[Bla1ze]

Keep hanging onto those false hopes and dreams.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

Ahh but a juicy steak sandwich on a toasted french baguette....really only needs salt pepper and some nice carmalized onions (on a backyard grill or even campfire)..&..doesn't need all the condiments, that a razor thin flavourless patty might....but sure throw a few frozen disks on the grill in the sandbox if you need'em.

[djsvet]

You know what's F-ed up about this story (not related to BB10) - OEMs will be paying for GAPPS, which means consumers as well, but Google will not top spying on us.

Android is the most expensive OS only everyone think it's free.
Posted via CB10

[meilenstein]

How many times must this dead horse be beaten?

Posted via CB10

[Blackberryphosphamide]

Android is the most expensive OS only everyone think it's free.
Posted via CB10

Can you elaborate on this? Only I'm thinking about how I went from an iPhone 3GS>Q10>Passport>Key². I got the iPhone not long after release. For the Q10 I was a year late. For the Passport I was almost 2 years late. For the Key² I got it fairly soon. If I'd gotten each of these phones on the day that they were released I could have picked up a contract for between £35-£40 per month inclusive of handset cost.

In actuality I paid an upfront fee for the iPhone to lower my monthly payments and for my Key² I got an upgrade offer to stay with the same network. Put those factors aside and the OS would have had no impact on what I would have to pay.

[anon(10268214)]

Then again you can look at the $40 or $20 licence fee proposition inside out, and say...hey WOW! That's a small price to get BB10 on a phone again!

Too bad BlackBerry didn't have the resources of the EU (Lol) or they might have attempted it. Then again, John Chen had no intention of staying in the device business from the day he was hired. So, no chance regardless. And none now either, because bringing BB10 back with a refreshed Android fork would be a licensing fee on top of another licensing fee and there's at least 10 people left willing to pay for it. Not to mention zero potential licensees willing to take that kind of investment risk.

Posted via CB10

[djsvet]

Can you elaborate on this? Only I'm thinking about how I went from an iPhone 3GS>Q10>Passport>Key². I got the iPhone not long after release. For the Q10 I was a year late. For the Passport I was almost 2 years late. For the Key² I got it fairly soon. If I'd gotten each of these phones on the day that they were released I could have picked up a contract for between £35-£40 per month inclusive of handset cost.

In actuality I paid an upfront fee for the iPhone to lower my monthly payments and for my Key² I got an upgrade offer to stay with the same network. Put those factors aside and the OS would have had no impact on what I would have to pay.

The cost for using Android device isn't upfront. Google makes tons of money on our backs in exchange of reduced battery life, our privacy and more.

Now, at least in EU, not only they will track and sell you, you will have to pay upfront. Even if someone decides to uninstall their apps, so many other apps are dependent of Google Play services and so you will be forced to keep them. They aren't stupid.

Posted via CB10

[Blackberryphosphamide]

Google makes tons of money on our backs in exchange of reduced battery life, our privacy and more.

Now, at least in EU, not only they will track and sell you, you will have to pay upfront.

Posted via CB10

My battery life is doing great, if anything it was terrible on my iPhone. In a sense my privacy was screwed long before I picked up an Android device but so far I haven't become a victim of financial or identity fraud. The only apps I have are free apps and none of them have adverts that I'm particularly fussed about. I understand how Google make money but it's really no more expensive for me as a consumer to use an Android phone over any other.

[Chuck Finley69]

The cost for using Android device isn't upfront. Google makes tons of money on our backs in exchange of reduced battery life, our privacy and more.

Now, at least in EU, not only they will track and sell you, you will have to pay upfront. Even if someone decides to uninstall their apps, so many other apps are dependent of Google Play services and so you will be forced to keep them. They aren't stupid.

Posted via CB10

You should thank EU for their "help" and vote them out......

[conite]

The cost for using Android device isn't upfront. Google makes tons of money on our backs in exchange of reduced battery life, our privacy and more.

The quid pro quo is our data for a long list of services that we couldn't otherwise afford on our own.

[Bbnivende]

There is a long list of Google apps that I use on my iPhone. This arrangement must benefit both parties. Too bad for Microsoft and BlackBerry that they could not have made a similar arrangement.

[djsvet]

My battery life is doing great

Now imagine it could be even better if your GPS wasn't kicking in every time you unlock your screen and in some instances even when you have the toggle off.

Posted via CB10

[djsvet]

The quid pro quo is our data for a long list of services that we couldn't otherwise afford on our own.

And now EU will be paying for it, but the big G will still data mine them to the edge. That's my point.

Lots of the so called G services are only created around the idea to make this huge database so they can spin trilion (almost) dollar business while consumer thinks it got cheap Device with free services.

I would rather pay to have a choice. Back in symbian days (Nokia Symbian), I could turn off GPS and nothing could see my location ever. Now, I turn off the toggle, they still know where I am at and I get annoying reminders "high accurancy location is good for you (us) are sure you want to turn it off?"

Posted via CB10

[conite]

I would rather pay to have a choice.

Most people couldn't afford it - either that, or the quality of services would decrease sharply.

Google earns about $80B a year from targeted advertising. So that's the revenue stream that would have to be replaced if everyone was to pay-as-you-go.

So that's about $60 from every man, woman, and child on Earth that uses android - each and every year. You would need 100% buy-in, or it would collapse.

[Blackberryphosphamide]

Now imagine it could be even better if your GPS wasn't kicking in every time you unlock your screen and in some instances even when you have the toggle off.

Posted via CB10

The amount of battery life my GPS uses is negligible. That's like suggesting how much electricity I could save if I only charged my phone at work.

[Digital_Islandboy]

The better option for BlackBerry would be to outsource their web browser because exploits show up in web browsers EVERY single day. For example FireFox has "nightly builds". The browser could be updated outside of BlackBerry and then BlackBerry could integrate it every so often once the code is looked over.

[thurask]

The better option for BlackBerry would be to outsource their web browser because exploits show up in web browsers EVERY single day. For example FireFox has "nightly builds". The browser could be updated outside of BlackBerry and then BlackBerry could integrate it every so often once the code is looked over.

You misspelled "formally put BB10 out of its misery".

[Blackberryphosphamide]

The better option for BlackBerry would be to outsource their web browser because exploits show up in web browsers EVERY single day. For example FireFox has "nightly builds". The browser could be updated outside of BlackBerry and then BlackBerry could integrate it every so often once the code is looked over.

I get that BlackBerry is great at the whole security thing but I don't think a web browser is going to get the money rolling in for them. If anything the native BB10 web browser was so over protective of my security it became a hindrance.

[joeldf]

Well technically we do eat the sun with a spoon...through crops and livestock...so what you're really saying is theres a chance...wow!... I never thought you'd agree.

Slap a new model name on it and relaunch technically makes it a "new" phone. Like you know apple and samsung do somethimes with a few minor tinkerings.]
But yes, this would probably have to be a TCL initiative, unless one of the other licenscees or a new one stepped up. Far as I can tell nothing feels antiquey about bb10 even now. Dropped support fine, but if you have the android run-time and needs those apps...no problem.

The beauty is in the fact that those not wanting google tracking would have a viable option, along with the usually bb10 security features.

You do realize that the newest hardware that BB10 was written for is the Qualcomm 801... from over 4 and a half years ago. And only 32bit at that. BlackBerry never had drivers for anything newer because they could no longer pay for them as part of development.

Oh, and of course BlackBerry ended development of BB10 years ago. A small team kept for maintenance only, but no one to add new features since the NIAP certification back at the end of 2016. And, I wouldn't call the Krack fix a feature, but part of continuing expected maintenance until EOL at the end of 2019.

You think BlackBerry, or BB Mobile could squirt out a competitive 801 phone today and people would buy it?

[Troy Tiscareno]

You think BlackBerry, or BB Mobile could squirt out a competitive 801 phone today and people would buy it?

Sure. BB could sell dozens!

[thurask]

You think BlackBerry, or BB Mobile could squirt out a competitive 801 phone today and people would buy it?

They couldn't do that then, let alone now.

[conite]

The better option for BlackBerry would be to outsource their web browser because exploits show up in web browsers EVERY single day. For example FireFox has "nightly builds". The browser could be updated outside of BlackBerry and then BlackBerry could integrate it every so often once the code is looked over.

BlackBerry doesn't have to be involved - get a 3rd party developer to make a compelling, secure, stand-alone native browser.

So just go and do that.

[eshropshire]

So the naysayers said Google would never allow Blackberry to continue with BB10 AND be able to use Google Android. Well we all know that monopolies or duopolies (Google/Apple) get to be in precarious positions because of that fact. Now that EU ruled against Google, Android Mfgrs can exclude Chrome, Google search, or even Play etc from their phones. Its not a stretch to say BB could have continued with BB10 phones and play with Google at the same time....or could have included an updated Android runtime within Bb10! It was possible!
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/1..._licencing_eu/

So in theory BB could launch bb10 with latest android sandbox in Europe tomorrow morning (minus the development work needed of course).

Sounds like a great opportunity for those who believe in BB10. BlackBerry Limited has been very open about their willingness to license BB10. Those who believe that the recent changes in Europe represent an opportunity for BB10 should form a company and license BB10 from BlackBerry Limited.

[djsvet]

Most people couldn't afford it - either that, or the quality of services would decrease sharply.

Google earns about $80B a year from targeted advertising. So that's the revenue stream that would have to be replaced if everyone was to pay-as-you-go.

So that's about $60 from every man, woman, and child on Earth that uses android - each and every year. You would need 100% buy-in, or it would collapse.

And this goes back to my first statement that Android is the most costly OS ever.

But if things were different, there was going to competition, and thus the amount you mentioned can't really be calculated that way.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

And this goes back to my first statement that Android is the most costly OS ever.

But if things were different, there was going to competition, and thus the amount you mentioned can't really be calculated that way.

Posted via CB10

That's why they say each user is worth $180 to Google (3xEBITA). Apple is the alternative business model, where they add that extra $180 into their devices.

The difference is that Apple is unaffordable to all but the top of the economic food chain.