[BurningPlatform]

my friend, Marc didn't matter... who matter the most was the one who has power to replace him...

Well... isn't that exactly what I wrote?
I said that Marc had a vision of a normal OS with decent support for app development but those who truly rule the company clearly didn't like it so they replaced him even before the first device came out, and not much later made him quit the company. Since then they've been doing it their way, with results we all know: nearly zero native apps (and thus 100% reliance on the aging Android runtime) and marketshare so small that calling it "niche" would be a huge exaggeration and euphemism...

[anon(9184750)]

Blackberry 10 is still much better than SailfishOS. I bought a Jolla one year ago, but decided to go back to Blackberry because the OS is much better developed and even after this year, my BB is more comfortable than my Jolla and I wouldn't use it as a daily driver. I still have it because I want to see how the development is going on, but it is very slow

[tegar ramadhanu kariadinata]

I hope I can get it

Posted via CB10

[keyboardsrock]

There are decisions that baffle interested outsiders like me. One was mentioned in passing. Ubuntu and Sailfish are both trying to break into established markets, correct? There are only 5 HSPA frequencies on the whole world. Why weren't the phones equipped to use all 5 so they could be used with any sim card anywhere in the world? It seems like a no-brainer to me. Nokia had been doing so with all it's phones for at least several years prior to its not so burning platform.

The same could be seen with Blackberry. Back when TMobile started using its recently acquired 1900mHz spectrum, did Blackberry alter its phones to accommodate 1900 in addition to 1700/2100? Nope.

This is an issue when a carrier uses multiple frequencies where a person lives/works. I knew TMobile coverage was dodgy in my area. IIRC, TMobile was rather open about getting 1900 up and running in areas where they had weak coverage FIRST and worrying about capacity later. The lack of a BBerry that could use both 3G bands made BBerry a non-starter for me.

What's up with decisions like these? It almost looks like companies want to NOT sell their products.

[anon(9169048)]

Sailfish could stand a chance in the marketplace if they just put it on a device with somewhat reasonable internals.

[YesAndNo]

BB10 is stll the best for me.

Posted via CB10

[anon(9169048)]

BB10 is stll the best for me.

Posted via CB10

I agree with you, but we all need to accept that support for BB10 is going to end and because of BB's vagueness that end could happen sooner than anyone of us expect. It's important to acknowledge that there are more choices out there than Android and iOS. I have no idea if Sailfish or Ubuntu are going to survive or not but as far as I can see, either of those 2 OSes offer a complimentary experience to BB10. Are they better? That's up to you but if you don't want to follow the crowd and simply jump on the two dominant players then it's incumbent on you to do proper research.

[Kot Prada]

I agree with you, but we all need to accept that support for BB10 is going to end and because of BB's vagueness that end could happen sooner than anyone of us expect. It's important to acknowledge that there are more choices out there than Android and iOS. I have no idea if Sailfish or Ubuntu are going to survive or not but as far as I can see, either of those 2 OSes offer a complimentary experience to BB10. Are they better? That's up to you but if you don't want to follow the crowd and simply jump on the two dominant players then it's incumbent on you to do proper research.

Exactly! Just staying away from Android and iOS.

[tegar ramadhanu kariadinata]

BB10 is stll the best for me.

Posted via CB10

I agree with you

 Passport Silver Edition SQW-100-4 / 10.3.3.2049

[CrackNutRun]

Sailfish seems to be an interesting alternative to conscious-mobile-device-users /ex-blackberry users who don't want to support an oligopolistic and data-gathering market, either if this is the outcome of the free markets concept or not.

[BurningPlatform]

Sailfish seems to be an interesting alternative to conscious-mobile-device-users /ex-blackberry users who don't want to support an oligopolistic and data-gathering market

Now that Jolla seems to be owned by some Russian big fish, I'm no longer sure if in the future Sailfish OS won't be collecting data like Android or iOS, just for different organisations and services.

[Chuck Finley69]

Now that Jolla seems to be owned by some Russian big fish, I'm no longer sure if in the future Sailfish OS won't be collecting data like Android or iOS, just for different organisations and services.

Who needs CIA or the NSA when you've got the GRU and the SVR?

[FirstBerry101]

Until I can instal sailfish on my passport, not sure how it is going to help me

Posted via CB10

[CrackNutRun]

So I guess it's oligarchy vs oligopoly... very encouraging and promising indeed. Especially for the generations to come. I mean, what's gonna be like in ten years from now?

Going back to the oligopoly issue I have mentioned in my previous post, I would like to add one more point. I read people's comments about the fair development of a smart business plan from Google. In other words these people support the argument that the stronger players have simply won the game. Ironically,they forget the taxes Google forgot to pay back home, by hiding part of its profits in various "friendly" European countries (e.g -Ireland, Luxembourg, etc). I am proud to use a device (q10) produced by a company that has never been accused of tax avoidance... Is this the strongest player or the least ethical one. I mean what are we teaching to the children?

[Chuck Finley69]

So I guess it's oligarchy vs oligopoly... very encouraging and promising indeed. Especially for the generations to come. I mean, what's gonna be like in ten years from now?

Going back to the oligopoly issue I have mentioned in my previous post, I would like to add one more point. I read people's comments about the fair development of a smart business plan from Google. In other words these people support the argument that the stronger players have simply won the game. Ironically,they forget the taxes Google forgot to pay back home, by hiding part of its profits in various "friendly" European countries (e.g -Ireland, Luxembourg, etc). I am proud to use a device (q10) produced by a company that has never been accused of tax avoidance... Is this the strongest player or the least ethical one. I mean what are we teaching to the children?

It's ethical responsibilities are to its shareholders and the USA government allowed it's tax avoidance legally.

[Invictus0]

Now that Jolla seems to be owned by some Russian big fish

Source?

[BurningPlatform]

Source?

Lots of them. For example:

Sailfish OS has been developed by the Finnish company Jolla, which was created by natives of Nokia. They have developed the platform since 2012. In 2015, they were joined by the Russian businessman Grigory Berezkin as a majority shareholder. For many years he has been in the top-200 largest businessmen of Russia according to Forbes, at the initial stage he was actively engaged in the sale of oil and collaborated with Roman Abramovich. His ESN group is engaged in energy supply business, it includes engineering companies and media (owner of the brand Komsomolskaya Pravda, his daughter is CEO of the company, who publishes Metro, the largest metropolitan daily newspaper).

Source : https://realnoevremya.com/articles/1...ut-sailfish-os

In fact, 60% of the shares of this Jolla holds a Russian businessman Grigory Berezkin, the founder of the holding company UST, so it is almost a domestic product

Source: http://micetimes.asia/mail-of-russia...hones-inoi-r7/

In 2015, the structures of Berezkin became co-owners of the Finnish company Jolla, created by natives of Nokia.

Source: https://rusletter.com/articles/how_g...eds_mass_media

Moreover, it looks that half of Jolla's board is now Russians:

Pavel Eyges, Boris Krasnovsky, Irina Esipenko, Grigory Berezkin and more.

https://www.finder.fi/Matkapuhelimia...tiedot/2640873
https://www.is.fi/taloussanomat/art-2000005177071.html

The question is why don't they openly say it.

[CrackNutRun]

It's ethical responsibilities are to its shareholders and the USA government allowed it's tax avoidance legally.

First of all, USA government never allowed that. I don't know about the current situation. What I do know though is that the previous US government was putting pressure on EU for this particular reason.
Moreover, I have to admit that I don't really understand your definition of a public company. It's usually the senior managers' role to shape/ define the corporate culture and to defuse it to the rest of the company.
Finally even if things were as you think - meaning US government allowed tax avoidance in EU, then you have to keep in mind that ethics is not simply about obeying to the law. Ethics is about the continuous process of judging and self improving. And many more...

[Chuck Finley69]

First of all, USA government never allowed that. I don't know about the current situation. What I do know though is that the previous US government was putting pressure on EU for this particular reason.
Moreover, I have to admit that I don't really understand your definition of a public company. It's usually the senior managers' role to shape/ define the corporate culture and to defuse it to the rest of the company.
Finally even if things were as you think - meaning US government allowed tax avoidance in EU, then you have to keep in mind that ethics is not simply about obeying to the law. Ethics is about the continuous process of judging and self improving. And many more...

Are you in the USA, and using or subject to American laws and regulations?

[app_Developer]

First of all, USA government never allowed that. I don't know about the current situation. What I do know though is that the previous US government was putting pressure on EU for this particular reason.
Moreover, I have to admit that I don't really understand your definition of a public company. It's usually the senior managers' role to shape/ define the corporate culture and to defuse it to the rest of the company.
Finally even if things were as you think - meaning US government allowed tax avoidance in EU, then you have to keep in mind that ethics is not simply about obeying to the law. Ethics is about the continuous process of judging and self improving. And many more...

I agree with the push for ethics, but I totally disagree with your conclusion.

Companies like alphabet have investors from all over the world. Most investors are not Americans. So if I’m running a retirement fund in India and I have money in GOOG, why should my money go to the US government when it is not legally necessary? In other words the CFO of a company should have as her/his first priority the return to investors, who are from all over the globe. If there exist legal ways to reduce tax burden on the company it is literally their job to find those ways. That’s what we all, as investors or people who have pension/retirement funds, pay these people to do.

[glwerry]

So I guess it's oligarchy vs oligopoly... very encouraging and promising indeed. Especially for the generations to come. I mean, what's gonna be like in ten years from now?

Going back to the oligopoly issue I have mentioned in my previous post, I would like to add one more point. I read people's comments about the fair development of a smart business plan from Google. In other words these people support the argument that the stronger players have simply won the game. Ironically,they forget the taxes Google forgot to pay back home, by hiding part of its profits in various "friendly" European countries (e.g -Ireland, Luxembourg, etc). I am proud to use a device (q10) produced by a company that has never been accused of tax avoidance... Is this the strongest player or the least ethical one. I mean what are we teaching to the children?

Uhhhh - have you seen that APPLE has also been doing that? This may be 2016 news, I do confess that I don't follow it that closely.

[EFats]

Doesn't matter where your investors reside. It's a publicly listed company based in America and as far as I understand it, the executives have a legal responsibility to maximize the return for their shareholders (unless the shareholders vote otherwise), as much as can be legally allowed.

If you want Google (or Apple or whoever) to pay their "fair" share of taxes and not have offshore offices, you go to the shareholders meeting and put in your motion and have the shareholders vote on it.

Do I think Google is being "ethical"? No, but they are following their legal obligations. Seeing as I do not own any Google shares, there's not much I can do at the moment.

[CrackNutRun]

I agree with the push for ethics, but I totally disagree with your conclusion.

Companies like alphabet have investors from all over the world. Most investors are not Americans. So if I’m running a retirement fund in India and I have money in GOOG, why should my money go to the US government when it is not legally necessary? In other words the CFO of a company should have as her/his first priority the return to investors, who are from all over the globe. If there exist legal ways to reduce tax burden on the company it is literally their job to find those ways. That’s what we all, as investors or people who have pension/retirement funds, pay these people to do.

20% of the corporate US revenue are lost due to the shifting of corporate profits to tax heavens - this is legal (whatever it's consequences). 11.5% of the entire world's G.D.P. Is held offshore in tax heavens and most of it it's not being reported to the relevant tax authorities. This is illegal

(see: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ax-evasion.htm)

Regarding the aforementioned consequences, these have already become part of the agenda of the CEOs, CFOs and policy makers around the world. (see: )

The last point I want to make is again about ethics and about the shareholders/ investors. In order to examine this issue we first need to distinguish the various types of investors. On one end there are the shareholders who hold significant percentages of companies and on the other end there are the investors who usually invest their money through a fund (of whatever type). Apparently the last category are just the tip of the iceberg, whereas the the first type of investors are playing a more significant part to what I am trying to explain. Nevertheless ethics envelope everyone. Even those who are not familiar with the term investment. Everybody is shaping the world we live in. And we have to remember that we have actually borrowed this world from the generations to come.

[CrackNutRun]

Are you in the USA, and using or subject to American laws and regulations?

Does it matter? Even if I don't comply with your standards, don't I have the right to express my opinion?

[Chuck Finley69]

20% of the corporate US revenue are lost due to the shifting of corporate profits to tax heavens - this is legal (whatever it's consequences). 11.5% of the entire world's G.D.P. Is held offshore in tax heavens and most of it it's not being reported to the relevant tax authorities. This is illegal

(see: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ax-evasion.htm)

Regarding the aforementioned consequences, these have already become part of the agenda of the CEOs, CFOs and policy makers around the world. (see: )

The last point I want to make is again about ethics and about the shareholders/ investors. In order to examine this issue we first need to distinguish the various types of investors. On one end there are the shareholders who hold significant percentages of companies and on the other end there are the investors who usually invest their money through a fund (of whatever type). Apparently the last category are just the tip of the iceberg, whereas the the first type of investors are playing a more significant part to what I am trying to explain. Nevertheless ethics envelope everyone. Even those who are not familiar with the term investment. Everybody is shaping the world we live in. And we have to remember that we have actually borrowed this world from the generations to come.

The point you're missing is that company paid it's correct share of taxes according to its domicile government laws. If you don't like it, you have to change the laws. Companies executives are legally and ethically mandated to act in shareholders best interests. Period.