[conite]

Neither does anyone else - unless it's certified or peer reviewed as such. As it stands, the only verifiable "value-added" is going straight into BlackBerry's bank account, and further adds to the cost of a device with a BlackBerry logo on it. And if you consider the upcharge for the specs involved, that figure may be a lot more considerable than what we have been led to believe.

I won't go as far as to call it a "scam" - but the easiest way to make money doing anything is to simply make a few minor tweaks to someone else's work, flip a few switches, add your "magic" signature, and collect a cheque.

I'm sure TCL would love a piece of that action...

Just like Knox, you'll never get a full audit - they are loaded with proprietary technology.

Like almost anything, you have to trust the source, and BlackBerry is a world-class leader and has arguably the single best reputation in end-point security.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

BlackBerry Secure is fine. Selling PKB designs is fine. Leasing out your corporate name not so fine. What ever TCL does to diminish the security of BlackBerry phones does reflect on BlackBerry Ltd’s good name for security.

TCL would have done as well or better with just BlackBerry Secure under a TCL nameplate.

If they would have gone that route they might have been able to reserve BlackBerry Secure for Enterprise and the lesser a “Google level “ of 2 years Secure for Consumers. Might have made the Motion or Next Motion more affordable.

Personally, I think both BlackBerry Ltd and TCL got boxed in by their arrangement. I also think that the TCL arrangement inhibited the sales of BlackBerry Secure to other OEM’s .

I think after the TCL arrangement is finished BlackBerry Secure might become more agnostic - just security and the BlackBerry Suite of apps will endure as a stand alone play store item.

I think that you think more of what was left of the BlackBerry smartphone business... than I do.

The thing inhibiting sales of BlackBerry Secure is no one was asking for it - oh seven or eight years ago enterprise wanted a more secure Android. Samsung answered that call with KNOX, and that meet the "need". BlackBerry's Android Secure was a too late, me too product that was much more costly. And it very much needed the BlackBerry name front and center to overshadow the Chinese connection of TCL. Let's face it Alcatel who?

The KEY was always enterprise and their trust of BlackBerry. Too bad that trust in smartphones was wearing thin after EOL of BBOS, BB10 and then Phase one of Android experiment. (that they still managed to sucker in so many enterprise customer... is amazing in my book)

Going forward I hope TCL or someone does pick up the Keyboard (if BlackBerry offers it ala carte) and we see another PKB offering. But I don't think they'll lease out the name again, and I doubt further development with Android is viable.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Just like Knox, you'll never get a full audit - they are loaded with proprietary technology.

Like almost anything, you have to trust the source, and BlackBerry is a world-class leader and has arguably the single best reputation in end-point security.

I'd argue it... there are lots and lots of solutions for end-point security out there and BlackBerry probably isn't even on most lists. Now the recent purchase of Cylance might have gotten them in the game.

[conite]

I'd argue it... there are lots and lots of solutions for end-point security out there and BlackBerry probably isn't even on most lists. Now the recent purchase of Cylance might have gotten them in the game.

BlackBerry is top-ranked on Gartner every year. And yes, Cylance now blows them through the roof.

"BlackBerry's strength in delivering a highly extensible secure PIM/container, and its long list of certifications, brand recognition and presence in regulated vertical markets, make it a formidable competitor to other vendors approaching this vertical."

[anon(10562251)]

Just like Knox, you'll never get a full audit - they are loaded with proprietary technology.

Oh, you mean like this?

https://www.niap-ccevs.org/Product/PCL.cfm

A few BlackBerry items on that list, none of them phones unfortunately. Doesn't even look like BB10 is there anymore. You mentioned Knox - in addition to numerous existing Samsung devices, Galaxy devices on Android 9 are currently under evaluation. No BlackBerry security products are currently on that evaluation list, interestingly enough. The two items that ARE on current list (Enterprise Service and KeyW BlackBerry Suite B) expire later this year.

Chen may think he can try to shadow what Samsung is doing with Android security, by having a "hardened" Android OS one letter behind current on BlackBerry, and even make some money from it. Unfortunately for him it is keyboards and possibly productivity apps and features that seems to be selling BlackBerry devices, not smoke and mirrors.

[conite]

Oh, you mean like this?

https://www.niap-ccevs.org/Product/PCL.cfm

A few BlackBerry items on that list, none of them phones unfortunately. Doesn't even look like BB10 is there anymore. You mentioned Knox - in addition to numerous existing Samsung devices, Galaxy devices on Android 9 are currently under evaluation. No BlackBerry security products are currently on that evaluation list, interestingly enough. The two items that ARE on current list (Enterprise Service and KeyW BlackBerry Suite B) expire later this year.

Chen may think he can try to shadow what Samsung is doing with Android security, by having a "hardened" Android OS one letter behind current on BlackBerry, and even make some money from it. Unfortunately for him it is keyboards and possibly productivity apps and features that seems to be selling BlackBerry devices, not smoke and mirrors.

NIAP is not the same thing at all.

Many, many vendors could achieve that status if they bothered to jump through all the hoops. One does that if they want to secure top-level government contracts, which I don't think BlackBerry is willing to allocate resources to do on behalf of its licencees.

BlackBerry UEM of course has all of the certs, including NIAP, FedRamp, Nato Restricted, etc, etc. But that's more a function of being able to sell to certain customers, and not explicitly the security credentials of the EMM solution.

[anon(10562251)]

BlackBerry UEM of course has NIAP.

It does, in Canada, until November 2019 to be exact. BlackBerry's other remaining NIAP expires this August.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still seeing a huge disconnect between awards and reputation, and BlackBerry's Android "hardening" being worthy of a commission.

In conceptual terms, it's roughly the equivalent of an autographed, mundane item fetching what would otherwise be an unobtainable resale value thanks to the signature.

[conite]

It does, in Canada, until November 2019 to be exact. BlackBerry's other remaining NIAP expires this August.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still seeing a huge disconnect between awards and reputation, and BlackBerry's Android "hardening" being worthy of a commission.

In conceptual terms, it's roughly the equivalent of an autographed, mundane item fetching what would otherwise be an unobtainable resale value thanks to the signature.

I'm not sure how you would EVER be satisfied then. You simply will never get the type of forensic evaluation you seem to want.

Again, similar to other industries and products, there is a point where you have to have some trust toward the vendor - taking their full pedigree into account.

There is also one other undisputed fact - that a BlackBerry Android device has never been knowingly hacked - or even had the bootloader unlocked or parts of the kernel overwritten. Pixel (Verizon version which was supposed to be unlockable) and Apple can't say the same thing.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

BlackBerry is top-ranked on Gartner every year. And yes, Cylance now blows them through the roof.

"BlackBerry's strength in delivering a highly extensible secure PIM/container, and its long list of certifications, brand recognition and presence in regulated vertical markets, make it a formidable competitor to other vendors approaching this vertical."

BlackBerry Endpoint Solution is very focused... Mobile Device Management. They want to do more with other network assets and IoT, but that's not what they are good at.

Take a look a Gartner's "Peer Insights" reviews by industry professionals. Of the nineteen UEM solutions listed, BlackBerry is rated the lowest. But it is the 5th most reviewed solution so there are many using it.... Cylance might do a lot to improve their products in the future, but BlackBerry isn't the go to security solution that some think it is. They have some specific niches that they have solutions for and they are well known for. But that's also their biggest issue especially with the consolidation of products and services that their bigger competitors are offering.

Heck even over in the BB UEM section here.. many are frustrated with BB.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

It does, in Canada, until November 2019 to be exact. BlackBerry's other remaining NIAP expires this August.

You'll have to forgive me, but I'm still seeing a huge disconnect between awards and reputation, and BlackBerry's Android "hardening" being worthy of a commission.

In conceptual terms, it's roughly the equivalent of an autographed, mundane item fetching what would otherwise be an unobtainable resale value thanks to the signature.

I think it is secure.... and that they offer more than stock Android. But not enough to justify the price they are asking for it.

I don't think it matters much in today's business market... the UEM can protect a company's assets, and that's all they are concerned with, thus BYOD.

If some customers need more, Samsung has as good a security product. But they can be bought easily form existing sources, pricing is in many cases cheaper and more supported accessories and software solutions.... and longer life cycle.

In the end BBMo sales aren't about Security (that just icing), it's about the PKB. But that might not be enough.

[conite]

I think it is secure.... and that they offer more than stock Android. But not enough to justify the price they are asking for it.

The math isn't necessarily the same for everyone.

If some customers need more, Samsung has as good a security product.

BlackBerry says no.

[conite]

In the end BBMo sales aren't about Security (that just icing), it's about the PKB. But that might not be enough.

In general, this I will agree with.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

The math isn't necessarily the same for everyone.

True... but then if the math was better, SLABs would have a place in their lineup.

It's pretty clear that only the PKB is driving sales at this point.

BlackBerry says no.

When... three years ago?

That's my biggest issue, is not even BlackBerry seems to care about it all that much at this point. Priv is the "featured" Best-in-Class Security Patch Record on their website.

But they did update the date on the Security Guide (dated 11/11/18)... took out some information to make it more generic (doesn't mention devices or Android version anymore). Of course it's marked DRAFT.. so it apparently isn't their finial copy - sure they'll finalize it any day now.

[conite]

True... but then if the math was better, SLABs would have a place in their lineup.

It's pretty clear that only the PKB is driving sales at this point.



When... three years ago?

That's my biggest issue, is not even BlackBerry seems to care about it all that much at this point. Priv is the "featured" Best-in-Class Security Patch Record on their website.

That's when BlackBerry was still making handsets.

If BBMo wishes to put greater emphasis on security, it's up to them to commission and pay BlackBerry to provide whatever they want in that regard.

A security assessment? Pay BlackBerry.

NIAP? Pay BlackBerry.

An updated white paper? Pay BlackBerry.

More patches? Pay BlackBerry.

Another letter upgrade? Pay BlackBerry.

None of this is likely to happen, because the market for people who really care is so small it wouldn't warrant the costs.

[Bbnivende]

That's when BlackBerry was still making handsets.

If BBMo wishes to put greater emphasis on security, it's up to them to commission and pay BlackBerry to provide whatever they want in that regard.

A security assessment? Pay BlackBerry.

NIAP? Pay BlackBerry.

An updated white paper? Pay BlackBerry.

More patches? Pay BlackBerry.

Another letter upgrade? Pay BlackBerry.

None of this is likely to happen, because the market for people who really care is so small it wouldn't warrant the costs.

I am confused. TCL can’t sell a BlackBerry that has doesn’t have BlackBerry Secure, can they?

So if they are obligated to purchase BlackBerry Secure , isn’t BB Ltd. obligated to provide certain services that underwrite Secure?

Seems like it is all or nothing to me.

[conite]

I am confused. TCL can’t sell a BlackBerry that has doesn’t have BlackBerry Secure, can they?

So if they are obligated to purchase BlackBerry Secure , isn’t BB Ltd. obligated to provide certain services that underwrite Secure?

Seems like it is all or nothing to me.

At the end of the day, BlackBerry has to get paid for it. There is nothing more BlackBerry can gain from doing it for themselves.

[anon(10562251)]

I'm not sure how you would EVER be satisfied then. You simply will never get the type of forensic evaluation you seem to want.

Again, similar to other industries and products, there is a point where you have to have some trust toward the vendor - taking their full pedigree into account.

There is also one other undisputed fact - that a BlackBerry Android device has never been knowingly hacked - or even had the bootloader unlocked or parts of the kernel overwritten. Pixel (Verizon version which was supposed to be unlockable) and Apple can't say the same thing.

I disagree. If my goal is a secure Android device, I can go out today and purchase a Samsung for example that I know is certified to the highest standard. Therefore, when I pay extra for it, I know I am getting something in return for that investment. Unfortunately, I can't say the same with regards to BlackBerry. I'm not saying it isn't secure - but it's almost splitting hairs to compare one Android device versus any other as it is. Plus, BlackBerry expends almost zero effort marketing it. If BlackBerry is truly serious about secure devices, it needs to invest in the required certifications, as well as promoting it - rather than simply relying on its name to do it for them.

Personally, and although I would still prefer it as is - I believe an Android One BlackBerry with current OS and updates, along with BlackBerry productivity features (customized into the device design and OS, not just the Hub+ Suite) is a far more competitive and desirable feature set, and still more than suitable (including the price point) to the vast majority of potential BlackBerry consumers and businesses.

[Bbnivende]

At the end of the day, BlackBerry has to get paid for it. There is nothing more BlackBerry can gain from doing it for themselves.

Are you saying that TCL has pulled the plug on the contract or not paying their obligations ? or are you saying that TCL is just opting out of the third year of security updates ? The opting out being with in their current contract.

[conite]

You know no more about Knox as you do about BlackBerry Android. Either could technically be 100x better than the other - NIAP notwithstanding.

I've already explained what NIAP is. It's not a scorecard. It's a series of expensive and time-consuming administrative hoops.

[conite]

Are you saying that TCL has pulled the plug on the contract or not paying their obligations ? or are you saying that TCL is just opting out of the third year of security updates ? The opting out being with in their current contract.

I'm not saying anything of the sort. From where did you infer that?

We don't know anything about what they are planning to do. Nor do we know anything of the deal between BBMo and Google.

BlackBerry has nothing to do with any of it - they just do what their customers pay them to do, according to whatever contract exists between them.

[anon(10562251)]

You know no more about Knox as you do about BlackBerry Android. Either could technically be 100x better than the other - NIAP notwithstanding.

I've already explained what NIAP is. It's not a scorecard. It's a series of expensive and time-consuming administrative hoops.

I know that it's certified to a very high standard, and that BlackBerry isn't. That's all anyone who cares about such things needs to know to inform their purchase decision!

[conite]

I know that it's certified to a very high standard, and that BlackBerry isn't. That's all anyone who cares about such things needs to know to inform their purchase decision!

Apple is NIAP-certified and every OS build is jailbroken within days. What does that tell you?

[anon(10562251)]

Apple is NIAP-certified and every OS build is jailbroken within days. What does that tell you?

Nothing that will convince anyone to buy a BlackBerry device instead of an iPhone for security reasons, unfortunately.

And that's a very shallow assessment of iOS, BTW.

[conite]

Nothing that will convince anyone to buy a BlackBerry device instead of an iPhone for security reasons, unfortunately.

But that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm simply making a point about using NIAP as a gauge for security. That's NOT what it's about.

[Chuck Finley69]

Nothing that will convince anyone to buy a BlackBerry device instead of an iPhone for security reasons, unfortunately.

And that's a very shallow assessment of iOS, BTW.

What part of the assessment is shallow?