12-21-17 07:40 PM
332 ... 910111213 ...
tools
  1. royal_black's Avatar
    It has nothing to do with marketing.

    It has to do with owning a time machine and taking BB10 back to 2006
    Mmmm... this would mean it has no use to establish new products or even new companies if the market is already distributed?

    I am sure and I know it is good enough to have a even good product and better marketing. Ask Bill Gates (windows) .

    And also true. A better product doesn't win if the marketing ist not at least even good. Ask IBM with their OS/2.

    No. The best marketing strategy makes a succes or failure.

    Simply make better promotion and marketing if you are at least even good. This is enough.

    A time machine would only make it easier. But this is not the only possible way.


    Posted via CB10
    12-14-17 03:54 AM
  2. conite's Avatar
    Mmmm... this would mean it has no use to establish new products or even new companies if the market is already distributed?

    I am sure and I know it is good enough to have a even good product and better marketing. Ask Bill Gates (windows) .

    And also true. A better product doesn't win if the marketing ist not at least even good. Ask IBM with their OS/2.

    No. The best marketing strategy makes a succes or failure.

    Simply make better promotion and marketing if you are at least even good. This is enough.

    A time machine would only make it easier. But this is not the only possible way.


    Posted via CB10
    It's not about the product - it's about the ecosystem.

    Developers were not interested in supporting a third app - see Microsoft and the billions they spent trying to lure them.

    Being 6 or 7 years late was insurmountable. Marketing was pissing in the wind.
    Last edited by conite; 12-14-17 at 08:32 AM.
    12-14-17 04:11 AM
  3. kvndoom's Avatar
    But you know that products follows a good marketing? Do you? If there had been a beginning success - more and more apps would had come.

    And a good marketing is not only banners and spots. This is also a optimal support of app producers and also best support of its customers.

    By the way. There is and was a appstore. Most of my apps are from the blackberry app store.

    Don't believe all that a company suggest us to believe. Simply learn market mechanisms and THEN argue.

    Posted via CB10
    Okay then PLEASE explain to me how the flood of Z10s that got bought and then refunded within days of launch, leading to a billion dollar write off, had to do with marketing?

    Did the customers go back to the Verizon store and say "I don't want this phone! It wasn't marketed properly!" ???

    No! They went back and said "I don't want this phone! It doesn't run netflix/skype/whatever!". By 2013 people were used to apps and they expected any phone they bought to have access to the apps they used on an everyday basis. They didnt give a rats butt about " smooth multitasking" or swipe gestures.

    If your software library is as miserably pathetic as BlackBerry World, you have nothing to advertise about.

    Look at every single ad video for the Motion or K1. Each one goes out of its way to mention access to Google Play and "millions of apps". See, unlike you, BlackBerry Mobile knows exactly why BB10 failed, and what the public's perception of a BlackBerry device is.
    app_Developer likes this.
    12-14-17 05:37 AM
  4. Mojarch's Avatar
    It's still Google's OS. There is a big difference between building an OS, and customizing one (ie. flipping switches on or off) Lol. BB10 is the only truly custom and secure OS BlackBerry will ever have. Some here would have us believe somehow BlackBerry's version of Android is a magical super-secure version of the OS. That might have been slightly more true in 2015. If they actually did contribute any new security features leading up to the PRIV they have mostly been absorbed into stock Android. I'll take their regurgitation of all the standard Android security features...which is how this list reads in 2017 as opposed to a 2015 PRIV marketing brochure, and now mostly standard on any new Android device, for what it is. They have to market something unique about their take on Android. Granted, there are a few remaining features such as the kernel, the proprietary full disk encryption, and DTEK. But are these enough to consider it a customized and more importantly, more secure version of Android? I suppose it depends how loose your definition is...but without NIAP certification it's difficult to take their claims of enhanced security as anything more than a marketing ploy.
    Well it seems you completely have no idea how it works!
    As Google build vanilla they hand over naked code to manufacture (qualcom and others) they start tweaking it (mostly adding their drivers) and hand again naked code to phone manufacturer like blakberry and than they have full access to every part and module in os which they can change completely and that is what BB actually doing!
    you mentioned knox, which in term of security it just nothing cause if you check android forum there are almost thousands and thousands way to get round of it which will lead me personally to think how low your security exception should be to consider that a safety future!
    And someone here mentioned to krack which as far as I know has nothing to do with os!
    It is some whole in wpa2 and the way pockets handshake to and from device which literally affected every os cause it is problem in wireless standard not the way OS's coded!
    Just for those of us who have forgotten :
    Dirty cow (copy on write) has been around for 11 year and nobody knows about it.
    All I said to pin point that even though thousands and thousands of developer looked into Linux kernel code and did not realised dirty cow!

    Posted via CB10
    12-14-17 06:29 AM
  5. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    OK, if we're going to include extinct and thoroughly fossilized BlackBerry OS...sure why not?
    You must be some kind of engineer or computer person. You've over complicated the business case for BBOS up to 7.1 and BB10.

    I'm just a business person so I can only keep it simple. BBOS up to 7.1 was designed when BlackBerry was strong and the ecosystem was pretty good for it's time. More secure at time since data was provided and controlled through BlackBerry and it's BIS servers.

    BB10 was from a user perspective, attempting to be Android like and eventually relied on Android ported app ecosystem. In order to succeed, BB10 was incorporating more Android ecosystem parts to provide a better user experience.

    Simpler and better chance of success business wise to use Android OS, then bring over the BB10 experience. Had BlackBerry adopted this strategy instead of BB10 around 7-9 years ago, the company would be in a better position.

    Resource wise, BlackBerry would still not be THE big OEM as they've never had that level of resources. BlackBerry has never had a replacement for BIS revenue and never did back then. BlackBerry is doing exactly what it should have done 7-9 years ago but with only 10-20% of the resources and competitors that are just that much stronger.

    BlackBerry should have just kept making BIS devices as long as the demand was there. Demand for Android devices might have been stronger but even Motorola exited the game and Google didn't stay long with that strategy.

    The money in Android is the software for Google. For BlackBerry it will be in tweaking Android, perhaps hardening it like Knox. It may already perform better. I don't know. I'm just a business guide.

    The reason BlackBerry almost failed was because everybody LISTENED to Jim Basille and Mike Lazardis, the engineers. You should have been WATCHING Jim Basille and Mike Lazardis, the businessmen. They wanted to stretch out BIS revenue as long as possible to keep share price up as long as possible.
    12-14-17 09:27 AM
  6. wingnut666's Avatar
    blackberry's customers required security. this was not possible on adroid. still isnt..

    Posted via CBX
    12-14-17 09:35 AM
  7. Emaderton3's Avatar
    blackberry's customers required security. this was not possible on adroid. still isnt..

    Posted via CBX
    Then why are so many using it? And why haven't their been massive data breaches?
    12-14-17 09:37 AM
  8. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    blackberry's customers required security. this was not possible on adroid. still isnt..

    Posted via CBX
    BB10 can't be as secure as BBOS since incorporates Android ported ecosystem? If sketchy person in my residence attending Christmas party, am I not at more risk than if not there?
    12-14-17 09:38 AM
  9. wingnut666's Avatar
    BB10 can't be as secure as BBOS since incorporates Android ported ecosystem? If sketchy person in my residence attending Christmas party, am I not at more risk than if not there?
    the runtime is considerably locked down, but yes a malicious or careless user could have installed a bad app. not sure if there was a way of locking out android apps or not. point being the os was very secure out of the box.
    android exploits abound. no app required.

    another point in their defense was the shear power of bb10. android didnt compare back then, and with three or more years of development over bb10, it still doesnt. its a poor platform.

    Posted via CBX
    Last edited by wingnut666; 12-14-17 at 09:59 AM.
    12-14-17 09:43 AM
  10. panopticon's Avatar
    Well it seems you completely have no idea how it works!
    As Google build vanilla they hand over naked code to manufacture (qualcom and others) they start tweaking it (mostly adding their drivers) and hand again naked code to phone manufacturer like blakberry and than they have full access to every part and module in os which they can change completely and that is what BB actually doing!
    you mentioned knox, which in term of security it just nothing cause if you check android forum there are almost thousands and thousands way to get round of it which will lead me personally to think how low your security exception should be to consider that a safety future!
    And someone here mentioned to krack which as far as I know has nothing to do with os!
    It is some whole in wpa2 and the way pockets handshake to and from device which literally affected every os cause it is problem in wireless standard not the way OS's coded!
    Just for those of us who have forgotten :
    Dirty cow (copy on write) has been around for 11 year and nobody knows about it.
    All I said to pin point that even though thousands and thousands of developer looked into Linux kernel code and did not realised dirty cow!

    Posted via CB10
    I think what we are saying about Android is not all that different. Other than your unjustifiable belief that BlackBerry has re-written Android to be more secure. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Not even BlackBerry themselves is saying they have done this. Vanillla Android IS Android. Everything else that is done to it by any other OEM belongs to Google and couldn't happen without Google, and is basically little more than window dressing.

    When it comes to securing Android all BlackBerry ever talks about is two things - regular patches and their secret sauce. We all know what that sauce is and the relatively minimal tweaks they have made (working with Qualcomm) so they are able to make a claim they have done something to 'secure' Android. Unfortunately it doesn't add up to much at the end of day, and the market is not convinced either (save the odd BlackBerry fan) and more importantly it's not a certified security solution.

    And by the way, who do you think is writing the security updates BlackBerry is patching to its devices every month? If BlackBerry's 'build' of Android is so secure, why do they even need Google's patches? Why not write their own? Whatever BlackBerry has done to secure Android, other than upgrading to Marshmallow, then Nougat, hasn't changed much in two years. And as I already stated, most of what you call customizations have long since been absorbed into stock Android. Fully encrypted device, secure boot, root of trust...even fairly regular security updates. They only holdout is the kernel and once again in the absence of ceritifcation it's usefulness is debatable.

    Therefore...the only new development coming from BlackBerry are the apps and that's why I continue to emphasize that good hardware is what TCL needs to focus on to be successful. Because running the BlackBerry apps...the SOFTWARE...IS the BlackBerry experience. The tweaked security is great to have and I still think it's a valuable feature, but at the end of the day an uncertified security solution won't sell any more units, and good hardware IS NECESSARY to run apps well - not a reasonably durable and well made enclosure with a BlackBerry logo on it.

    In fact, I would even argue that BlackBerry has jettisoned development of securing Android any further (and let Google deal with it) in favour of focusing on securing all and any device vis-a-vis their device management technology, software, and apps. And I base that claim on the simple fact their shopping list of Android security features hasn't changed in two years, while BlackBerry continues to develop and promote its device management technology for all mobile devices including every flavour of Android under the sun.
    krazyatom likes this.
    12-14-17 10:37 AM
  11. panopticon's Avatar
    You must be some kind of engineer or computer person. You've over complicated the business case for BBOS up to 7.1 and BB10.

    I'm just a business person so I can only keep it simple. BBOS up to 7.1 was designed when BlackBerry was strong and the ecosystem was pretty good for it's time. More secure at time since data was provided and controlled through BlackBerry and it's BIS servers.

    BB10 was from a user perspective, attempting to be Android like and eventually relied on Android ported app ecosystem. In order to succeed, BB10 was incorporating more Android ecosystem parts to provide a better user experience.

    Simpler and better chance of success business wise to use Android OS, then bring over the BB10 experience. Had BlackBerry adopted this strategy instead of BB10 around 7-9 years ago, the company would be in a better position.

    Resource wise, BlackBerry would still not be THE big OEM as they've never had that level of resources. BlackBerry has never had a replacement for BIS revenue and never did back then. BlackBerry is doing exactly what it should have done 7-9 years ago but with only 10-20% of the resources and competitors that are just that much stronger.

    BlackBerry should have just kept making BIS devices as long as the demand was there. Demand for Android devices might have been stronger but even Motorola exited the game and Google didn't stay long with that strategy.

    The money in Android is the software for Google. For BlackBerry it will be in tweaking Android, perhaps hardening it like Knox. It may already perform better. I don't know. I'm just a business guide.

    The reason BlackBerry almost failed was because everybody LISTENED to Jim Basille and Mike Lazardis, the engineers. You should have been WATCHING Jim Basille and Mike Lazardis, the businessmen. They wanted to stretch out BIS revenue as long as possible to keep share price up as long as possible.
    I won't argue that BBOS was great while it lasted, and it was cash cow to be sure (so hard to argue with from a business perspective)...but let's face it, their infrastructure couldn't handle where mobile technology was headed and neither could Lazaridis' tiny (and extremely profitable) plastic smartphone designs.
    12-14-17 10:46 AM
  12. thurask's Avatar
    The reason BlackBerry almost failed was because everybody LISTENED to Jim Basille and Mike Lazardis, the engineers. You should have been WATCHING Jim Basille and Mike Lazardis, the businessmen. They wanted to stretch out BIS revenue as long as possible to keep share price up as long as possible.
    CB should serialize Losing the Signal chapter by chapter on the blog.
    12-14-17 10:59 AM
  13. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    I think what we are saying about Android is not all that different. Other than your unjustifiable belief that BlackBerry has re-written Android to be more secure. What evidence do you have to support such a claim? Not even BlackBerry themselves is saying they have done this. Vanillla Android IS Android. Everything else that is done to it by any other OEM belongs to Google and couldn't happen without Google, and is basically little more than window dressing.

    When it comes to securing Android all BlackBerry ever talks about is two things - regular patches and their secret sauce. We all know what that sauce is and the relatively minimal tweaks they have made (working with Qualcomm) so they are able to make a claim they have done something to 'secure' Android. Unfortunately it doesn't add up to much at the end of day, and the market is not convinced either (save the odd BlackBerry fan) and more importantly it's not a certified security solution.

    And by the way, who do you think is writing the security updates BlackBerry is patching to its devices every month? If BlackBerry's 'build' of Android is so secure, why do they even need Google's patches? Why not write their own? Whatever BlackBerry has done to secure Android, other than upgrading to Marshmallow, then Nougat, hasn't changed much in two years. And as I already stated, most of what you call customizations have long since been absorbed into stock Android. Fully encrypted device, secure boot, root of trust...even fairly regular security updates. They only holdout is the kernel and once again in the absence of ceritifcation it's usefulness is debatable.

    Therefore...the only new development coming from BlackBerry are the apps and that's why I continue to emphasize that good hardware is what TCL needs to focus on to be successful. Because running the BlackBerry apps...the SOFTWARE...IS the BlackBerry experience. The tweaked security is great to have and I still think it's a valuable feature, but at the end of the day an uncertified security solution won't sell any more units, and good hardware IS NECESSARY to run apps well - not a reasonably durable and well made enclosure with a BlackBerry logo on it.

    In fact, I would even argue that BlackBerry has jettisoned development of securing Android any further (and let Google deal with it) in favour of focusing on securing all and any device vis-a-vis their device management technology, software, and apps. And I base that claim on the simple fact their shopping list of Android security features hasn't changed in two years, while BlackBerry continues to develop and promote its device management technology for all mobile devices including every flavour of Android under the sun.
    We know that, at a minimum, BlackBerry has "hardened" the Android kernel to incorporate the hardware layer, the same as Samsung has done for Knox. This may only be of benefit to people with an Enterprise EMM account, but that is BlackBerry Mobile's target anyway. Moreover, since BlackBerry and Samsung reached a wide-ranging patent agreement, it's likely that Knox and BlackBerry are using the same basic approach, which BlackBerry patented more than a decade ago. The only difference is that a Knox-equppied phone can still be used if it's rooted, though it can never again connect to a Knox-secured network, while a rooted BlackBerry is permanently bricked.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    12-14-17 12:40 PM
  14. panopticon's Avatar
    We know that, at a minimum, BlackBerry has "hardened" the Android kernel to incorporate the hardware layer, the same as Samsung has done for Knox. This may only be of benefit to people with an Enterprise EMM account, but that is BlackBerry Mobile's target anyway. Moreover, since BlackBerry and Samsung reached a wide-ranging patent agreement, it's likely that Knox and BlackBerry are using the same basic approach, which BlackBerry patented more than a decade ago. The only difference is that a Knox-equppied phone can still be used if it's rooted, though it can never again connect to a Knox-secured network, while a rooted BlackBerry is permanently bricked.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    I also recall Chen's smug comparison of BlackBerry Android and Knox. The point is, it isn't Knox and it isn't certified like Knox is...two years and counting. So what value does all this 'added security' bring? Marketing? Lost leader? Someone has either convinced the licensees that certification is unnecessary, or the licensees themselves just don't feel its worth the investment to get it to that level. Perhaps an assumption of higher security is all BBMo is looking for to get a customer to buy something with a BlackBerry logo on it.
    12-14-17 01:31 PM
  15. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    I also recall Chen's smug comparison of BlackBerry Android and Knox. The point is, it isn't Knox and it isn't certified like Knox is...two years and counting. So what value does all this 'added security' bring? Marketing? Lost leader? Someone has either convinced the licensees that certification is unnecessary, or the licensees themselves just don't feel its worth the investment to get it to that level. Perhaps an assumption of higher security is all BBMo is looking for to get a customer to buy something with a BlackBerry logo on it.
    You seem to be asserting without evidence that BlackBerry hasn't taken the security measures it says it has. It's fine to be a skeptic, but if I have to choose between unambiguous statements made by the officers of a publicly held company, who have a lot to lose if caught lying outright about their performance, and the opinions of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum, I am comfortable that the preponderance of the evidence lies with BlackBerry having added significant security to stock Android in exactly the ways they have claimed.

    Whether those measures are relevant or valuable to an individual user is likely a richer area of discusion.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    12-14-17 02:24 PM
  16. panopticon's Avatar
    You seem to be asserting without evidence that BlackBerry hasn't taken the security measures it says it has. It's fine to be a skeptic, but if I have to choose between unambiguous statements made by the officers of a publicly held company, who have a lot to lose if caught lying outright about their performance, and the opinions of an anonymous poster on an Internet forum, I am comfortable that the preponderance of the evidence lies with BlackBerry having added significant security to stock Android in exactly the ways they have claimed.

    Whether those measures are relevant or valuable to an individual user is likely a richer area of discusion.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    I never accused anyone of being a liar. All I am questioning is the value of a non-certified security proposition that has no apparent value other than the potential ability to bestow a logo on something and charge more money for it.

    If you can prove a 'reduced surface attack hardened kernel' has any value outside the popcorn industry, please let me know. Don't forget the butter and the salt. Lol.
    12-14-17 02:46 PM
  17. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    I never accused anyone of being a liar. All I am questioning is the value of a non-certified security proposition that has no apparent value other than the potential ability to bestow a logo on something and charge more money for it.

    If you can prove a 'reduced surface attack hardened kernel' has any value outside the popcorn industry, please let me know. Don't forget the butter and the salt. Lol.
    Given that the worldwide cybersecurity spend is projected to grow from 90 to 170 billion dollars over the next few years, which is MUCH faster growth than the is projected for the smart phone industry, I am sure that reducing the attack surface for endpoints has more value for BlackBerry than chasing the consumer market. It's the best play available.

    Certification is critical for government, but less so for private industry, and Apple/Knox are currently favored in government for that reason.

    Only time will tell how the marketplace actually values BlackBerry's additional security features. Personally, since my new job is as the COO of a cybersecurity strategy firm, all I can say is that our employees are not allowed to use anything except Apple, Samsung and BlackBerry devices for work.



    Posted with my trusty Z10
    12-14-17 04:09 PM
  18. panopticon's Avatar
    Given that the worldwide cybersecurity spend is projected to grow from 90 to 170 billion dollars over the next few years, which is MUCH faster growth than the is projected for the smart phone industry, I am sure that reducing the attack surface for endpoints has more value for BlackBerry than chasing the consumer market. It's the best play available.

    Certification is critical for government, but less so for private industry, and Apple/Knox are currently favored in government for that reason.

    Only time will tell how the marketplace actually values BlackBerry's additional security features. Personally, since my new job is as the COO of a cybersecurity strategy firm, all I can say is that our employees are not allowed to use anything except Apple, Samsung and BlackBerry devices for work.



    Posted with my trusty Z10
    That's all well and good but aren't you also the guy that said you would pay $1,000 for an audio cable? I will go out on a limb here and say most people who buy a BlackBerry don't care all that much about a hardened kernel. COO's included. Maybe the monthly updates.

    People quite rightly expect better security from BlackBerry but that's mainly background noise to the average consumer. The BlackBerry experience is about the apps and the hardware. Nobody except the staunchest of loyalists to the brand will put up with sub-par hardware that detracts from their enjoyment of the BlackBerry experience. For me, a poor quality screen, and oversized battery paired with a low end cpu (among other shortfalls) detract from that experience. And I don't care how bullet proof the security is...if it's not a certified solution, any feature beyond regular Google patches is little more than a gimmick to the vast majority of consumers. Don't get me wrong...I do value these added BlackBerry security features, no matter how esoteric or gimmicky they may seem, but I certainly don't value them enough to spend a premium for sub-par hardware with a BlackBerry logo.
    12-14-17 06:44 PM
  19. wingnut666's Avatar
    let's hope TCL comes out with a decent phone, or i'll be an X-convert.

    Posted via CBX
    12-14-17 06:47 PM
  20. bb10adopter111's Avatar
    That's all well and good but aren't you also the guy that said you would pay $1,000 for an audio cable? I will go out on a limb here and say most people who buy a BlackBerry don't care all that much about a hardened kernel. COO's included. Maybe the monthly updates.

    People quite rightly expect better security from BlackBerry but that's mainly background noise to the average consumer. The BlackBerry experience is about the apps and the hardware. Nobody except the staunchest of loyalists to the brand will put up with sub-par hardware that detracts from their enjoyment of the BlackBerry experience. For me, a poor quality screen, and oversized battery paired with a low end cpu (among other shortfalls) detract from that experience. And I don't care how bullet proof the security is...if it's not a certified solution, any feature beyond regular Google patches is little more than a gimmick to the vast majority of consumers. Don't get me wrong...I do value these added BlackBerry security features, no matter how esoteric or gimmicky they may seem, but I certainly don't value them enough to spend a premium for sub-par hardware with a BlackBerry logo.
    I can think of the following reasons to buy a BlackBerry Mobile phone:

    1) prefer the industrial design over other phones
    2) prefer the focus on battery life and durability
    3) prefer the launcher, DTEK and Hub+ Suite implementation
    4) Prefer the keyboard (PKB or VKB)
    5) need the additional security features with an Enterprise EMM solution such as UEM.

    Some of those features can be had by downloading software onto other Android phones, of course.

    If none of those features compels you to get a BlackBerry Mobile phone, you are, by definition, not a BlackBerry customer in 2017, even if you loved previous models.

    For me, personally, all five points are positive:

    1) I love the design of both the KEYone and the Motion, though I find both a little on the large side.

    2) Very satisfied with the performance of the SoC and thrilled with the battery life. I've been using my KEYone lightly and charging it every 3-4 days on WiFi only much of the time. Even my AT&T Version with 3GB / 32 has plenty of horsepower for my modest needs.

    3). Very happy with the launcher, Hub, convenience key, productivity tab, etc. Not as good as BB10, but that's Android, not BlackBerry.

    4). Love both the PKB and the VKB on the KEYone!

    5) As previously stated, leaving the hardware layer unprotected with stock Android is not an option in our shop, so the only choices are BlackBerry, Samsung, and Apple. We have happy buyers with all three, but personally I can't stand iOS or the design of either the iPhones or Sansungs.

    As for a daily driver, I'm likely to stick with the Z10 so long as the traditional MS Exchange-based tasks comprise 90% or more of my mobile phone use. My plan as of now is to hope that the KEYone lasts until Google stops patching Oreo sometime in 2020. By then I am hopeful that there will be better options available than the uninspiring Android/iOS choices we have today, which are more media delivery systems for addicted consumers than true productivity accelerators.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    12-14-17 09:14 PM
  21. Mojarch's Avatar
    That's all well and good but aren't you also the guy that said you would pay $1,000 for an audio cable? I will go out on a limb here and say most people who buy a BlackBerry don't care all that much about a hardened kernel. COO's included. Maybe the monthly updates.

    People quite rightly expect better security from BlackBerry but that's mainly background noise to the average consumer. The BlackBerry experience is about the apps and the hardware. Nobody except the staunchest of loyalists to the brand will put up with sub-par hardware that detracts from their enjoyment of the BlackBerry experience. For me, a poor quality screen, and oversized battery paired with a low end cpu (among other shortfalls) detract from that experience. And I don't care how bullet proof the security is...if it's not a certified solution, any feature beyond regular Google patches is little more than a gimmick to the vast majority of consumers. Don't get me wrong...I do value these added BlackBerry security features, no matter how esoteric or gimmicky they may seem, but I certainly don't value them enough to spend a premium for sub-par hardware with a BlackBerry logo.
    So knowing knox don't do any good and it is just an useless certification make you fill beter?
    I can see how it is going you say I don't want just statement and certification but yet you say knox which has been breached and set aside by lots of ways which is just a certification is good, am I right?

    Posted via CB10
    12-15-17 04:15 AM
  22. Chuck Finley69's Avatar
    let's hope TCL comes out with a decent phone, or i'll be an X-convert.

    Posted via CBX
    At this point you should buy an X. Best decision you could ever make for yourself regarding a phone.
    12-15-17 06:54 AM
  23. panopticon's Avatar
    So knowing knox don't do any good and it is just an useless certification make you fill beter?
    I can see how it is going you say I don't want just statement and certification but yet you say knox which has been breached and set aside by lots of ways which is just a certification is good, am I right?

    Posted via CB10
    Certification means a neutral third party has validated and tested the technology and held it up to highest standard. Without it, you are simply relying on the claims of the vendor. I have never said I don't believe BlackBerry but on the other hand, if you are going to make a play in the secure devices market (some here are claiming it is the entire 'raison d'etre' for BlackBerry Android) and have no certifications to back it up, it certainly raises a lot of red flags. Security is not something you pay a premium for on a whim, and the support issue also a big question mark when it comes to BlackBerry Android. Just look at the DTEKs.

    Today we heard BlackBerry is discontinuing security updates for the PRIV. While this was somewhat expected, it shows that when you spend extra money on a BlackBerry Android device you are rewarded with (at least) one less OS update and a year less of security updates as competing brands such as Pixel, Samsung, Essential, and others. Every single one of which, incidentally, runs the BlackBerry app suite better than any BlackBerry branded device...and in some cases, for less money.

    I don't believe BlackBerry is making a very wise decision by abandoning their Android products so quickly, while at the same time extending support for BB10 and even BBOS for another two years. It shows BlackBerry Android is at the bottom of their device support priority list, even after their own devices and OS have been abandoned for two years, and it certainly makes one wonder if they truly believe their licensing strategy has a future.
    anon(9803228) likes this.
    12-15-17 08:09 AM
  24. Zidentia's Avatar
    I can think of the following reasons to buy a BlackBerry Mobile phone:

    1) prefer the industrial design over other phones
    2) prefer the focus on battery life and durability
    3) prefer the launcher, DTEK and Hub+ Suite implementation
    4) Prefer the keyboard (PKB or VKB)
    5) need the additional security features with an Enterprise EMM solution such as UEM.

    Some of those features can be had by downloading software onto other Android phones, of course.

    If none of those features compels you to get a BlackBerry Mobile phone, you are, by definition, not a BlackBerry customer in 2017, even if you loved previous models.

    For me, personally, all five points are positive:

    1) I love the design of both the KEYone and the Motion, though I find both a little on the large side.

    2) Very satisfied with the performance of the SoC and thrilled with the battery life. I've been using my KEYone lightly and charging it every 3-4 days on WiFi only much of the time. Even my AT&T Version with 3GB / 32 has plenty of horsepower for my modest needs.

    3). Very happy with the launcher, Hub, convenience key, productivity tab, etc. Not as good as BB10, but that's Android, not BlackBerry.

    4). Love both the PKB and the VKB on the KEYone!

    5) As previously stated, leaving the hardware layer unprotected with stock Android is not an option in our shop, so the only choices are BlackBerry, Samsung, and Apple. We have happy buyers with all three, but personally I can't stand iOS or the design of either the iPhones or Sansungs.

    As for a daily driver, I'm likely to stick with the Z10 so long as the traditional MS Exchange-based tasks comprise 90% or more of my mobile phone use. My plan as of now is to hope that the KEYone lasts until Google stops patching Oreo sometime in 2020. By then I am hopeful that there will be better options available than the uninspiring Android/iOS choices we have today, which are more media delivery systems for addicted consumers than true productivity accelerators.

    Posted with my trusty Z10
    I would like to proffer my experience and point of view. Blackberry is in this situation for many reasons, one of which is of their own design when they missed the signs the market was changing. The other reasons are more complex and interconnected.

    I was a corporate shill for many years and I had many roles with most being in the field. I worked for one of the largest companies in the world and we manufactured products. When I had my first cell phone it was my personal one and while I used it for business as well at this time cell phones were not considered a business need. As in many corporations the need was identified and the danger associated with a non policy enforced assets convinced our company to provide business only phones. I will not expand upon every type we had but primarily the early offerings were Blackberry's and Microsoft phones. There were some real pigs on the Microsoft side and I had my share. one of my personal demons that scarred my soul was a Samsung Pocket PC slider. I went through three, two new and one refurbished because Samsung felt blameless, that would not charge and frequently locked up. I am certain the OS was the problem for one of the phones as early Microsoft offerings were inconsistent. The two that did not charge were clearly a Samsung issue. As an explanation I went with Microsoft because of the familiarity and the "ease", if you can say that, of transferring files onto a PC.

    As an early adopter I was part of the IT test team for many things including our POS, laptops and of course phones. After my early experience I tried a few more Microsoft phones from other manufacturers and finally went with a Blackberry. As a consumer I really had little to no knowledge of Blackberry but I had plenty with Microsoft so my hesitation to switch was based in the reality of my experience. When I switched I was floored by how easy they were to use and how infrequently they had issues. The only time I ever had an issue was during upgrades or switching my profile through policy. Blackberry's BIS was a blitch sometimes but it was secure. The IT department was divided on Blackberry but one thing was certain and that was they had nearly zero issues compared to the MS phones.

    This scenario stayed relatively static for many years. Every two years we were allowed to upgrade and I normally did. We still offered a variety of phones which included the MS and blackberry models. I became more entrenched in the IT department while I maintained my other role in the field. What happened next is what happens at every company. We started to rationalize costs and efficiencies were being used everywhere starting with expense control and leading to restructuring and headcount reduction. One of the things the committees identified was the expense of the phones. BIS was one and the cost to maintain a dedicated team to handle cell phone assets. BIS was safe but the cell phone program was outsourced to another company and activations were done by the user now.

    Shortly after this Apple entered the market. Obviously Apple was in the consumer mindset and this carried over into the push by employees to have Apple products. Due to the cost and the inability to secure them this movement stalled for a few years. Another key issue was the lack of enterprise applications. Apples app store literally had nothing in the beginning and when it did start to populate it was primarily junk consumer apps like games and fart noises. Apple came back with a stronger offering and a policy effort that was simplistic compared to the others but it was feasible. What Apple did not do was discount their products very much. They did give us a large break but compared to Blackberry and MS hand held manufacturers it was small. Apple does make a solid product and that played into their early success but in reality they had little competition due to the schizophrenic OS that MS tried to curate. What Apple had early on was control of the software and they controlled the carriers. This reduction in in carrier fees was a huge carrot for corporations tired of paying BIS fees.

    The final push was really not Apple directly selling their phones to us. It was the iPAd. This was primarily driven by our sales force and for obvious reasons. They are lighter than laptops, you could do presentations on them and of course this appealed for one crushing reason; cost. The iPad, while not technically better than a laptop, were cheaper and showed the corporation they could save tens of thousands of dollars on printing fees either at a corporate level or from being expensed up. Paper and publications are a huge cost to companies that sell physical things. Blackberry simply did not see the possibility until far too late and Apple had already created and sold the eco -system of the iPhone and the iPad to us.

    The crazy thing is we still had laptops and they still offered Blackberry's up until the time I left but the change was in place and evident. We did not even offer BB10 when I left as they only had the 9900. As far as me personally I never switched. In fact I tried to break my 9650 so I could get a 9900 but the damn thing would not break. I still have it and it is fun to use it every now and then to remind me of the joy of the Java based BBOS.

    What Blackberry offered then was security and that was important to companies. It was not to consumers so they had little to no mind-share with them. Security is and rapidly becoming a bigger concern as each generation depends more on a phone as their main device and store sensitive and personal information that used to be written down or stored on a PC hard drive. I have the seen the secured core first hand and I think for the user accepting the Android phones it is the only way to go. The NIAP certification is coming from what I have heard from some old contacts but Blackberry is making some type of change and Google is resisting it.

    I likely will not adopt the Android based phones. I have written hundreds of reports on my corporate phones and written dozens of stories on my Z10 and Q10. It would feel like a Frankenstein baby with identity issues for me. I say best of luck to those who go for it.
    12-15-17 09:29 AM
  25. Invictus0's Avatar
    Today we heard BlackBerry is discontinuing security updates for the PRIV. While this was somewhat expected, it shows that when you spend extra money on a BlackBerry Android device you are rewarded with (at least) one less OS update and a year less of security updates as competing brands such as Pixel, Samsung, Essential, and others. Every single one of which, incidentally, runs the BlackBerry app suite better than any BlackBerry branded device...and in some cases, for less money.
    Samsung only supports 3 years of updates on their Enterprise Edition devices (currently just the Note 8), they certainly don't have monthly updates across all of their devices like BlackBerry does.
    12-15-17 10:37 AM
332 ... 910111213 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Blackberry Android
    By olga421 in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 12-15-17, 04:45 AM
  2. BlackBerry Secure
    By Bbnivende in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-10-17, 12:37 AM
  3. Anyone Else have issues with Blackberry World Payment Options
    By Paul Lindsey in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-09-17, 02:57 PM
  4. About a Blackberry Protect issue
    By Go_rom in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-17, 02:52 PM
  5. BlackBerry to announce Q3 Fiscal 2018 results on December 20, 2017
    By CrackBerry News in forum CrackBerry.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-09-17, 12:40 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD