[powerhoghp]

According to the note along with the recent LA playbook training video, SMS won't be supported through BB Bridge. I'm very disappointed by this, that was one of the greatest features I was looking forward to (hoping that when it said messages, it included SMS). Also, the reason given, "This was due to controlling security on the devices, since RIM is transferring over only their data from their end of the game, it's easier to control.", is BS... The USER should be able to decide what is and isn't up to their security standard, texts are small and would flow easily over the encrypted connection.

[nextlevel88]

My advice: Stop talking to people that don't use BBM. Worked for me.

[Rello]

Im right there with ya man. I was really hoping that I wouldn't have to keep switching back and forth between my Playbook and BlackBerry smartphone just to send texts. Who knows though, mayb RIM will bring that feature in a later update. besides, im sure there will be some third party app...hopefully

[SoCalTrophyWife]

I can then see the carriers wanting to charge for bridging if you could indeed send sms. I for one am hoping that there is no data being used during the bridge.

[JRSCCivic98]

Ya, I didn't understand that distinction between SMS and email/PIM either. As far as the user is concerned, it's the same type of info. However, as far as "carrier services" are concerned, it's quite possible the carriers are saying "don't give the user bridge support for any service that carrier controlled". I think this might be the distinction RIM was trying to indicate without blatantly showing that the carriers are still calling the shots for them.

[frfghtr]

Ya, I didn't understand that distinction between SMS and email/PIM either.

Who knows? Maybe cause one uses the internet and the other doesn't? My spouse doesn't need a data plan to send a sms.

[JRSCCivic98]

Who knows? Maybe cause one uses the internet and the other doesn't? My spouse doesn't need a data plan to send a sms.

Ya, I know that. Perhaps I should have said what you quoted above "as it pertains to the bridge option" because that's what I meant. The bridge option is only remote viewing of info anyway, like a VNC session almost, so SMS or browsing your email really should fall under the same governing principal. There is no security issue there because of the BT link is broken, all the data would go away from the PB anyway.

[bulls2213]

Even if you choose to SMS text people within BBM (which I generally do not currently do, but if were to work this way I probably would start) will it not carry over through the BB bridge?

[frfghtr]

Ya, I know that. Perhaps I should have said what you quoted above "as it pertains to the bridge option" because that's what I meant.

That's what I meant?

Doesn't matter though. I still regard it a two different entities. SMS is phone based and emails are internet based.

I don't consider the playbook a phone so I don't expect it do sms. Tethered or bridged or whatever. A pc can send a sms if one has the right @address. But then it's an email.

Doubt the playbook was even designed to do sms so no big deal for me. Maybe it will when it goes 3G but no way with WiFi.

[frfghtr]

Even if you choose to SMS text people within BBM (which I generally do not currently do, but if were to work this way I probably would start) will it not carry over through the BB bridge?

I would like to believe that some are confusing sms and bbm.

I'm led to believe you can use bbm because you would be accessing your bb bbm application. I'm not a tech but doesn't bbm and sms also work/send differently.

April 19th can't come soon enough. Lots of unanswered question.

[mikeyg164]

Here's my 2 cents. While using bridge, is the playbook then nothing more then a "wireless display" for the supported function? Your playbook cant BBM by itself....it has to be connected to a phone... The playbook is tellin the phone to send a BBM. So if that is the case, what is the difference between sending a bbm or sms, either way, BOTH originate from the phone??.... Or did I misunderstand something.

And unfortunatley, gettin all my friends to swtich over to BB is impossible.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[dcgore]

^^^ I agree with you.

[Mercury]

According to the note along with the recent LA playbook training video, SMS won't be supported through BB Bridge. I'm very disappointed by this, that was one of the greatest features I was looking forward to (hoping that when it said messages, it included SMS). Also, the reason given, "This was due to controlling security on the devices, since RIM is transferring over only their data from their end of the game, it's easier to control.", is BS... The USER should be able to decide what is and isn't up to their security standard, texts are small and would flow easily over the encrypted connection.

ok So boohoo.... your going to have your bb near you anyways for bridging/tethering anyways. So it just means your going to have to pick up your phone. Your asking RIM to allow something that is carrier specific. So what if you have to pick up your phone. I do agree that maybe it should be there, but im not ******** about it cause I personally dont care. if this is a make or break for you, get an ipad and ***** that it doesn't offer half the stuff the Playbook has.

Sorry for coming off as rude and an ***, but seriously, maybe when the PB gets native email/conacts/calendar and the 3G/4G version, maybe it will support SMS and MMS

[Foreverup]

ok So boohoo.... your going to have your bb near you anyways for bridging/tethering anyways. So it just means your going to have to pick up your phone. Your asking RIM to allow something that is carrier specific. So what if you have to pick up your phone. I do agree that maybe it should be there, but im not ******** about it cause I personally dont care. if this is a make or break for you, get an ipad and ***** that it doesn't offer half the stuff the Playbook has.

Sorry for coming off as rude and an ***, but seriously, maybe when the PB gets native email/conacts/calendar and the 3G/4G version, maybe it will support SMS and MMS

I thought you needed a third party app like google voice to text message for the ipad, I don't think it is a native function.

[Mercury]

I thought you needed a third party app like google voice to text message for the ipad, I don't think it is a native function.

that is correct. So I'm being sarcastic. None of the tablets have native sms functionality and the fact that RIM is going a step beyond and making the bridge to allow for BBM and emai is huge on its own. So what if we don't have SMS. RIM is taking care of stuff they own and allow on their BIS/BES network

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[frfghtr]

Here's my 2 cents. While using bridge, is the playbook then nothing more then a "wireless display" for the supported function? Your playbook cant BBM by itself....it has to be connected to a phone... The playbook is tellin the phone to send a BBM. So if that is the case, what is the difference between sending a bbm or sms, either way, BOTH originate from the phone??.... Or did I misunderstand something.

And unfortunatley, gettin all my friends to swtich over to BB is impossible.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

From the fs training thread, this is how RIM explains tethering /bridging.

[theruined]

The reasoning behind it was security. Right. But what you all fail to realize about carrier data is that it flows through a different channel. RIM can control it's data (i.e. PIN data) through it's BIS/BES servers and guarantee it's security. It does not want to take liability for carrier data that cannot be properly secured.

As a company that puts security as it's flagship characteristic, this move is very expected. However it was confirmed that once carriers better understand this method of pairing that they may integrate it later on down the road. For one, it doesn't matter to me, but I can see how it can inconvenience others...

[JRSCCivic98]

The reasoning behind it was security. Right. But what you all fail to realize about carrier data is that it flows through a different channel. RIM can control it's data (i.e. PIN data) through it's BIS/BES servers and guarantee it's security. It does not want to take liability for carrier data that cannot be properly secured.

As a company that puts security as it's flagship characteristic, this move is very expected. However it was confirmed that once carriers better understand this method of pairing that they may integrate it later on down the road. For one, it doesn't matter to me, but I can see how it can inconvenience others...

Except for the fact that if a BB is on BES, SMS data is very much accessible, lockable, etc. from the BES server itself. I don't buy the security part... I'm sorry.

[theruined]

Except for the fact that if a BB is on BES, SMS data is very much accessible, lockable, etc. from the BES server itself. I don't buy the security part... I'm sorry.

But with BES it relies on company support and not carrier support. For BIS is what they are most concerned about since there is no intermediary to control that transfer of data. I'm sure BES will be a different story in the end...

[JRSCCivic98]

But with BES it relies on company support and not carrier support. For BIS is what they are most concerned about since there is no intermediary to control that transfer of data. I'm sure BES will be a different story in the end...

And in that case, it wouldn't matter because that customer is not a corporate customer and the security argument is moot (in terms of the discussed point of view). Also, it's important to note that SMS is isn't secured in either BIS or BES environments (BES just allows for viewing of the content if an admin deems it necessary). Also, nothing BIS is secured either, and even if it was, the security endpoint being references here lies with the Blackberry handset itself. The bridge option is just a remote viewer of the BB, so the only security needed there is just the bridge tunnel and the loss of data once the bridge is broken (both of which are already taken care of with how the bridge works.) This is why I'm not buying the "security" argument that RIM came up with for this. It's more than likely a carrier thing than anything else. Couple that with the fact that Internet access is available to the PB via the Bluetooth link as well (based on the videos from CB) and the fact that Sprint last week had the leaked docs indicating that Bluetooth linking will be fee based as well (most likely to control this Bluetooth tethering as opposed to the WIFI based one of which the PB is capable of both).

[theruined]

And in that case, it wouldn't matter because that customer is not a corporate customer and the security argument is moot (in terms of the discussed point of view). Also, it's important to note that SMS is isn't secured in either BIS or BES environments (BES just allows for viewing of the content if an admin deems it necessary). Also, nothing BIS is secured either, and even if it was, the security endpoint being references here lies with the Blackberry handset itself. The bridge option is just a remote viewer of the BB, so the only security needed there is just the bridge tunnel and the loss of data once the bridge is broken (both of which are already taken care of with how the bridge works.) This is why I'm not buying the "security" argument that RIM came up with for this. It's more than likely a carrier thing than anything else. Couple that with the fact that Internet access is available to the PB via the Bluetooth link as well (based on the videos from CB) and the fact that Sprint last week had the leaked docs indicating that Bluetooth linking will be fee based as well (most likely to control this Bluetooth tethering as opposed to the WIFI based one of which the PB is capable of both).

BIS and BES have a basic level of security on them originating from the fact that our info must pass from our handset to the carrier to the BIS/BES and back to our handset in reverse order. It's that one extra transfer of data that enables RIM to control whatever back-end security they want. However, on BES it is a bit more involved because that level of security can be individually regulated by each respective BES admin if necessary.

I am not sure how the transfer of text messages works, but I am certain that they are stored on the corporate servers, which makes it info accessible to each admin. I don't don't know how it works, but I know it works.

I agree with the fact that it could easily be accomplished, but I think when presenting the idea to carriers, they weren't all for the utilization of information over a BIS structure that couldn't be regulated by each individual carrier.

In the end, I really don't care either way...it just does kinda suck...I'm actually curious if that can be later manipulated by 3rd party software though...

[lnichols]

I don't see allowing the PB to access or send SMS messages via the Bridge a carrier function. In the end the phone is still doing all of the sending and receiving, you are just view the sent and received data on the Playbook. It's no different than sending or receiving a BBM via the Bridge in that the phone is doing the work and the Playbook is simply reformatting the data from the the phone and providing you a different view.

[Foreverup]

A good question is does the bridge use each individual email folder on your device or does it bridge the message folder because i link my text messages to my message folder so everything is in one folder so i think you could at least view them through the bridge function.

[JRSCCivic98]

BIS and BES have a basic level of security on them originating from the fact that our info must pass from our handset to the carrier to the BIS/BES and back to our handset in reverse order. It's that one extra transfer of data that enables RIM to control whatever back-end security they want. However, on BES it is a bit more involved because that level of security can be individually regulated by each respective BES admin if necessary.

I am not sure how the transfer of text messages works, but I am certain that they are stored on the corporate servers, which makes it info accessible to each admin. I don't don't know how it works, but I know it works.

I agree with the fact that it could easily be accomplished, but I think when presenting the idea to carriers, they weren't all for the utilization of information over a BIS structure that couldn't be regulated by each individual carrier.

In the end, I really don't care either way...it just does kinda suck...I'm actually curious if that can be later manipulated by 3rd party software though...

From me reading this, it still leads me to belive you're not understanding the idea and principal of the Bridge on the PB. It's nothing more than remote viewing/control across bluetooth connection, that's it. Really, it's the same as your car having access to the contacts in your phone when linked via Bluetooth and it goes away when you disconnect. It's just like this, but covers other things like Email, Calendar, etc. Because of this, there is no distinction of where you're sending the messages (email or SMS) from... because they don't actually leave the PB to go to the BB and then back out. They are composed/read/whatever from the BB itself via the PB as a remote screen/keyboard. Does that make a little more sense? This is why I say that this shouldn't matter much and that RIM is really fully open to Bridge ANYTHING they want off a BB onto the PB.

[theruined]

From me reading this, it still leads me to belive you're not understanding the idea and principal of the Bridge on the PB. It's nothing more than remote viewing/control across bluetooth connection, that's it. Really, it's the same as your car having access to the contacts in your phone when linked via Bluetooth and it goes away when you disconnect. It's just like this, but covers other things like Email, Calendar, etc. Because of this, there is no distinction of where you're sending the messages (email or SMS) from... because they don't actually leave the PB to go to the BB and then back out. They are composed/read/whatever from the BB itself via the PB as a remote screen/keyboard. Does that make a little more sense? This is why I say that this shouldn't matter much and that RIM is really fully open to Bridge ANYTHING they want off a BB onto the PB.

No I totally understand the concept...You're forgetting this information could be compromised by bypassing the secure link and jumping on to either device once made vulnerable by the bridge connection. I think that's what they're more concerned about...

I see the logic behind your statement, I'm just trying to give you an idea of what I gathered they meant when they said that. I'm not defending their decision, rather supplying alternate reasoning. It might not make sense, but hey...when does RIM ever make 100% sense...