Both Boing and AirBus got YUGE subsidies.
Printable View
Both Boing and AirBus got YUGE subsidies.
Aside from the usual....whom the experts can address better than I...(but probably won't)
Government-Market Security Standards A7e12r1970-001-QuAcK- Section 8 - subparagraph 3: "Don't put all you eggs in one basket" is one that I can personally think of.
....and then there's the security of knowing your house isn't going to fall to the ground around you, because you didn't do very basic housekeeping after it starts to age a little....that's worth a fee to some. Housekeeper fees.
...because you know, when I take my car to the mechanic...I expect all maintenance and oil-changes to be free.
...especially when its outside of warranty.
...not a promise that all or any individual problems will be fixed, that's for the forums like this. ..just an assurance the os will get some maintenance.
You just prove my point: yourself cannot say what is better with BB10 compared to iOS and Android.
So if you can specifically tell enumerate the competitive advantages that BB10 had, how do you think 99.9% of the population see it?
There used to be a time where BB had a huge advantage, but iOS and Android has mostly caught up.
Please let BB10 retire gracefully. It's done and over with. Enjoy what's left and learn to accept that it wasn't ever meant to be.
The only way that would be impressive/shocking is if they were expecting it in 2015 or later, which isn't a bad assumption when BlackBerry is involved.
Not expecting 99.9% of the market to see it. You don't need 99.9%, and you should never be able to get 99.9%. If you do, then there's something wrong in the marketplace. But yes that is also the problem ,how to get to just a fraction of that, and really 1,2 or 5% would have been a sustainable success. If it was a competitve marketplace, that was acheivable. And how now will fundamentally competitive conditions be restored with only Two-app stores/ platforms in business? BB10 advantages?... a large number of those who have used all three systems for any length of time know it (not everyone, as I wouldn't expect that) , even today bb10 shines as a better basic usable system....but not many have used all three, outside of a few techies, and intense users.
....if pple and industry here are suggesting that 2 platforms are a healthy sign in the marketplace, then what they are saying is that the smartphone is a utility, and as such probably requires utility regulations ---from governments. I doubt very much anyone would really want that.
I used all three and I can confirm that there’s nothing that BB10 shines at. On the contrary... it’s outdated.
Bb10 users comes very small compare to android and IOS. I don't know if bb10 is really more secure than android and IOS. But hackers don't be interesting to hack or made malicious sofware. So I still use my bb10 phone always I can use because the os is very usefull and productive.
I hope browser mail contact sync to Google exchange microsoft connection can work one more 3 to 5 years
lolo69 #welove&weshare
And it was on my motorola flip phones...
There's been 2 OS/platforms on the desktop for more than 3 decades, and we've all managed to survive. Mobile is no different. Apple and Google didn't actively harm the other competitors - the other competitors just couldn't compete, and the vast majority didn't choose them. That's called "a free-market economy". If BB or MS or Jolla or Canonical or someone else came along and delivered a mobile OS that was significantly better and offered features that couldn't be had on iOS or Android, the could potentially steal the market - which means the market itself is just fine as it is.
But since none of the other OSs is significantly better at anything the majority of consumers considers important (even though a few outliers do), the majority bought iOS and Android. MS and BB and others competed poorly - DESPITE having a strong early lead. No one MADE Mike Lazaridis make a long series of poor decisions - Mike did that all by himself. Save your bile for him, not the free market.
There was a time when BlackBerry and Nokia dominated the industry. Then they failed to keep up and and both are gone from this market.
That tells me the govt doesn't have to do a thing. Google and Apple will dominate until someone else knocks them off the perch.
For people on here that still wouldn't be good enough. Many think by government involvement, that means somehow BB10 would be saved and new devices would also be guaranteed. This while failing to acknowledge that while MS has failed with their own mobile OS, it did manage to defeat BB10.
And ironically both BB and Nokia phones are Android devices now.
There's a huge difference between single and two words "commands" - which I think even my old Nokia 6210 from 2000 had - and a full blown live dictation feature.
Of course but dictation isn't new either, apps like Vlingo were doing it since the mid/late 2000s. They even had a BBOS app,
https://youtu.be/wL7jp9aEu34?t=79
Nuance had similar apps (like Dragon), granted I'm not sure if they ever integrated them into their default OS assistant. The cloud has certainly made assistants more useful over the years but to your original point, the tech certainly isn't new.
Some day... at some crowdfunding platform...we will see BB device risen from ashes....
They try to resurrect good old Psion:
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...otype_handson/
Let's hope for BB Passport version 2 in 2035. ;-)
IBM the big grand daddy of voice dictation (with lots of research dollars invested) had VIA-VOICE back in what the 1990's? Trying to remember if it was available on Windows 95 (It definitely was available on the desktop). So yes its certainly not new....and if you want to give credit where its due. I think Dragon eventually bought IBM's voice tech at some point.
That's still not comparable to today's speech-to-text systems. The early systems on PCs had to be trained to your own voice and you also had to speak clearly and make a pause after each sentence and such.
Same for early systems on mobile devices.
Voice-independent systems on mobile phones where you could speak normally without the need for pauses became a thing around 2010.
Apple harm competitors?...they'd be proud to say they did....however did they do it in reasonable free-market principals? On the surface yes..and it would seem yes...(did they use their power from their other concerns to move this along..yes, did microsoft's desktop near-monopoly help Apple in the smartphone arena - probably ),but only industry insiders would really know.
Google/Android's global dominance.....no I'd say they were not free-market principals....whenever you get competitors colluding in the marketplace, you are violating the free-market (all the major consumer players lined up behind Google). If they want to merge, that's one thing....but to remain separate entities and control the market through the single app store (globally dominating)...that's a bit of a stretch to say that was a free market initiative. It locked competitors out of their own marketplace... it tied suppliers to their store (and apple's), soley because of how quickly it was anticipated they would soak up tremendous market share....because consumers knew they could only turn to one supplier for a key component of what makes the smartphone ...smart....supporting apps (not counting the play for premium by Apple).....and if Android was truly open, and Google was truly playing by the rules....they would sell their add-on apps in the marketplace and not 'tie it to being mandatorily used by google 'compliant' phones., and they could not force other manufacturers by binding-agreement to drop other potential platforms on other models (as has been suggested here as to why Blackberry had to drop BB10 in order to get access to the Google store.....nope that is not a free-market. .... two players suggests a problem here, the way Google-play got there is definitely worth more debate in commerce circles. ...speaking soley from the perspective of free-market principals. To agree to use a "standard" in industry is one-thing, but to bind all parties is another. Its the binding part, that is the sticky problem. Google play solved the potential monopoly problem of Apple....but it caused a lock-out of other players, in how it was structured.
...MS got in trouble for its monopoly position in the desktop and there were lots of calls to do something, and the US Gov very nearly did, but backed down at the last minute. Would the world be better if something like OS/2 Warp had succeeded in surviving? I think the independent software Vendors actually stood a better chance of surviving....and I think innovation may have proceeded at a faster clip....but I don't have a crystal ball....those who promote free-market functioning, also realize when it gets out of whack....the correcters of last resort...gov't has to step in, to tip the ship back to level.
True, they're better now with refinements since then. But it did a decent job back then, if you met it part of the way. Just like palm's hand recognition software was pretty good (ok amazing) back then as well, if you met it again part of the way.