[anon(9607753)]

Well it goes without saying that anyone can spend their personal fortune on whatever they want without justifying it to anyone. Why not write Zuckerberg and ask him to personally fund Facebook and WhatsApp for BlackBerry.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

Of course the very point IS about throwing money at unprofitable ventures, which obviously you missed, not about whether or not Zuckerberg has a right to use 'personal' money for either (whatever that means, when you are founder and CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation). And as for the the second part of your response, I don't use either. So from my perspective, sending tiny spaceships to Alpha Centauri is an equally valid, if not a somewhat less pointless, way for Zuckerberg to liquidate excess capital.

Posted via CB10

[Richard Buckley]

Of course the very point IS about throwing money at unprofitable ventures, which obviously you missed, not about whether or not Zuckerberg has a right to use 'personal' money for either (whatever that means, when you are founder and CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation). And as for the the second part of your response, I don't use either. So from my perspective, sending tiny spaceships to Alpha Centauri is an equally valid, if not a somewhat less pointless, way for Zuckerberg to liquidate excess capital.

Posted via CB10

Facebook was mostly his. I don't remember the exact figures but when the company went public he got quite a bit in value, both cash and shares. He can spend that however he wants. Cash that belongs to the company is a different matter.

Besides it isn't Zuckerberg's mission, from what I've read he has been asked to sit on the board. The $100M is coming from Milner. It doesn't make sense to conflate what Zuckerberg does outside of Facebook with what the company does.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

[BigBadWulf]

Perhaps, but this is very much a matter of recent fashion. Companies used to publish APIS and hope lots of developers wrote programmes for their products. This usually meant that almost every user preference was catered to. Now the trend, for all kinds of reasons, is to block third party development. The pendulum will swing back. If BlackBerry handsets can't survive this they wouldn't survive even if Facebook and WhatsApp continued to provide native applications.

I'm not concerned, I never had a Facebook app on my PC and it has not been a problem. WhatsApp is a non-starter for me because I don't want most of the people I chat with ti have my phone number.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

I believe what businesses discovered was a fragmented user experience, based on which app the consumer chose to visit them with. This leaves little control over how positive the experience is, whether the user returns or how often. If a consumer has a bad experience, regardless who's app it is, the complaint would probably be heard by the company. This is all similar to why franchise contracts are so detailed. A business own has their opinion how they want their company projected, and keeping it all in house is the best way to protect the brand. That also means all support would be internal, and the fewer systems, the easier to maintain customer service standards. Wonder why many carriers steer clear of BlackBerry? Same reasoning.

[Richard Buckley]

I believe what businesses discovered was a fragmented user experience, based on which app the consumer chose to visit them with. This leaves little control over how positive the experience is, whether the user returns or how often. If a consumer has a bad experience, regardless who's app it is, the complaint would probably be heard by the company. This is all similar to why franchise contracts are so detailed. A business own has their opinion how they want their company projected, and keeping it all in house is the best way to protect the brand. That also means all support would be internal, and the fewer systems, the easier to maintain customer service standards. Wonder why many carriers steer clear of BlackBerry? Same reasoning.

Yes, there are many reasons, this is one. Privacy is another, security (remember what SnapChat went through) , monetizing users (and whether that is shared with third party developers), the list goes on. But like fashion, when you have been in the industry long enough you can recognise the cycles.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

I often wondered if BlackBerry had wisely produced devices in 2011 and forward that were capable of being updated to BB10 once it became available. If and instant userbase of say 30 million would have even been enough to capture the attention of developers?

[ubizmo]

We've had this discussion a few times since BB10 was launched, especially in conjunction with Android apps, such as Audible, which worked fine on BB10 (as we knew from sideloading) but were not available in BB World. It was baffling to me. What could be the downside, especially to a company like Amazon/Audible, whose business model is to get content to as many people as possible?

But as others patiently explained to me, the ongoing expense of supporting software is potentially much greater than the initial expense of developing it. Support means having people trained and ready to help with problems on a particular platform. It means fixing bugs quickly, and pushing out updates quickly. It also means that if for some reason your app doesn't perform well on a platform, your brand is somewhat tarnished. So it makes perfect sense that developers, especially for large, complex apps, prefer to devote resources to supporting and polishing those apps on as few platforms as possible.

That said, it's still a mystery to me why Amazon leaves their WP app in such a backward state. It's a native app that they developed; you'd think they'd want it to be good. If it was worth it to them to develop it, it should be worth their time to update it. I wonder if they're just working on a universal app that'll work on both Surface and mobile devices. But that's a topic for Windows Central. For BB10, the support costs are a huge part of the reason why the apps don't come, especially from the companies with a reputation to protect.

[Maxxxpower]

I often wondered if BlackBerry had wisely produced devices in 2011 and forward that were capable of being updated to BB10 once it became available. If and instant userbase of say 30 million would have even been enough to capture the attention of developers?

Who knows. They tried to do exactly what you propose with the Playbook and failed to update it because BB10 needs more RAM than any other OS of the time. A potential Playbook-speced phone would have left many angry users behind.
Now imagine a Playbook 4G LTE/2GB phone that really had the necessary hardware. In that case BB had to develop 3 OSes
-BBOS for 7.1/6/5 devices
-BBOS for phones with updated hardware (dual core, LTE) that run BB10, too
-Tablet OS 1.x and further
BB didn't even manage to develop Tablet OS and BBOS7 at the same time. Tablet OS was one of the main reasons OS7 phones were pushed back a few months. So an adjusted BBOS7 for devices that were upgradeable would have been even worse than what they got because Mike and Jim were too late with QNX and presented a Tablet that was not ready to release.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Who knows. They tried do exactly what you propose with the Playbook and failed to update it because BB10 needs more RAM than any other OS of the time. A potential Playbook-speced phone would have left many angry users behind.
Now imagine a Playbook 4G LTE/2GB phone that really had the necessary hardware. In that case BB had to develop 3 OSes
-BBOS for 7.1/6/5 devices
-BBOS for phones with updated hardware (dual core, LTE) that run BB10, too
-Tablet OS 1.x and further
BB didn't even manage to develop Tablet OS and BBOS7 at the same time. Tablet OS was one of the main reasons OS7 phones were pushed back a few months. So an adjusted BBOS7 for devices that were upgradeable would have been even worse than what they got because Mike and Jim were too late with QNX and presented a Tablet that was not ready to release.

BLACKBERRY....

Yeah they would have never pulled it off. But it's clear looking at Android and iOS that an OS doesn't have to be so bloated.

The whole transition and counting on both existing developer and users to support them through it was... shortsighted to say the least. But it's clear no one had a clue what it would really take to build this new OS. I bet even Mike and Jim at some point later wished they had bought Palm and saved themselves years and billions. I bet at some point Thor and Chen wished that they had also....


But what happened with HP and Palm, and BlackBerry and the PlayBook... should have stopped everyone at BlackBerry.

[Fool Guy]

(no matter what BB administration supporters say here) BB did nothing to get enough OS/Device traction in market and then sent all negative indications about BB10 feature.
Tizen which has just a fraction presence in market have FB,Opera,WhatsApp and many Apps just because Samsung did everything to attract developers.
For Sailfish community is doing lots of work.
Here in BB they did everything to discourage developers and users.

[DrBoomBotz]

Quick Question: Why is it so hard for top App developers like Facebook,Google,Netflix,SnapChat..etc to develop apps for BB10, is it that much of pain to at least port the freaking app to BlackBerry World?

Even if BlackBerry possess a small market compared to Android and IOS they can attract a small percentage of people using BlackBerry..

Its not a technical problem.
Its just business.
It is a substantial amount of work for a very small return.
BB10 customers will figure out at their own pace that if they wan't apps they can move to supported platforms.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Its not a technical problem.
Its just business.
It is a substantial amount of work for a very small return.
BB10 customers will figure out at their own pace that if they wan't apps they can move to supported platforms.

I wouldn't even say it's a substantial amount of work.. let's face it most Android Apps can be ported pretty easily. And from what I understood depending on how the developer was making their Apps back then, taking them native might not have been too hard.

[Maxxxpower]

Yeah they would have never pulled it off.

Perhaps, a QNX OS with BBOS Java App Player would have been a better idea (than QNX with Android), especially when it comes to RAM usage, to prevent the app gap. We'll never know

[DrBoomBotz]

I wouldn't even say it's a substantial amount of work.. let's face it most Android Apps can be ported pretty easily. And from what I understood depending on how the developer was making their Apps back then, taking them native might not have been too hard.

The actual porting is either trivial or not worth pursuing.
Its the QA and the support that add up.

[DreadPirateRegan]

With all this info on "No return investment" BlackBerry has no chance even if they were to come up with a revamped "BlackBerry 12"

Windows has a hard time launching there own OS and they have piles of cash to throw at it..

So it means that the future of the smartphone market is Google and IOS..

Via-Blackberry Passport Silver Edition

Wish microsoft would buy BlackBerry as in see what it is and do what blackberry can't as in advertising the hell out of it!..

There was that rumor long ago but at the same time if they did no telling if they would ruin it or keep quality up! Microsoft last two investments were horrible so I doubt they will but wow, I think it would pay off if they were serious about it!...

Wonder if bill himself has ever even played with a passport or BlackBerry 10 for that matter for a day or so.... swipe swipe, no tap tap equals wait wait, no thank you!

#Teamblackberry (bb10 as in the REAL blackberry!)

Posted via CB10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Wish microsoft would buy BlackBerry as in see what it is and do what blackberry can't as in advertising the hell out of it!..

There was that rumor long ago but at the same time if they did no telling if they would ruin it or keep quality up! Microsoft last two investments were horrible so I doubt they will but wow, I think it would pay off if they were serious about it!...

Wonder if bill himself has ever even played with a passport or BlackBerry 10 for that matter for a day or so.... swipe swipe, no tap tap equals wait wait, no thank you!

#Teamblackberry (bb10 as in the REAL blackberry!)

Posted via CB10

Yeah there have been a number of buy out rumors... only the Leveno one has really been sort/kinda confirmed.

If MS bought BlackBerry, it would have been for EMM and other security communications... They would have replaced the phone OS with Windows, and might have even tried to replace QNX with their buggy Windows RT.

Today... IBM is really the only one I'd see being interested in BlackBerry. But again not for hardware or BB10.

But that is the problem... BlackBerry has a lot of legacy stuff that a new owner would be responsible for. It's not like you can one day say... Hey we are shutting down the BlackBerry network next week.

[Aju]

Try researching what it would cost to build your own house on your own property. You'd find it's comparatively inexpensive if you do all the work yourself, only hire inspectors as you need them, etc.

Then research what it would cost you to build that exact same house for someone else. Suddenly your costs go way, WAY up, because now, you need a license, insurance, etc. And when you have to hire people to do the work for you, it's exponentially more expensive.

It's cheap to work on your own car. It's expensive to work on other people's cars - when you have to lease a garage, stock it with tools, and hire mechanics, and get a business license, insurance, pay taxes, etc.

Nemory can spend 100 hours a week for weeks on end writing a FB app, and perhaps he makes enough money to make it worth it for him, but a real company must hire professional developers, and pay them professional wages with benefits and taxes, buy or lease a building to house them, provide them with computers and cubicles and chairs and offices and on and on and on. And if they want more than 40 hours of work a week, they have to pay even more, or hire additional developers.

If you don't understand the difference, then clearly you've never run a real business before.

What about nemory or any sort of developer asking these companies to provide their api and these developers making it available for BlackBerry either for a fee or free (if the company can pay just the money for a single developer)?

Q10SQN100-3/10.3.2.2876

[app_Developer]

What about nemory or any sort of developer asking these companies to provide their api and these developers making it available for BlackBerry either for a fee or free (if the company can pay just the money for a single developer)?

So let's look at a banking app as an example. If Nemory came to me and asked me for this I would say no for several reasons.

I'd be giving the 3rd party access to APIs, including critical services like identity, which we don't share normally. How will I explain that to regulators? What security issues does that introduce?

I can't control the quality of the 3rd party app. Or the design of it. For companies like us who invest billions in our brand, this reason alone is enough to say absolutely no to letting Nemory or some other free agent make an app.

If something goes wrong while using the 3rd party app, our customers won't call the developer. They will call us. Or worse walk into a branch asking why the app won't let them complete a transfer. Then what is my branch mgr supposed to say?

I would have an even more complicated sequence now for maintaining and evolving critical internal APIs, because now I'd have external dependents.

I can't support an external developer from the perspective of legal, design, network security, test data/accounts, API teams, etc., etc.

Those are just off the top of my head. You may say that banking is an extreme example, but even Netflix has all the same concerns that I would have. This (and some other reasons) are why Netflix cut off most of their external APIs.

All of this for what? For a tiny, tiny number of our customers who use BB10. It's such a small number that I can't possibly justify to myself or my leadership why we should spend money trying to solve these issues.

[paulwallace1234]

What about nemory or any sort of developer asking these companies to provide their api and these developers making it available for BlackBerry either for a fee or free (if the company can pay just the money for a single developer)?

Q10SQN100-3/10.3.2.2876

No major company would do that, remember the developer has the code, the control; companies would rather have no App on a platform like BB10 then have no control .

[Richard Buckley]

So let's look at a banking app as an example. If Nemory came to me and asked me for this I would say no for several reasons.

...

This is an interesting thesis, but for any company that provides web access it is not true. HTTP/HTML are open APIS. Once you have accessed the web page you have everything you need to do anything the user could have done on that page, including loading subsequent pages. On mobile devices that have WebView objects in their libraries this isn't even very difficult. SSL/TLS doesn't prevent this because the user obviously has the credentials to log in. If they want to use an application rather than the website they will enter the credentials when prompted.

I wrote Google Maps into an application as an extra feature. It didn't take very long and has required zero maintenance. I am still surprised by what people say that they are able to do with it. Now, doing Facebook the same way but adding in platform features like hub integration would take more work and requires more maintenance, but the lack of a published API wouldn't stop me.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

[app_Developer]

This is an interesting thesis, but for any company that provides web access it is not true. HTTP/HTML are open APIS. Once you have accessed the web page you have everything you need to do anything the user could have done on that page, including loading subsequent pages. On mobile devices that have WebView objects in their libraries this isn't even very difficult. SSL/TLS doesn't prevent this because the user obviously has the credentials to log in. If they want to use an application rather than the website they will enter the credentials when prompted.

I wrote Google Maps into an application as an extra feature. It didn't take very long and has required zero maintenance. I am still surprised by what people say that they are able to do with it. Now, doing Facebook the same way but adding in platform features like hub integration would take more work and requires more maintenance, but the lack of a published API wouldn't stop me.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

And this is one reason why we don't offer all the same features (with the same limits) on the web as we do in our apps.

[Richard Buckley]

And this is one reason why we don't offer all the same features (with the same limits) on the web as we do in our apps.

That may be true for your bank, but it is not for all companies. Both of the Banks I deal with provide fewer options in their mobile applications than on their websites.

As I said it is a good thesis, and I commend your company for being astute enough to realise the implications of web based access. I'll even go so far as to assume you securely authenticate the application before allowing a user to login with it. Facebook doesn't even though they have taken their API private, otherwise Face10 wouldn't work, nor would the old BB10 Facebook application. SnapChat tries to only allow users to use applications written in house, with some, but not encouraging, success.

But my point is that when you allow web access you either have to limit the browser type and versions, or you end up in the same position of having to support very diverse and variable quality browsers of all vintages. Limiting the browser type and version does not necessarily improve the customer experience though. I recently went through an experience where I had to use IE version prior to 11, or IE 11 in compatibility mode. How many users do you think would call Google because they couldn't access the site with Chrome?

[app_Developer]

But my point is that when you allow web access you either have to limit the browser type and versions, or you end up in the same position of having to support very diverse and variable quality browsers of all vintages. Limiting the browser type and version does not necessarily improve the customer experience though. I recently went through an experience where I had to use IE version prior to 11, or IE 11 in compatibility mode. How many users do you think would call Google because they couldn't access the site with Chrome?

Yes, of course we have to restrict access by browser type/version. Otherwise we'd create a nightmare for our teams. We use the same data to make those decisions. If the cost of supporting browser version X exceeds the aggregate value of supporting those customers who still use X, then we can't do it.

BTW, when we did this analysis with our BB10 users a while back we found that most of those users were also active users on our iPad app, or frequently connected via an Android device, etc. So that also is a factor in those decisions. You don't want to leave customers with no options, but there are diminishing returns to supporting every single gadget a user might have.

[Richard Buckley]

Yes, of course we have to restrict access by browser type/version. Otherwise we'd create a nightmare for our teams. We use the same data to make those decisions. If the cost of supporting browser version X exceeds the aggregate value of supporting those customers who still use X, then we can't do it.

BTW, when we did this analysis with our BB10 users a while back we found that most of those users were also active users on our iPad app, or frequently connected via an Android device, etc. So that also is a factor in those decisions. You don't want to leave customers with no options, but there are diminishing returns to supporting every single gadget a user might have.

I wish more developers would post this type of information. There is way too much of a persecution complex on here sometimes, with an underlying assumption that everyone supports everything except BlackBerry. Instead usually they are driven by customer use patterns and support as far down the popularity list as makes sense for their business.

LeapSTR100-2/10.3.2.2876

[app_Developer]

... usually they are driven by customer use patterns and support as far down the popularity list as makes sense for their business.

I think you have the one sentence, clear answer to the OP's question!

[Troy Tiscareno]

Facebook was mostly his.

While Zuck is FB's largest single shareholder, at 28.2%, FB is definitely not "mostly his," as that would mean 50.1% or greater percent ownership.