie - a walking dead), and the dev tools are ancient and way out of date, so you'd need another sizable team to work on those to get them in a useable state - say, 1500 developers & managers. But even if you managed to get that done, how do you interest developers? There's virtually no way that even a great dev kit is going to allow BB10 apps to do anything that can't be done on iOS or Android, and BB10 has near-zero userbase, so why would devs support BB10 apps? They might as well set fire to stacks of cash.

As I said before, going from QNX for Cars to making BB10 for smartphones is similar to a General Contractor going from building houses to building high-end yachts - just because they build for a living and use some of the same tools and materials doesn't mean that the expertise translates from homes to boats. Boats have a ton of their own rules and special needs that you have to know about and understand to have any hope of success, and just because you can build a house doesn't mean you have those skills or knowledge.

But we've said all this before, and none of us are in a position to "vote" - only BBL is in that position, so only their opinion matters. It's quite clear what their opinion is, even if they haven't stated it overtly - their spending the vast amount of their available capital on Cylance tells you everything you need to know.

[conite]

To use yet another analogy, it would be like assuming that Chrysler could make the Dodge Demon without billions of dollars of development over 50 years just because they made muscle cars in the 1960s. While those 60s cars were much-loved by many at the time and even since, the reality is that they are terrible cars by modern standards in virtually every way, and a modern Demon would absolutely annihilate any of those 60s cars, whether on a drag strip, oval, or road course - and they make decent daily drivers too.

Tech moves at a MUCH faster pace than cars, and the 8 years without substantial development has left BB10 far, FAR behind. SoCs are different, memory architecture is different, modems are different, sensors are different, etc., and unlike anything built on Linux, any components made for QNX will have to have special, custom drivers written for them, and that would have to be done at BB's expense. Then BB would need to spend a year or more (assuming a full-sized development team of 3000-5000 developers) putting all of that together and getting it all optimized, because who would pay for this OS if it killed the battery in your phone in 3 or 4 hours, or crashed all the time? It's also likely that BB's contract with Google is still in force, which would mean BB would have to remove the Android runtime entirely - forget about updating it.

But what about apps? BB World is dead (or, perhaps, a zombie - a walking dead), and the dev tools are ancient and way out of date, so you'd need another sizable team to work on those to get them in a useable state - say, 1500 developers & managers. But even if you managed to get that done, how do you interest developers? There's virtually no way that even a great dev kit is going to allow BB10 apps to do anything that can't be done on iOS or Android, and BB10 has near-zero userbase, so why would devs support BB10 apps? They might as well set fire to stacks of cash.

As I said before, going from QNX for Cars to making BB10 for smartphones is similar to a General Contractor going from building houses to building high-end yachts - just because they build for a living and use some of the same tools and materials doesn't mean that the expertise translates from homes to boats. Boats have a ton of their own rules and special needs that you have to know about and understand to have any hope of success, and just because you can build a house doesn't mean you have those skills or knowledge.

But we've said all this before, and none of us are in a position to "vote" - only BBL is in that position, so only their opinion matters. It's quite clear what their opinion is, even if they haven't stated it overtly - their spending the vast amount of their available capital on Cylance tells you everything you need to know.

But what about {thing that has been brought up many times before and has been repeatedly refuted by others}?

[Chuck Finley69]

But what about {thing that has been brought up many times before and has been repeatedly refuted by others}?

How about never having the courtesy to acknowledge or better answer questions that would allow constructive dialogue?

[DonHB]

What is the goal of all this? What do you see as the business outcomes? Who makes money and how?

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

Addressing the lack of focus on individual privacy. But the ultimate goal is a new model for controlled sharing of information with more granularity than what common DRM delivers. The separation of workspaces from personal spaces (on BB10 or Android) do not provide for protecting customer or partner information that should be accessible from a handset. I thought that BB10 could address the individual privacy issue and perhaps, with sufficient buy-in, support beginning development of a more generalized means of controlled sharing of IP (software should also be considered as IP). BlackBerry has made some progress already with its Workspaces product, but is less than transparent as it works at the application layer. To do this, I believe that it is necessary to control the platform. Android would be fundamentally changed if this were attempted on Android. QNX's architecture would make it easier to implement this model transparently than on *nix or Windows.

BlackBerry has indicated that is is in the business of securing end points and privacy (both individual and enterprise). A different model for protecting privacy by addressing the controlled sharing of IP would extend beyond handsets (IoT) and such a solution could be sold to businesses and individuals alike.

[bb10adopter111]

Addressing the lack of focus on individual privacy. But the ultimate goal is a new model for controlled sharing of information with more granularity than what common DRM delivers. The separation of workspaces from personal spaces (on BB10 or Android) do not provide for protecting customer or partner information that should be accessible from a handset. I thought that BB10 could address the individual privacy issue and perhaps, with sufficient buy-in, support beginning development of a more generalized means of controlled sharing of IP (software should also be considered as IP). BlackBerry has made some progress already with its Workspaces product, but is less than transparent as it works at the application layer. To do this, I believe that it is necessary to control the platform. Android would be fundamentally changed if this were attempted on Android. QNX's architecture would make it easier to implement this model transparently than on *nix or Windows.

BlackBerry has indicated that is is in the business of securing end points and privacy (both individual and enterprise). A different model for protecting privacy by addressing the controlled sharing of IP would extend beyond handsets (IoT) and such a solution could be sold to businesses and individuals alike.

Those are all worthy goals, but BlackBerry's main mission is to recoup its investors' money and earn a decent return. It's not on a mission to change the digital world.

There are companies trying to use blockchain and other technology-based approaches to integrate DRM into personal and enterprise data and improve privacy and security. Ultimately they may facilitate a much better exchange of personal information for services in a way that doesn't compromise individuals' ability to control who uses their information and for what purpose.

But BB's legacy code is very, very unlikely to play any role in that future. It's a retired OS with no active development plans or resources. If the goal is better privacy and security a free and open source approach with Linux would be a much better way to go.

For now, there are ways to stay private on mobile, and I encourage people who care about that to use them. It takes a little effort, but it's worth it to some of us.

Z10 = BB10 + VKB > iOS + Android

[Chuck Finley69]

Addressing the lack of focus on individual privacy. But the ultimate goal is a new model for controlled sharing of information with more granularity than what common DRM delivers. The separation of workspaces from personal spaces (on BB10 or Android) do not provide for protecting customer or partner information that should be accessible from a handset. I thought that BB10 could address the individual privacy issue and perhaps, with sufficient buy-in, support beginning development of a more generalized means of controlled sharing of IP (software should also be considered as IP). BlackBerry has made some progress already with its Workspaces product, but is less than transparent as it works at the application layer. To do this, I believe that it is necessary to control the platform. Android would be fundamentally changed if this were attempted on Android. QNX's architecture would make it easier to implement this model transparently than on *nix or Windows.

BlackBerry has indicated that is is in the business of securing end points and privacy (both individual and enterprise). A different model for protecting privacy by addressing the controlled sharing of IP would extend beyond handsets (IoT) and such a solution could be sold to businesses and individuals alike.

So now you’re attempting to resurrect the failed idea that partially the reason for QNX and it’s base for BB10 itself. Lucky for you, we already have the results of that business model for you.

When BlackBerry Limited created BBOS and predecessor RIM 850/950 technology, nobody created a device appliance so BlackBerry Limited created one. Then came the BBOS phones since NOBODY chose to license BBOS like Windows Mobile for instance. Each OEM had different strategies nobody had interest sharing profits to pay BlackBerry for licensing anything.

When BB10 was developed, it was offered for licensing and once again, NOBODY cared. Even BBAndroid was a hard sell but that model of licensing was proven impossible even for Android OEM strategy.

What ever gives you the idea that a epically failed idea from 2013 would succeed in 2020 is beyond me? All this nonsense and in the end you’re not even offering a new idea? The Android/iPhone OEMs developed and continue to develop their own security and privacy solutions. Just like the PKB, BB10 security and privacy support isn’t demanded by enough consumers to amount to anything remotely meaningful. If and when it does, Apple, Google and Microsoft have already included the foundation and infrastructure to implement within their OS model strategies.

Simply put there’s no buy-in now just like 7-8 years ago or 12-13 years ago. Consumers aren’t interested sitting inside their four walls afraid to go outside from some kind of self-inflicted paranoias...

[app_Developer]

Addressing the lack of focus on individual privacy.

You keep asserting that this improves privacy. If you make an updated BB10, with a modern web browser and access to Android apps, then how does this system protect a normal user's privacy again?

Is this the "Cylance magic AI" thing? If so, why not just make that run on Android? Or sailfish? Or something else? Cylance does not require QNX.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Don't know.... and don't know how hard it would be

That is very clear....


This isn't the Wizard of OZ were you click your heels and just keep repeating it... and it comes true.

While many of us think it would be a great thing to bring BB10 back. We just don't see the viability of it, nor a company with any interest in doing it. And we do think they considered all the options for BB10 already, with a better understanding of the cost and market conditions than any of us. And they have moved on and are not looking back.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

You keep asserting that this improves privacy. If you make an updated BB10, with a modern web browser and access to Android apps, then how does this system protect a normal user's privacy again?

Is this the "Cylance magic AI" thing? If so, why not just make that run on Android? Or sailfish? Or something else? Cylance does not require QNX.

I agree, this is something more suited to a product that is currently being "supported" in a more open way.... Sailfish or PureOS.

I don't know if I trust Sailfish that much, now that Russia is so involved in the code. But PureOS, is Security and Privacy focused.