1. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    With more than 90% of market share, and have unlimited cash on hand, should BlackBerry view android as a potential client?

    1. Licensing the hub to Google to come integrated in the OS
    2. Licensing QNX to Google for use on android
    3. Fight to build the next nexus phone.

    Ur thoughts and more...

    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 02:48 AM
  2. tomh235's Avatar
    Why would google pay for qnx when the Linux kernel is free and open source?

    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 06:24 AM
  3. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    Based on my understanding, QNX offers a vast upgrade to Linux, from true multitasking, to better security...

    Android needs this to future proof itself against apple, and microsoft, which although has a week mobile status but dominates the PC world and has unlimited funds, I think it's bound to have a chunk of mobile.



    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 07:17 AM
  4. Adam Kowalczyk1's Avatar
    If we have to learn anything from history it should be that things don't stay the same. Something will replace Android and iOS, or these operating systems will evolve into something that is vastly different from where they are today.

    Based on current financial strength and market conditions, Apple will need to be the company that does it first. Apple sells devices and the only way to sell more is to eat away at Android's market share. Apple simply has more to lose than Google in the innovation race.

    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 07:44 AM
  5. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    Actually agreed, and the single hardware software manufacturer status that only apple enjoys now places it in a unique position to evolve, apple can move to BB10 and shift it's ecosystem and no one will care it would still sell!



    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 08:39 AM
  6. thurask's Avatar
    Based on my understanding, QNX offers a vast upgrade to Linux, from true multitasking, to better security...
    [citation needed]
    RezzaBuh and DrBoomBotz like this.
    02-21-16 09:59 AM
  7. app_Developer's Avatar
    I think QNX has a few major disadvantages over Linux at this point, when applied to phones.

    It may be a popular choice in cars, but the idea that it is some advantage in phones is not believable to me. I doubt many at Google would buy it either.

    BTW the desktop or server style of multitasking which BB chose for BB10 is also possible on Linux. Look at desktops and servers running Linux! Linux desktops and servers and laptops have the same style of so- called "true" multitasking trumpeted here. Palm and Google decided to layer on top of that a process and scheduling model that is specific to mobile. I think Palm and Google got it right. Again, they would probably agree.
    02-21-16 10:13 AM
  8. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    [citation needed]
    Well I said it's based on my understanding so there is no one to quote and a heck of a lot to cite, I attached the wiki page if that's a detail regarding forum etiquette.

    But I started by simply duckducking "lool" both, and that's my understanding.

    Please if someone with more software knowledge can chime in, negate, approve or etc... that would make this thread a more interesting read.

    Posted via CB10
    rockivy likes this.
    02-21-16 10:16 AM
  9. ohaiguise's Avatar
    My understanding of QNX is that it is just another flavour of Unix, and Linux is just an imitation (erstaz) Unix.

    They might as well use FreeBSD or whatever the hell it is that MacOS sits on top of.

    Same thing.
    Carlos_E likes this.
    02-21-16 10:16 AM
  10. thurask's Avatar
    My understanding of QNX is that it is just another flavour of Unix, and Linux is just an imitation (erstaz) Unix.

    They might as well use FreeBSD or whatever the hell it is that MacOS sits on top of.

    Same thing.
    By that criteria, QNX is also ersatz Unix, as would be any other Unix-like. That which can be called bona fide Unix today is whatever is on this list: OS X, Solaris, HP-UX and AIX.

    Of course, given the POSIX standard, OS X, *BSD, Linux, QNX, whatever are essentially intercompatible by implementing all/most of POSIX, so one does not need to bother with achieving Unix certification.

    However, the under the hood stuff is not intercompatible, hence the lack of device drivers for QNX that prompted BlackBerry to keep re-hashing the Snapdragon 8960 over and over again. Conversely, given its ubiquity, Linux (and thus Android) has a device driver for pretty much any phone hardware.
    02-21-16 10:30 AM
  11. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    Based on my understanding, QNX offers a vast upgrade to Linux, from true multitasking, to better security...
    IMO, you don't have a very good understanding.

    Google could have bought QNX for pocket change in 2010 (much like RIM actually did). And of course Google was aware of their existence. Google also could have built Android on top of LinuxRT (the RTOS version of Linux) - but they didn't. In fact, none of the other OS makers (Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, Firefox, Ubuntu, Jolla) used a RTOS version of their OS, even though they could have.

    If using a RTOS was so important, and had such big advantages in mobile, why wouldn't any of these very smart people gone that way?

    The answer is simply that the advantages of a RTOS simply aren't as important to a mobile OS (which is constrained by a limited battery life and limited processing power) as other things are, and so all of those companies built their OSs with mobile-first priorities.

    Both iOS and Android can multitask just fine - but Apple and Google intentionally, after much thought and debate, designed in specific limitations in order to protect against undesired usage of battery and mobile data - they prevent things from running in the background unless it makes good sense not to. Android, being more open and customization by design, did this by making first-party apps have these limits, but allows the user to use third-party apps that don't (i.e., YouTube vs. third party YouTube clients), so that they won't be responsible for dead batteries and data overages from people who launch YouTube in the background and forget to turn it off.

    The point is: Google could much more easily move Android to a LinuxRT base (instead of QNX) if they felt that RTOSs gave them an advantage - but they haven't, and they won't. Either way, they don't need or want QNX. If they did, Larry Page would have pulled out his Black Card in 2010 and bought the company - it would have cost less than one of several airplanes that Google owns. Or, maybe Apple would have bought it, or Microsoft...
    02-21-16 11:00 AM
  12. ray689's Avatar
    Those third part youtube apps seem to have been removed. Pretty hard to find one.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    02-21-16 11:27 AM
  13. app_Developer's Avatar
    Actually Microsoft did use an RTOS back in the CE days. It made sense then, but they decided this didn't make sense in their newer mobile OS. I would agree with them.

    One major disadvantage of an RTOS on a modern phone is that if the kernel makes such strict timing guarantees to processes, then this limits the opportunities for the kernel to coalesce work such that the processor can (micro)sleep more often. Coalescing work and allowing for max sleep is extremely critical when you have these massively powerful processors now connected to tiny batteries.

    Further, if you make strict timing guarantees to processes which in turn get unfettered access to expensive things like the radio, then you have an even bigger power mgmt problem.

    Further still, if you make such guarantees to processes in a device which *cannot* write dirty pages back to disk, then you have painted yourself into a very tricky memory mgmt corner.

    On the other hand, in the past you might resort to real time scheduling if you were concerned with keeping up with the radio, or keeping up with sensors or something. But with a modern SoC and modern schedulers that is of no concern at all. No Android phone or iOS phone has an issue keeping up with the radio, while still letting the CPU take good, frequent naps.

    You can let a modern SoC go full throttle all the time in a car. You can't do that in a phone unless you plan to make a very big phone.
    Last edited by app_Developer; 02-21-16 at 11:43 AM.
    02-21-16 11:33 AM
  14. early2bed's Avatar
    Google as a client? Not likely. Perhaps as an owner.
    02-21-16 11:34 AM
  15. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    IMO, you don't have a very good understanding.

    Google could have bought QNX for pocket change in 2010 (much like RIM actually did). And of course Google was aware of their existence. Google also could have built Android on top of LinuxRT (the RTOS version of Linux) - but they didn't. In fact, none of the other OS makers (Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, Palm, Nokia, Firefox, Ubuntu, Jolla) used a RTOS version of their OS, even though they could have.

    If using a RTOS was so important, and had such big advantages in mobile, why wouldn't any of these very smart people gone that way?

    The answer is simply that the advantages of a RTOS simply aren't as important to a mobile OS (which is constrained by a limited battery life and limited processing power) as other things are, and so all of those companies built their OSs with mobile-first priorities.

    Both iOS and Android can multitask just fine - but Apple and Google intentionally, after much thought and debate, designed in specific limitations in order to protect against undesired usage of battery and mobile data - they prevent things from running in the background unless it makes good sense not to. Android, being more open and customization by design, did this by making first-party apps have these limits, but allows the user to use third-party apps that don't (i.e., YouTube vs. third party YouTube clients), so that they won't be responsible for dead batteries and data overages from people who launch YouTube in the background and forget to turn it off.

    The point is: Google could much more easily move Android to a LinuxRT base (instead of QNX) if they felt that RTOSs gave them an advantage - but they haven't, and they won't. Either way, they don't need or want QNX. If they did, Larry Page would have pulled out his Black Card in 2010 and bought the company - it would have cost less than one of several airplanes that Google owns. Or, maybe Apple would have bought it, or Microsoft...
    Loool when I first read your intro on me not having a good understanding, I thought u had better, but with your "if they wanted they would've bought logic" IMO u have even less understanding than I did before reading other en lighting comments, that actually made me reconsider my opinion.

    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 12:35 PM
  16. CrackberryQ's Avatar
    Should BlackBerry try to sell google on using QNX as a base for android?-img_20160221_202921.png

    Cool my thread came up on flipboard!!!

    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 12:36 PM
  17. GadgetTravel's Avatar
    With more than 90% of market share, and have unlimited cash on hand, should BlackBerry view android as a potential client?

    1. Licensing the hub to Google to come integrated in the OS
    2. Licensing QNX to Google for use on android
    3. Fight to build the next nexus phone.

    Ur thoughts and more...

    Posted via CB10
    Blackberry doesn't build phones. And that is the least of the problems.

    Picture the elevator talk

    John: oh hi Serge I'm John Chen.
    Serge: hi, have we met?
    John: no but I'm the CEO of blackberry.
    Serge: old phone company right? What are you up to now?
    John: that's what I wanted to talk about
    Ding ding ding
    Serge: sorry, my floor, have a nice day.
    02-21-16 05:25 PM
  18. early2bed's Avatar
    Serge: sorry, my floor, have a nice day.
    John: "We have patents!"
    [Door Closes]
    02-21-16 07:26 PM
  19. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    Chen: "There are dozens of us! DOZENS!"

    02-21-16 11:42 PM

Similar Threads

  1. Mini Militia for bb10?
    By Tilak0021 in forum Android Apps (Amazon Store & APK Files)
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-27-16, 05:43 AM
  2. Apps on Android (PRIV) SD card?
    By BBZ10wannabe in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-24-16, 06:45 AM
  3. How to Transfer Photos on Phone (not SD Card ) to Laptop?
    By SoxFan in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-23-16, 06:06 PM
  4. how to connect my z30 to my laptop window 10 pro
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-21-16, 01:57 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-20-16, 11:19 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD