[KAM1138]

BlackBerry can and does charge its licencees for BlackBerry Android.

Publishing the kernel changes is actually a Linux requirement. As far as Google is concerned, as long as you are compatible (and agree to other terms defined by the OHA), you get their apps.

They Charge for "Blackberry Android" --but I still haven't seen that defined anywhere, and I think I've asked you to define precisely what you mean by it, and you posted a link to a document that didn't use that term.

I THINK (and do feel free to clarify) that when you say "Blackberry Android" you're talking about more than just the modification to the Kernel. It also includes Apps that they provide.

So, let's say that Company X takes Base Android, and modifies the Kernel, but produces no other software. Can they sell JUST that modified OS?

[conite]

They Charge for "Blackberry Android" --but I still haven't seen that defined anywhere, and I think I've asked you to define precisely what you mean by it, and you posted a link to a document that didn't use that term.

I THINK (and do feel free to clarify) that when you say "Blackberry Android" you're talking about more than just the modification to the Kernel. It also includes Apps that they provide.

So, let's say that Company X takes Base Android, and modifies the Kernel, but produces no other software. Can they sell JUST that modified OS?

You are permitted to sell your work. Sure. There is no committee to adjudicate the reasonableness of said "work".

[KAM1138]

I think of myself as a technical, as opposed to fundamental, analyst. I am using real world, comparable numbers in my estimates. I don't need to understand the nuts of bolts of specific app development, I only have to assume that the entire industry is somewhat representative.

While your "gut" may serve you well, I'm far less convinced of your estimates.

Well, I'd say I'm making something short of an "estimate" when I say that 50 seems like too many. I'm expressing Skepticism--because that number seems high.

Does that number seem high to you?

I'm guessing that there are probably a large number of Calculator apps. Do you think "the entire industry" of Calculator app makers require 50 people to MAINTAIN those apps?

Because again--to me, that sounds like a very large effort--my guess.

[conite]

Well, I'd say I'm making something short of an "estimate" when I say that 50 seems like too many. I'm expressing Skepticism--because that number seems high.

Does that number seem high to you?

I'm guessing that there are probably a large number of Calculator apps. Do you think "the entire industry" of Calculator app makers require 50 people to MAINTAIN those apps?

Because again--to me, that sounds like a very large effort--my guess.

You're bunged up over one app. Look at the bigger picture.

[KAM1138]

You are permitted to sell your work. Sure. There is no committee to adjudicate the reasonableness of said "work".

Well, not just ANY work--specifically a modified Android OS.

See--the thing I'm wondering about is if Google would provide an asset to a third party (for free), but then allow them to make some sort of change and then Sell the modified product for profit.

Here's an example using...let's say Digital prints of art. If a company provides free downloads of an Image to anyone, and also allows me to take that Image, change a color (for example) and then sell it for profit, that would strike me as odd.

I'm thinking of various entities that allow you to use their product under the condition you don't use it for profit.

Not saying this is how Google works--I'm just thinking of other examples of "free" licensing.

Well, this is surprising to hear that Google allows people to take their OS, modify it and then sell it for profit. Very surprised to hear that, but I have no information from which to dispute you.

I hope that conclusion is acceptable to the reviewers of my postings.

[conite]

Well, not just ANY work--specifically a modified Android OS.

See--the thing I'm wondering about is if Google would provide an asset to a third party (for free), but then allow them to make some sort of change and then Sell the modified product for profit.

Here's an example using...let's say Digital prints of art. If a company provides free downloads of an Image to anyone, and also allows me to take that Image, change a color (for example) and then sell it for profit, that would strike me as odd.

I'm thinking of various entities that allow you to use their product under the condition you don't use it for profit.

Not saying this is how Google works--I'm just thinking of other examples of "free" licensing.

Well, this is surprising to hear that Google allows people to take their OS, modify it and then sell it for profit. Very surprised to hear that, but I have no information from which to dispute you.

I hope that conclusion is acceptable to the reviewers of my postings.

Base Android is Open Source. You can do whatever you want.

But why would someone buy it from you unless you put significant work into it?

[KAM1138]

You're bunged up over one app. Look at the bigger picture.

Well, you know very well this isn't about one app. It's about whether your claims are reasonable, and whether you're willing to actually stand behind your claims or whether you want to shift that burden to some other developers claims, regardless of how ridiculous they sound.

I SUSPECT you might be engaging in a little big of evasion here.

[conite]

Well, you know very well this isn't about one app. It's about whether your claims are reasonable, and whether you're willing to actually stand behind your claims or whether you want to shift that burden to some other developers claims, regardless of how ridiculous they sound.

I SUSPECT you might be engaging in a little big of evasion here.

For the 10th time, I will let the lead BB10 clock app developer speak for himself. I will take his estimate over either of ours.

I don't know what issues he was facing, nor do I care.

I'm more interested in the big picture.

[KAM1138]

Base Android is Open Source. You can do whatever you want.

But why would someone buy it from you unless you put significant work into it?

Well, I don't think most people would. I was trying to understand whether Google placed a restriction on the sale of their OS (modified), similar to the other examples (from different industries).

I think generally, companies expect some sort of return or other benefit from THEIR work(in the case of google perhaps the massive information gathering is good enough), and therefore place restrictions on others profiting from the thing they provide for "free."

Open source being "free" isn't what I was surprised by--it was someone else being able to add to it and profit from the product that is largely Google's.

[conite]

Well, I don't think most people would. I was trying to understand whether Google placed a restriction on the sale of their OS (modified), similar to the other examples (from different industries).

I think generally, companies expect some sort of return or other benefit from THEIR work(in the case of google perhaps the massive information gathering is good enough), and therefore place restrictions on others profiting from the thing they provide for "free."

Open source being "free" isn't what I was surprised by--it was someone else being able to add to it and profit from the product that is largely Google's.

Well, you have your answer.

[app_Developer]

Based on what?

I remember looking for the balance sheet line you all were relying on and more or less debunking this theory. It wasn't that big an item during the time in question if I recall correctly. It's been years. But you're the ones always making this claim so what is it based on?

Also, I think that would be shareholder fraud because Chen made regular statements that the phone business was viable and they would hit the 10 or 5 million unit mark. Also, I remember watching Chen sell the Passport on CNBC. No CEO is doing this stuff knowing the product is going to flop. Things aren't that predictable.

I still believe that if Chen rolled out the Passport the right way it would have saved the company. It was that revolutionary of a device -- with or without all apps. Not quite iPhone revolutionary but still revolutionary.

This is my opinion. You can have yours, too.



Posted via CB10

I recall that interaction differently. The purchase commitments were in the several hundred million range at that time on their quarterly filings and then decreased over the course of the wind down of that business.

Chen did set targets for break-even for the phone division. Those targets were never met. So he didn't lie about that technically, but at the same time the targets were probably unrealistic. And I think we can both agree that the company stopped putting serious efforts into advertising the platform, and moved to low budget, low volume options.

During that period, Chen could not have been more clear to investors that the future of BB was in software. Watsa could not have been more clear to his own investors and to other BB investors when he picked a software guy to be his CEO.

[KAM1138]

For the 10th time, I will let the lead BB10 clock app developer speak for himself. I will take his estimate over either of ours.

I don't know what issues he was facing, nor do I care.

I'm more interested in the big picture.

Yeah, I think you're interested in whatever suits you for the moment. You state something definitively--AGAIN claiming that his claim is so good that you won't even apply your own common sense to evaluating whether it is reasonable.

But previously you said you were being "facetious" regarding that claim.

Before that you used that (and other similar claims to INSIST that your other claims were valid.

If your "Big Picture" is based off wildly inflated claims, and estimates from different entities, from situations that aren't particularly good matches, then I question the accuracy of your "big picture" assessment.

That's NOT To say that GENERALLY a given opinion is wrong--rather, I think you play very fast and lose with "facts" when it suits you, but tend to present your positions as unassailable.

BUT...this horse is dead as hell, and I've this conversation will inevitably end up nowhere...kind of like Blackberry! OH, SICK BURN!

Ok, so...see you in...another 6 months, when I make the mistake of reading the forums.

[conite]

Yeah, I think you're interested in whatever suits you for the moment. You state something definitively--AGAIN claiming that his claim is so good that you won't even apply your own common sense to evaluating whether it is reasonable.

But previously you said you were being "facetious" regarding that claim.

Before that you used that (and other similar claims to INSIST that your other claims were valid.

If your "Big Picture" is based off wildly inflated claims, and estimates from different entities, from situations that aren't particularly good matches, then I question the accuracy of your "big picture" assessment.

That's NOT To say that GENERALLY a given opinion is wrong--rather, I think you play very fast and lose with "facts" when it suits you, but tend to present your positions as unassailable.

BUT...this horse is dead as hell, and I've this conversation will inevitably end up nowhere...kind of like Blackberry! OH, SICK BURN!

Ok, so...see you in...another 6 months, when I make the mistake of reading the forums.

I will take his ACTUAL figure over your common sense. Any day of the week.

[KAM1138]

It's now called Android One.

Right. I recall hearing seeing that. NOT the same thing as "100% Google"--thanks.

[KAM1138]

I will take his ACTUAL figure over your common sense. Any day of the week.

See--this is why I don't trust what you say. Because I think you know VERY WELL that this 50 Engineer to maintain a Clock app thing is UTTER NONSENSE.

If you ARE that stupid (keep in mind, I think you ARE NOT that Stupid) to think 50 Engineers for that effort is a reasonable estimate, then I would feel VERY sorry for anyone you're doing business with, because your disconnect form reality would be IMMENSE.

Again--I don't think you ARE disconnected from reality--I think you just have a personality quirk that doesn't seem to allow you to admit when you've overstated things or are incorrect, or likely mistaken.

Further--Do you expect me to believe that your familiarity with Apps and the mobile business in general wouldn't allow you to make an estimate--OF ANY KIND?

No--you're being insanely evasive. You're a HOOT.

Otherwise, I think someone's probably got a REALLY good Deal on a Bridge in Brooklyn you should look into.

[KAM1138]

I will take his ACTUAL figure over your common sense. Any day of the week.

And you'd probably be incorrect. I'd bet $1000 that it doesn't take 50 Engineers full time to maintain a clock and calculator app.

Maybe you should look into why you suffer from appeal to authority so strongly?

[conite]

And you'd probably be incorrect. I'd bet $1000 that it doesn't take 50 Engineers full time to maintain a clock and calculator app.

Maybe you should look into why you suffer from appeal to authority so strongly?

Once again: "We developed the Clock and Weather apps from scratch, and we took over maintenance of the Compass and Calculator apps that had been developed in other parts of BB. (No, there aren't any hidden features in those apps.) Plus, we worked on the Android version of Docs To Go (which never got released as standalone product), fixing bugs and adding features (like Good Dynamics support)."

[KAM1138]

Once again: "We developed the Clock and Weather apps from scratch, and we took over maintenance of the Compass and Calculator apps that had been developed in other parts of BB. (No, there aren't any hidden features in those apps.) Plus, we worked on the Android version of Docs To Go (which never got released as standalone product), fixing bugs and adding features (like Good Dynamics support)."

ACTUALLY You said:

They would need the same crew today to bring BB10 to modern hardware. They would be basically starting all over again.

50 engineers would barely keep the clock and calculator apps going.

So, if that "50" was actually applied to ALL those other things--DEVELOPING Apps (and not just two), then your Hyperbole is the issue in the first place--as I accurately pointed out. You later claimed this was "Facetious."

But of course, we've been talking about the Case of "50 Engineers to Maintain a Clock and Calculator App" (based on your statement).

So...my "common sense" is perhaps quite a bit closer than your wild hyperbole--which is based on misusing something you heard.

[conite]

ACTUALLY You said:

I sure did.

I will resolve to be 100% serious going forward - starting now.

[anon(5597702)]

Someone post the gif of Jon Stewart eating popcorn. (Posting from CB10 app so I can't)

Posted via CB10

[KAM1138]

I sure did.

I will resolve to be 100% serious going forward - starting now.

Well, I think it's likely you were serious to begin with--and you were Hilariously off, and tried to subsequently make the excuse that you were being "facetious."

Not that someone CAN'T make a joke--I just don't think you were--as evidenced by your MOUNTAIN of evasiveness regarding this silly issue. But I guess I'm to blame too for not letting you go.

[KAM1138]

I sure did.

I will resolve to be 100% serious going forward - starting now.

So, what you actually did is take a bit of information and wildly misapply it to your claims here--being very inaccurate, in order to justify your hyperbolic claims, and to tell the other poster how terribly wrong he was--like you tend to do with anyone who disagree with you.

It's ok--we all have our little issues.

[anon(5597702)]

So, what you actually did is take a bit of information and wildly misapply it to your claims here--being very inaccurate, in order to justify your hyperbolic claims, and to tell the other poster how terribly wrong he was--like you tend to do with anyone who disagree with you.

It's ok--we all have our little issues.

Good summary!

Posted via CB10

[conite]

So, what you actually did is take a bit of information and wildly misapply it to your claims here--being very inaccurate, in order to justify your hyperbolic claims, and to tell the other poster how terribly wrong he was--like you tend to do with anyone who disagree with you.

It's ok--we all have our little issues.

Good summary!

Posted via CB10

The original claim was that 50 developers coulld produce an OS. I countered by saying 50 developers could barely handle a couple of apps. Despite the off-the-cuff exaggeration, I'm 99.9% closer to the truth, which I subsequently provided multiple times.

I'm done.

[KAM1138]

Ok, so now...Conite,

Are you willing to revisit what you think would be a reasonable number to MAINTAIN a Clock and Calculator App. I'm willing to stand by my GUESS of 1 Engineer being sufficient.

Can you do better?

Let me cut to the chase--I did a very brief internet search on how much it costs to develop an app, and while the range of this can vary greatly, here's what I found.

To DEVELOP an app--the information I found states:
$10,000+ (Up to $40,000, assuming $100 per hour rate--up to 400 Hours) for a Simple App.
A Moderate App $40,000 to $80,000 (or 400 to 800 hours).
A complex app $75,000 to $150,000 (or 800 to 1500 hours).

Now, this is only one source, and it's for development. I suggest that MAINTAINING an app that's already working would be significantly less. But let's assume for the moment that Maintaining it would require the same yearly fee as developing.

The TOP END of that would be 1500 hours. Or approximately 75% of a Year of work (2000 hrs roughly).

My guess was 1 for TWO--or 50% of a year for one (split evenly). Seems my guess was reasonably close to this information.

Please bear in mind this was the FIRST thing I found--I did not shop around for this, nor did my guess come AFTER I found this information, but you'll have to trust me on that.

OH--here is that website I was getting that information from.
https://thinkmobiles.com/blog/how-much-cost-make-app/
I WILL offer the disclaimer that I have no verification as to this Site's accuracy.