[slagman5]

So, I'm sure most of you would say it's just a "coincidence" that both Whatsapp and Facebook decided to specifically make it so their services cannot be used on BB10. I mean, WA gave some BS reason that doesn't even make sense, and Facebook allowing BB to use their API literally costs them nothing, so why specifically decide not to allow BB to use it?

Anyway, now that they are not even trying to hide the fact that the "big two" wants to clear the field and it looks like if BB continues to make handsets they will be running Android. I know it's been brought up many times about a Classic running Android, but putting Android in a device with a toolbelt and trackpad won't work out of the box correctly. Also, Android lacks all of the gesture controls (like peek) that makes BB10 so efficient (and downright enjoyable to be honest) to use.

So, anyone kind of experienced with Android think that BB would be able to make some extreme skin of the UI to basically make a BB10 Android OS? Android in the background, BB10 in its interface? I'll be sad to lose the stability of QNX, something the auto manufacturers recognize, but if that's the only possibility for me to be able to use a phone efficiently and not be stuck like everyone else staring into a glass slab all day because it takes so long to do everything...

I use an Android on a daily basis for work, so please don't try to imply that I don't know how to use it or whatever...

I love the pkb for typing accurately without looking, homescreen shortcuts, shortcuts within apps, and all of the other things it provides.

Physical call end button is invaluable to never have to stare at your phone to ensure a call is disconnected before you continue talking about something you may not want the party you were just talking to to hear, the trackpad makes navigating menus, clicking small links on websites, and highlighting text so simple and easy. Physical back button makes going back or exiting something without looking simple, the BB button makes getting to menus without stretching my thumb... There are so many things great about an interface like the Classic. But the people who so desire to fit in with the crowd of "cool" glass slabs will not see that. I don't care what others think, this works for me and I wish there will still be options in the future. Or we might as well all wear uniforms and change our names to a barcode tattooed on our foreheads...

Anyway, kind of done ranting, lol.

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[Laura Knotek]

WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.

[slagman5]

WhatsApp is owned by Facebook.

That's true. Forgot about that, but there must be a reason why Facebook is all of a sudden trying to get rid of anything not Android or iOS.

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[early2bed]

No social network wants to be part of a hub in the long run. They will allow it during the user collection phase but when it comes time to make some money from ads and data mining then they need users to have their app open as much as possible. FaceBook is in a good position in that there are a lot of users who think the internet consists of FaceBook. So, no, they are not going to allow others to use their content in their own apps.

What other people prefer using is very important in the long run because without those other people, social networks and other app developers have no interest in your platform. Try not to get too functionally fixated on how things need to continue to work the way you are used to. It's a losing battle. The way you navigate through the OS is not as important as the content, especially when you don't have the content you need. If 98% of smartphone users out there can make it work then you can too.

[swishhh]

No social network wants to be part of a hub in the long run. They will allow it during the user collection phase but when it comes time to make some money from ads and data mining then they need users to have their app open as much as possible. FaceBook is in a good position in that there are a lot of users who think the internet consists of FaceBook. So, no, they are not going to allow others to use their content in their own apps.

What other people prefer using is very important in the long run because without those other people, social networks and other app developers have no interest in your platform. Try not to get too functionally fixated on how things need to continue to work the way you are used to. It's a losing battle. The way you navigate through the OS is not as important as the content, especially when you don't have the content you need. If 98% of smartphone users out there can make it work then you can too.

That's an interesting perspective.

Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android

[app_Developer]

That's true. Forgot about that, but there must be a reason why Facebook is all of a sudden trying to get rid of anything not Android or iOS.

You may call this BS, but it's true. If you develop apps, each additional platform costs money. You can't support all of them. So you draw a line at 97-99% and just support those 2 platforms.

Same reason that gas stations sell 3 common grades of gas and diesel. Very few cars are powered by racing fuel or hydrogen. So a regular gas station just sells what most people buy. If 99% of buyers used 87 octane, then that's all you would find at most gas stations.

App developers, similarly, make what most people can use. Most as in almost all people who buy smartphones!

[app_Developer]

Sorry I didn't answer the question. I think heavy UI customization of android is difficult to do well. You lose much of the optimization work that the Android team does.

You also drive the cost up, and make the product unfamiliar to the millions of Android users to whom you are trying to sell your phone.

[dguy123]

You may call this BS, but it's true. If you develop apps, each additional platform costs money. You can't support all of them. So you draw a line at 97-99% and just support those 2 platforms.

Same reason that gas stations sell 3 common grades of gas and diesel. Very few cars are powered by racing fuel or hydrogen. So a regular gas station just sells what most people buy. If 99% of buyers used 87 octane, then that's all you would find at most gas stations.

App developers, similarly, make what most people can use. Most as in almost all people who buy smartphones!

Their comment wasn't about the Facebook or Whatsapp apps, but their rest based api not working if you declare an OS other than android or ios.
Without a declaration, the api has no clue what OS is on the other side. So the question is, why DO they care.

Or is it as someone else suggested, Facebook is killing off the api's all together.

Posted via CB10

[slagman5]

You may call this BS, but it's true. If you develop apps, each additional platform costs money. You can't support all of them. So you draw a line at 97-99% and just support those 2 platforms.

Same reason that gas stations sell 3 common grades of gas and diesel. Very few cars are powered by racing fuel or hydrogen. So a regular gas station just sells what most people buy. If 99% of buyers used 87 octane, then that's all you would find at most gas stations.

App developers, similarly, make what most people can use. Most as in almost all people who buy smartphones!

Um, facebook made 0 apps for BB10. BlackBerry made the facebook app for BB10...

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[app_Developer]

Their comment wasn't about the Facebook or Whatsapp apps, but their rest based api not working if you declare an OS other than android or ios.
Without a declaration, the api has no clue what OS is on the other side. So the question is, why DO they care.

Or is it as someone else suggested, Facebook is killing off the api's all together.

Posted via CB10

They aren't filtering based on OS. They don't want any full function 3rd party FB apps on any platform. You would have the same issue if you tried to make such an app on iOS.

[slagman5]

Their comment wasn't about the Facebook or Whatsapp apps, but their rest based api not working if you declare an OS other than android or ios.
Without a declaration, the api has no clue what OS is on the other side. So the question is, why DO they care.

Or is it as someone else suggested, Facebook is killing off the api's all together.

Posted via CB10

They're not killing off the API because they still allow it for Android and iOS...

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[app_Developer]

Um, facebook made 0 apps for BB10. BlackBerry made the facebook app for BB10...

Right, but the topic is about FB supposedly picking winners here and conspiring to make sure there are only two platforms.

I'm saying (1) they only want their own apps on their platform and (2) they don't make an app for BB10 because very few people would ever use such a thing.

So they aren't picking winners, they are simply supporting what their market wants.

[app_Developer]

They're not killing off the API because they still allow it for Android and iOS...

No, that is not true. They are cracking down on 3rd party access to private API's on all platforms. Things like graph API are still open to the public.

So you could make an app for BB10 that uses their graph API and it would work fine. You can try this yourself. As long as you stay within their T&C's, that is supporter.

What won't work is using their private API's to recreate the full FB experience. That is not allowed on any platform because they are *private*.

[slagman5]

They aren't filtering based on OS. They don't want any full function 3rd party FB apps on any platform. You would have the same issue if you tried to make such an app on iOS.

You should notify CB about that then, because they are promoting another 3rd party app as if it will continue to work after that date...

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[app_Developer]

You should notify CB about that then, because they are promoting another 3rd party app as if it will continue to work after that date...

That developer doesn't seem to care about violating anyone's private APIs. Look at his other work.

So now it's up to FB. They may or may not be able to tell his traffic from their own. They may or may not care, given how low the usage probably is. So they may just let it go and Face10 may work for some time. It will be interesting to see.

BB is in a different position altogether. As multi-billion dollar publicly traded company they could not willingly violate Facebook's terms.

[slagman5]

That developer doesn't seem to care about violating anyone's private APIs. Look at his other work.

So now it's up to FB. They may or may not be able to tell his traffic from their own. They may or may not care, given how low the usage probably is. So they may just let it go and Face10 may work for some time. It will be interesting to see.

BB is in a different position altogether. As multi-billion dollar publicly traded company they could not willingly violate Facebook's terms.

So I guess as long as he can fly under the radar we would be ok, i guess. Anyway, I use FB, but to me it doesn't make or break the phone. All of the other things I mentioned does.

Posted without the aid of AutoCorrect with my physical keyboard via CB10

[Apple Aya]

The What's App for Android works great on my Passport and I suspect it would for the Classic too. The Face10 messenger and I'm still trying to make work properly but it seems to kinda work too.

The big loss is all the contacts.

[mad_mdx]

Facebook never supported BlackBerry 10. Their idea of it appearing in the hub is something they would never want. Their whole monetization is based on you opening the app constantly, not just to see a notification and move on to another app.
Shame anyway.