[randall2580]

Yeah well I think they're taking advantage of this media hype to distort the truth.

There phones are hackable when they're not locked. When a phone is locked, than you have to know the password. But the app that locks the phone can be set to wipe everything if you miss it 10 times.

And that's the real debate! It's not the phone it's the app!

More appropriately, the phone is encrypted. The phone's password is the encryption key. Without the encryption key anything on the phone is jibberish. The phone can be accessed when unlocked because the encryption key has been applied. I believe from iOS 9 - you are required to have some kind of password on your phone.

This is built into the OS it's not an app. What the government is asking Apple to do is send an update to the OS that could be loaded onto this phone and negate the encryption and thus the need for the password.

BTW - as I understand it in the USA, if the phone has a password - the Government cannot force you to say what it is. However if these parties were still alive and had fingerprint unlocking to their phone (the 5c in this case does not) it can compell you to unlock the phone in that manner.

[3MIKE]

More appropriately, the phone is encrypted. The phone's password is the encryption key. Without the encryption key anything on the phone is jibberish. The phone can be accessed when unlocked because the encryption key has been applied. I believe from iOS 9 - you are required to have some kind of password on your phone.

This is built into the OS it's not an app. What the government is asking Apple to do is send an update to the OS that could be loaded onto this phone and negate the encryption and thus the need for the password.

BTW - as I understand it in the USA, if the phone has a password - the Government cannot force you to say what it is. However if these parties were still alive and had fingerprint unlocking to their phone (the 5c in this case does not) it can compell you to unlock the phone in that manner.

Thanks for the clarification randall

[TGIS]

Looks like we slaughtered the $7.05 line.

 Priv... cue the comeback!

[rarsen]

The general tone of comments continues to improve for BBRY, including being in Zacks list of Top Ten Stocks Under $20:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-te...232611365.html
"BlackBerry (BBRY) Current Price: $6.68
BlackBerry is a designer and manufacturer of wireless mobile communications systems. Originally known for its “BlackBerry” smartphone line, the company has also grown an impressive software and services department. A recent earnings beat of 70% highlights BlackBerry’s recent turnaround, and the expansion of the “Priv” smartphone to other carriers, as well as a commitment to high-margin software development, signal good things to come."

[Bacon Munchers]

25 BlackBerry 10 Devices + 1 Priv locked up now. LoL

... Even more to my point.

Say, don't forget the EMM meeting guys. I want to check the suite out for my own company:





Congrats to buyers of SWIR. Up 10% in the last couple days.

[Superfly_FR]

Alright W.S, let's get back to business, can we ?



Sorry guys, a bit away lastly - but I keep reading ! - as I'm under heavy load of work (was about time, can't complain !).
Keep swingin' above the $7.15 mark will be fine for me until next E.R.

[Corbu]

OT:
Tim Cook?s Dangerous Game - WSJ

The specifics of the fight over security are messier than Mr. Cook allows, and not all in Apple�s favor

Tim Cook is playing a dangerous game of brinkmanship with the U.S. government. In the process, he may set in motion political and judicial processes that will endanger the security of all our mobile devices.

First, let me say that I agree with the spirit of Mr. Cook�s open letter rebuffing a court order that Apple Inc. create a new version of the iPhone�s operating system to allow the Federal Bureau of Investigation to access the locked, encrypted phone used by one of the assailants in the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif.

Mr. Cook asserts, correctly, that the FBI�s request�for Apple to create new software that overcomes the phone�s inbuilt security�is unprecedented. �We can find no precedent for an American company being forced to expose its customers to a greater risk of attack,� he wrote.

Here�s the rub: The FBI says it wants Apple to create this software only for this one device. But if the code gets into the wild�and these things have a way of doing so�it will render the encryption on all iPhones everywhere essentially moot.

Still, the specifics of this case are messier than Mr. Cook allows, and not all in Apple�s favor.

First, there are the optics of the situation: As tech analyst Ben Thompson notes, �It�s a case of domestic terrorism with a clear-cut bad guy and a warrant that no one could object to, and Apple is capable of fulfilling the request.� Second, the iPhone in question is an older model iPhone 5C. It differs enough from newer iPhone models that, as developer and iOS security expert Dan Guido notes, any solution Apple creates for the FBI to bypass its security wouldn't endanger the security of newer iPhones.

Finally, there is a risk that however this case turns out, Apple risks losing a larger legal war. The fallout could force Apple�and others, including Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp.�to back down on their project of bringing strong encryption to everyday devices.

I am not a lawyer and this isn't an analysis of constitutional law, but some suggest that Apple is on the wrong side of legal precedent in its fight to protect devices from search with a warrant.

So to sum up, Apple is publicly battling the FBI over protection of data in a grisly, high-profile case that would require the company to, at most, endanger the security of older model iPhones. The only logical explanation I can think of for why Apple might be standing on principle in this case is that it would set a precedent for future requests by law enforcement that could eventually lead to Apple�s (and, frankly, consumers�) worst nightmare.

That nightmare, which I wrote about previously, is a situation in which Apple is forced to build a security �back door� into all iPhones, the results of which are equivalent to removing encryption from the phones. Unless we want to make the financial, health and personal data of everyone with an iPhone available to cybercriminals, hackers and state actors, encryption back doors aren't something we as a civilization want to create.

Here, however, the FBI isn't asking for an encryption back door, at least not explicitly. Rather, it is asking for something more specific. And I worry that by so publicly refusing to cooperate, Apple is creating a situation in which eventually the courts or Congress will force it to do even more damage to the security of our most personal devices than capitulation in this case would require.

[Corbu]

Another OT:
Dashboard Data Troves: How Vehicles Keep Tabs on Consumers - WSJ

Apple won’t unlock phone, but car makers say legal orders can garner data they otherwise strive to protect

Apple Inc. Chief Executive Tim Cook noted when spelling out reasons the company will resist a court order to unlock an iPhone that smartphones are now an essential part of life and store vast amounts of personal data.

Another essential but far older mobile device also has emerged in the customer-data debate: the automobile.

Americans often authorize auto makers to collect reams of data when purchasing a car, ranging from crash data to driving histories and diagnostic information related to vehicle maintenance.

Auto makers have developed voluntary privacy principles to safeguard consumer data, including providing car owners with access to clear notices about the use of information, allowing consumers to choose how certain data is collected and used and limiting the use of information to so-called legitimate business purposes. The principles are laid out by Washington lobbying groups representing nearly all auto makers that sell cars in the U.S., including General Motors Co., Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co.

But the principles make clear auto makers don’t necessarily need a customer’s permission to share data in response to a government subpoena or other inquiry.

Permission isn’t required when data is used or shared “as reasonably necessary to comply with a lawful government request, regulatory requirement, legal order, or similar obligation,” according to a letter car company representatives sent to the Federal Trade Commission in November 2014. The letter makes clear auto makers will turn over vehicle-location information in response to a warrant or court order, but also leaves room for “exigent circumstances” and other “applicable statutory authority.”

A report from Sen. Edward Markey (D., Mass.) a year ago found widespread cybersecurity gaps in vehicles on U.S. roads and raised questions over how car companies treat customer data.

The report found auto makers collect data from navigation, telematics, emergency-assist and infotainment systems and sometimes share the information with third-party storage centers.

Information collected included parking locations, destinations entered into navigation systems and how seat belts and brakes are used. The report cited GM’s OnStar system, Ford Motor Co.’s SYNC product and other unbranded technologies as capable of collecting certain data.

The report found a little more than a third of vehicles on U.S. roads have systems that collect such information, based on responses from auto makers about model-year 2013 and 2014 vehicles.

Mr. Markey’s report expressed skepticism over the voluntary privacy principles, contending they don’t ensure consumers can prevent data collection and raise questions over to what extent car makers will use or share data.

A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, one of the Washington lobbying groups, pointed to limited circumstances when car makers will share sensitive information, adding the companies “believe that strong consumer data privacy protections and strong vehicle security are essential to maintaining the continued trust of their customers.”​A spokeswoman for another industry group, the Association of Global Automakers, said it expects some companies to go beyond what is outlined in the privacy principles, and that information collection varies by car maker.

Insurers and police sometimes attach tracking devices to cars, but only with a customer’s permission or a warrant, respectively. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 ruled that police violated the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure when placing a global-positioning-system tracker on a suspect’s car without a valid​warrant.

Vehicles also employ event data recorders, better known as black boxes,​ for crashes that can track air-bag deployments, vehicle speed and other information about the car’s operation. Such recorders were used by police and lawyers to determine whether defective ignition switches on older GM cars were to blame for certain crashes. GM’s OnStar system and other technologies can also​report crashes​in real time to help alert emergency responders.

More recently, auto makers have been scrutinized over whether vehicles are vulnerable to hackers. Computer researchers last year demonstrated an ability to commandeer controls of a moving Jeep from a laptop miles away, leading Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV to recall more than a million vehicles. Fiat Chrysler provided software patches and other measures that fixed the problem. A researcher last year also demonstrated an ability to remotely locate, unlock or start a car using GM’s OnStar smartphone system by installing a gadget underneath the vehicle. GM quickly addressed the problem and alerted consumers to the fix without a formal recall.​

Auto makers recently launched a research initiative aimed at evaluating and sharing information about cybersecurity threats.

[Corbu]

My last OT on this subject:
Newer Phones Aren?t Easy to Crack - WSJ

Fight around locked iPhone highlights growing role of encryption in digital life

The legal fight around the locked iPhone of one of the San Bernardino shooters highlights the growing role of encryption in digital life—and the intensifying battle between tech companies and the government over the proper bounds of the technology.

Encryption scrambles data so that it is unreadable until unlocked with a unique key. Apple Inc. and Alphabet Inc.’s Google thrust the issue into the spotlight in 2014, when they issued new versions of their software that automatically encrypted data stored on phones, such as contacts, photos and some text messages. Moreover, Apple and Google, which together power more than 90% of the world’s smartphones, said they wouldn’t be able to break the encryption codes themselves.

Law-enforcement officials, led by Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey, expressed alarm that encrypted phones could hamper criminal investigations. Such cases have been rare until now, because much of the data investigators seek can often be found elsewhere, such as call records maintained by telecom companies.

In the case of alleged shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, however, federal investigators say they have no other options. They persuaded a federal judge Tuesday to order Apple to circumvent the security measures on Mr. Farook’s iPhone 5C, hoping to learn more about his contacts and communications in the final weeks of his life.

In essence, the government wants Apple to help it unlock the phone by trying every conceivable password. At the government’s request, the judge ordered Apple to override the software that normally limits these attempts, such as a feature that erases all the data on the phone after 10 failed attempts.

Depending on the password that Mr. Farook used, there could be more than two billion combinations, which could take a computer 5� years to try, Apple estimates. In a court filing, the Justice Department said it can’t tell whether the auto-erase feature is enabled, “therefore trying repeated passcodes risks permanently denying all access to the contents.”

Such a solution would be much harder on more modern versions of the iPhone, which ship with a cryptographic processor that makes the machine even harder to crack, said Dan Guido, head of Trail of Bits Inc., a security consulting firm that has studied the iPhone’s design.

Had Mr. Farook used a phone running Google’s Android operating system, assessing the encryption would be more complicated. That is because, unlike Apple, Google doesn’t make most of the phones that use Android. Instead, there are more than 4,000 different Android devices made by more than 400 manufacturers, who use different flavors of Android.

Google has allowed Android users to encrypt a phone’s contents since 2011, but many haven’t because it hurts the performance of older phones. In late 2014, Google began encrypting some phones by default with the release of Android version 5.0, dubbed Lollipop, including Google’s flagship Nexus devices. But only about 35% of Android devices now run version 5.0 or higher, according to company data.

The Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said in a November report that on some older Android phones, investigators know how to bypass passcodes. For some other Android devices, Google can reset the passcodes remotely, the report said.

Apple’s and Google’s smartphone encryption software apply to data stored directly on a device, and some communications, such as Apple’s iMessage. Many messages sent and received on smartphones are stored elsewhere, such as Gmail correspondence retained on Google’s servers.

The government hasn’t specified the information it thinks may be on Mr. Farook’s phone. In a court filing, an FBI agent said Apple, in response to a search warrant, had previously turned over data from the phone that had been backed up to Apple’s iCloud service. That is another way in which investigators can often obtain information from encrypted phones.

But the agent said Mr. Farook had last backed up the phone on Oct. 19, about six weeks before the Dec. 2 shootings that killed 14 people. After that date, the agent said, Mr. Farook was believed to have communicated with his wife, and alleged accomplice, Tashfeen Malik, as well as several victims of the attacks.

Wireless carriers can access some standard text messages, and third-party apps, like WhatsApp, typically store users’ correspondence.

Google says it provides users’ Gmail messages when required under a court order. Google said that it received nearly 35,000 government requests for user data in 2014—up from 15,000 requests in 2010—and that it complies with the requests in about 65% of cases.

[W Hoa]

Some key figures just released. Now if BlackBerry can generate sales of just 0.5% of the market......

[cjcampbell]

OT: Health Care IoT Security related

Hackers Took Control of a Hollywood Hospital and Now They're Holding It for Ransom - Mic

Another Hollywood institution has fallen prey to hackers, but this time people's lives are at stake.

The FBI and Los Angeles Police Department have launched an investigation into an attack on Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center that has rendered the facility's computer network inoperable. Those responsible for the downed system are now asking the hospital to hand over $3.4 million in bitcoin in exchange for restoring the hospital's computers, according to NBC News.*

Posted via CB10

It seems the hackers won in this instance but not to the full extent of the original demand. Perhaps a few security firms, and BB/QNX have been making a few calls as well.

Los Angeles hospital paid hackers $17,000 ransom in bitcoins | Reuters

[Corbu]

BES12 Cloud Update Delivers Powerful EMM for a Mobile-First, Cloud-First World | Inside BlackBerry for Business Blog

[Variante Alta]

Morning fellow BBRY investors...was reading an article this morning on Fool.ca - it contains the following quote: "If BlackBerry was out of the handset business completely, it would be free to sue for royalties without any consequences. Analysts estimate this could bring up to US$400 million in revenue to the company with minimal expenses. Investors should almost be hoping BlackBerry gets out of the hardware business."

Any thoughts on the reality of this? He argues the reason BlackBerry isn't doing this currently is that they'll get sued back by those they sue for royalties...I think it will be very difficult to ever stop making BB10 phone as so many security conscience government agencies require the use of a BlackBerry 10 device to ensure top level security. Could they sell off the devices division as a specialty gig and then go after the royalties from Sam and Apple?

Interesting...I'd like to see what another US$400m would do to our stock price.... Here's the link to the full article. Best all...
http://www.fool.ca/2016/02/17/is-bla...ce-for-a-rrsp/

Posted via CB10

[Corbu]

BBRY IP:
Two new deals show that BlackBerry's patent monetisation strategy is all systems go - Blog - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business

15.02.16 / Joff Wild

When BlackBerry concluded a cross-licensing agreement with Cisco last June, with a provision for the Californian company to pay an on-going royalty, this blog stated that the deal could mark the start of the Canadian telecoms and wireless business becoming a major player in the patent monetisation space. Eight months on and that prediction seems to be coming true.

Last week, BlackBerry announced deals with Canon and International Game Technology. Both look set to swell the company’s coffers. The announcement of the agreement with Canon makes no mention of fees or royalties, but does quote VP of IP and licensing Mark Kokes as saying: “It substantiates the value companies place on BlackBerry’s innovative and foundational power charging patents for mobile and consumer electronic devices … With the agreement in place, Canon can continue to incorporate convenient charging solutions in its exciting new products.” The insinuation is pretty clear.

The announcement concerning the IGT tie-up is much more explicit, talking about “a royalty bearing patent license agreement related to certain power charging technology used in IGT products”. The quote from Kokes is very similar to the one given for the Canon deal: “Our license agreement with IGT affirms the importance of BlackBerry’s innovative and foundational power- charging patents … With this agreement in place, IGT can incorporate convenient power charging solutions in its new gaming products, to the benefit of its customers and partners everywhere.”

Reading between the lines here, it is hard not to get the very strong feeling that Kokes is sending out a warning to other companies: we are coming after you as well. It’s notable that Canon and IGT operate in different arenas, but have felt the need to sign up to agreements covering the same kinds of patents. That probably indicates that BlackBerry has a wide range of companies on its list of potential licensees. It also now has three strong names to put in front of those who might be tempted to hold out, as well as a rumoured agreement with an unnamed company that signed up around the same time that Cisco did.

I don’t know much about IGT’s patent operation, but I have seen plenty of both Cisco’s and Canon’s. Neither is a pushover by any stretch of the imagination. For that reason, I’d say it is significant that litigation was not needed to get them to deal – they must have known BlackBerry had them bang to rights. Up to now, it seems, the company has not felt the need to issue proceedings against anyone. Whether that will continue given the current state of the licensing market remains to be seen – there are some businesses that will not even begin to talk about taking licences until a suit has landed on the doormat.

Licensing, though, is not the only way that BlackBerry is monetising its patent portfolio. Sales are also playing a part too. Earlier this year, we reported that court documents filed in Chicago revealed that the company had sold a portfolio of patents to Centerbridge Partners for an amount that could run to $50 million. This transaction only became public because of a dispute involving Ocean Tomo and former employee Michael Friedman, so it is perfectly possible that others have taken place under the radar. But even if it is, so far, a one-off what it shows is that BlackBerry is determined to use the full range of options at its disposal to get maximum bang for its monetisation buck – something that CEO John Chen has stated publicly is key to his turnaround plans.

Given the size of the BlackBerry portfolio and its seeming potency, we can expect to see many more licensing deals signed over the coming years and should probably also factor in a few sales as well. What’s more, it’s likely to be only a matter of time before the company is reluctantly forced into litigation too; though it may want to wait until all low hanging fruit is picked off before the courts are called on.

It took BlackBerry a little bit of time to realise what it had – and that delay may have cost it money given what has happened to the patent market over the last couple of years – but it does now seem very fixed on maxing out on the IP assets that it owns. That will be good news for the company’s investors, even if only a few of them so far really understand that to be the case.

[Corbu]

Vodafone Spain begins BlackBerry Priv sales - Telecompaper

Vodafone is the first Spanish operator to start selling the new BlackBerry Priv smartphone, the first BlackBerry phone running the Android OS. The device is available for a one-off payment of EUR 701 on a two-year contract, or else EUR 21 per month plus EUR 199 down payment in combination with a Mini or Superyuser contract, rising to EUR 29 per month plus EUR 5 down payment with a Red L, Red XL or One L contract.

[Corbu]

BBRY IP:
On the Centerbridge Partners deal referred to above, by Joff Wild
Multi-million dollar Blackberry transaction set to put former Alcatel-Lucent IP leaders back in the game - Blog - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business

26.01.16 / Joff Wild

Further proof of Blackberry’s enhanced IP monetisation programme has emerged in court documents submitted on 21st December 2015 at the Cook County Court in Chicago and seen by IAM. Exhibits relating to a complaint about the non-payment of bonuses, filed by ex-Ocean Tomo managing director Michael Friedman against the firm, its CEO James Malackowski and the head of the firm’s Expert Services division Andrew Carter, reveal that Friedman and Ocean Tomo recently worked on a sale of patents by the Canadian telecoms and wireless company to investment firm Centerbridge Partners.

Although the particulars of the transaction – which closed in the last quarter of 2015 - are not detailed in either the complaint itself or the supporting materials, I understand that the portfolio concerned covers USB power patents and that it will be monetised via a specially constructed vehicle which will be under the management of Craig Thompson, former senior VP of IP at Alcatel-Lucent, and Ozer Teitelbaum, the company’s former director of IP strategy. Both were among those let go by Alcatel-Lucent in a round of lay-offs implemented early last year. I further understand that the value of the deal to Blackberry could be as much as $50 million. In the documents submitted with the Friedman complaint, it is evident that Ocean Tomo billed in excess of $2 million for the work it did on the transaction.

Details of this sale have not been made public by Blackberry, but it follows on from a high-profile licensing agreement with Cisco, signed in June, under which the Silicon Valley-based business will pay Blackberry ongoing royalties. In September, meanwhile, the company’s CEO John Chen talked about monetisation of its 44,000-strong patent portfolio as being “an important aspect of our turnaround”. In 2013 we revealed that a leading Canadian bank had doubled its valuation of the Blackberry patent portfolio after it featured in the inaugural US Patent 100 published by IAM in conjunction with MDB Capital.

[Corbu]

BBRY IP:
Just for context, a look back on the Cisco deal, by Joff Wild, again.
BlackBerry's deal with Cisco could mark the Canadian company's coming of age as a big patent licensor - Blog - Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) - Maximising IP Value for Business

26.06.15 / Joff Wild

No-one willingly pays to license patents is an old adage and a very accurate one. There are few to which it applies with more vigour than Cisco. So, the news a few days back that the company had entered into a cross-licensing agreement with BlackBerry, under which the Canadian business will also receive a licensing fee from its American partner, should be seen as pretty significant.

In June 2014, Blackberry hired Mark Kokes from InterTrust to be its VP of IP & Standards; a couple of months later, in August 2014, it announced the creation of a new Technology Solutions unit to manage its “innovative technology assets, including: QNX (embedded software), Project Ion (Internet of Things application platform), Certicom (cryptography applications), and Paratek (RF antenna tuning), as well as BlackBerry’s extensive patent portfolio”. The deal with Cisco looks to be the first publicly announced “win” following these big moves – or second, if you include the money that the company would have received for the sale of the Rockstar assets.

Cross-licensing agreements between big technology companies are not unusual, and Cisco has been involved in several of them, but what does not happen very often is the release of information showing one side also paying the other side money. That it has happened in this case probably tells us a few things:

• This was no joyful coming together of two companies that want to do nothing more than share. Instead, this was BlackBerry going after Cisco, saying you have infringed our rights, and Cisco looking at the evidence and agreeing.
• BlackBerry insisted on the payment being made public as part of the deal and Cisco agreed – perhaps because it got a better royalty rate as a result.
• BlackBerry wanted the world to know that Cisco – a company famed for playing hard ball when accused of patent infringement – had been forced into a money deal. That’s because if it has not done so already, BlackBerry will be making contact with a number of other tech companies over the coming months and years to suggest that they do something similar.
• Other companies getting such invitations will have to be very brave not to give them serious consideration.

In short, this deal could well mark a new stage in the history of the Canadian company; one in which it becomes deadly serious about maximising the value potential of what is generally recognised to be a very high quality portfolio of rights. Like other companies that were in the mobile communications market early, BlackBerry failed to last the pace and has seen its sales drop dramatically over recent years. But also like them, its early mover status means that it owns much of the foundational technology and so has the potential to generate significant licensing revenues from others. Over the last 18 months or so, it finally seems to have realised this.

[Corbu]

QNX Embedded World 2016 - Next week

http://www.qnx.com/news/events/ewg2016.html

[Munx]

MWC next week is D-day for Blackberry's hardware division. Management now has sufficient data on PRIV sales to determine a path forward. The street will be paying close attention and I see only two outcomes:

1. Android roadmap and/or new device is shared = hardware division has a pulse and a return to profitability is expected.
2. No new hardware and comments from the company continue to be along the lines of 'we will exit if we can't make a profit' or 'we have yet to decide' = PRIV sales are not strong enough to support further investment in Android handsets and the company will eventually exit hardware.






Posted via CB10

[masterful]

Thanks for sharing Corbu!

Posted via my PRIV

[Superfly_FR]

MWC next week is D-day for Blackberry's hardware division. Management now has sufficient data on PRIV sales to determine a path forward. The street will be paying close attention and I see only two outcomes:

1. Android roadmap and/or new device is shared = hardware division has a pulse and a return to profitability is expected.
2. No new hardware and comments from the company continue to be along the lines of 'we will exit if we can't make a profit' or 'we have yet to decide' = PRIV sales are not strong enough to support further investment in Android handsets and the company will eventually exit hardware.
Posted via CB10

I'm not sure we can rely on MWC for anything strategic, unless new.
I mean, if the Vienna gets announced, it's surely a good sign for sales (or expected ones ...) but I won't use it to determine next year(s) strategy which is probably more influenced by the ability of BlackBerry to "make" a secure android (same level than BB10) than anything else ...
Bottom line, IMHO they're already engaged in the Vienna process and it will cost more to stop than to sell, even a limited number (initial batch, at least).

Have a great evening gang !
SF

[Munx]

I'm not sure we can rely on MWC for anything strategic, unless new.
I mean, if the Vienna gets announced, it's surely a good sign for sales (or expected ones ...) but I won't use it to determine next year(s) strategy which is probably more influenced by the ability of BlackBerry to "make" a secure android (same level than BB10) than anything else ...
Bottom line, IMHO they're already engaged in the Vienna process and it will cost more to stop than to sell, even a limited number (initial batch, at least).

Have a great evening gang !
SF

Agree a Vienna announcement would be a very good sign. Conversely no Vienna will likely be interpreted as a bad sign for hardware as they would be abandoning any effort/costs already expended on the handset.

Disagree on 'more' secure android sets strategic direction: they are already perceived as the most secure Android. Sales and profitability of PRIV alone will determine Android path forward.

Posted via CB10

[spiller]

Agree a Vienna announcement would be a very good sign. Conversely no Vienna will likely be interpreted as a bad sign for hardware as they would be abandoning any effort/costs already expended on the handset.

Disagree on 'more' secure android sets strategic direction: they are already perceived as the most secure Android. Sales and profitability of PRIV alone will determine Android path forward.

Posted via CB10

I'll be happy with 1M Priv sales and 400K BB10 sales on April 1.

[masterful]

Don't really care much about the number on hardware sales.
As long as they can profit from it and that is all really matter. As you can see that many other like HTC, LG for example can sell millions but can't make profit from it.

Posted via my PRIV

[W Hoa]

OT The ongoing melodrama around Apple security:

....in a similar case in New York last year, Apple acknowledged that it could extract such data if it wanted to. And according to prosecutors in that case, Apple has unlocked phones for authorities at least 70 times since 2008. (Apple doesn’t dispute this figure.)
In other words, Apple’s stance in the San Bernardino case may not be quite the principled defense that Cook claims it is. In fact, it may have as much to do with public relations...

Apple Unlocked iPhones for the Feds 70 Times Before - The Daily Beast