01-07-12 11:29 PM
48 12
tools
  1. slalom's Avatar
    Why doesn't RIM seek some alliances with QNX to help expand the ecosystem and create a more viable opportunity to Android and Apple OS.

    Wouldn't this benefit developers, customers, and RIM? While QNX may be viewed as something as a differentiator, without the ecosystem, I suspect my QNX devices may be headed to the cupboard with my HD-DVD player - a good technology that didn't get the required support network and consequently failed in market adoption?
    12-19-11 11:38 AM
  2. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    One reason, unpalatable as it may seem, is that RIM may not have anyone asking. In other words, not everyone may be as high on QNX as some forumites are.

    I still don't think any OS sells devices though.
    12-19-11 11:53 AM
  3. loneweasel's Avatar
    Because Android and Win Mobile exist.

    QNX doesn't offer anything unique the other three OS can't do.

    A new manufacturer would be wiser to resurrect WebOS before QNX.
    12-19-11 11:57 AM
  4. conix67's Avatar
    QNX has been running on PCs and embedded controller for many, many years. The QNX with tablet GUI on PB is relatively new, and licensing it to other manufacturers would be 1. additional cost to the other manufacturers 2. additional resources required for RIM to support licensees.

    Any manufacturer can pick up Android and customize it for their own platform, and not worry about licensing cost. Besides the ecosystem is there, thus the popularity of Android even if it is technically inferior to QNX of PB.
    MedChemist and app_Developer like this.
    12-19-11 11:59 AM
  5. ignites's Avatar
    if QNX on another tablet is better than pb then ppl will buy that tablet
    if it sucks more than pb then no one will get it?

    get it?
    12-19-11 12:48 PM
  6. hpjrt's Avatar
    Clever ... but really just so "been there done that". sigh
    12-19-11 12:54 PM
  7. lynntarbox's Avatar
    Because Android and Win Mobile exist.

    QNX doesn't offer anything unique the other three OS can't do.

    A new manufacturer would be wiser to resurrect WebOS before QNX.
    i agree. webos is pretty much the entire basis of where QNX got its UI from.
    12-19-11 12:57 PM
  8. Economist101's Avatar
    Without sales there's nothing worth licensing, especially since right now Android is equally unsuccessful and essentially free (though patent concerns and licensing deals with MS are an issue).
    12-19-11 01:01 PM
  9. conix67's Avatar
    Without sales there's nothing worth licensing, especially since right now Android is equally unsuccessful and essentially free (though patent concerns and licensing deals with MS are an issue).
    Oops.. sorry I forgot about this. Most manufacturers of Android phone/tablets are paying royalties to MS. In total I believe it runs almost hundreds of millions a year.
    12-19-11 01:05 PM
  10. MedChemist's Avatar
    As conix67 has indicated QNX is everywhere. You know it is the embeded OS for that Onstar after market mirror, that can be added to any car other than GM to give them that capability! I have been following QNX since the early 80's. Don't confuse the underlying OS with the user application interface. QNX like Linix Unix, etc can have many UI's. What most people are complaining about is how long its taking to get the UI interface for the PB out and working well. I suspect that we would have a lot of developers if we could get the tools into Linix developers hands and attract them to the platform. But they tend to stay on Intel like hardware. Probably none really interested in tablets all that much.
    12-19-11 01:19 PM
  11. Unsure2's Avatar
    The time for alliances is long past. Maybe a year ago, RIM could have interested partners. Even then, doubtful. Android simply offered too much--continued development by Google and an already established base of software. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but RIM's goose is probably cooked, at least when it comes to the QNX OS.
    12-19-11 01:31 PM
  12. samab's Avatar
    QNX is run as a separate independent company --- ANYONE can license the OS.

    QNX is different from BB 10.
    12-19-11 02:05 PM
  13. VerryBestr's Avatar
    ... patent concerns and licensing deals with MS are an issue [for Android].
    MS is probably only the beginning of Android's patent and license problems. British Telecom just joined Apple, eBay, Oracle and others with its own lawsuit. Android is a fat target, Google has weak defenses.

    RIM has, by my count, spent $2 billion for licenses and patents so far this fiscal year. I have to believe that RIM has made an arrangement with Oracle for the Android player.

    The big wildcard, I think, is the Oracle lawsuit. If Oracle wins, not only will Google be paying, but also all the Android manufacturers who sell in the U.S. Even companies who develop Java-based Android apps could be dinged for license fees. It's improbable but conceivable that RIM would have the only legally licensed devices for Android app deployment.

    If license and patent troubles continue to mount up for Android, then licencing BB10 would become a more interesting possibility ... when/if BB10 is finally in a finished state, as it is only partly completed now.
    musical1806 likes this.
    12-19-11 02:23 PM
  14. VerryBestr's Avatar
    Without sales there's nothing worth licensing ...
    This is a side point, but that is not the attitude that Nokia took with respect to MS, is it?

    It will be more interesting to discuss the possibility of licensing BB10 when BB10 actually exists and can be evaluated.
    peter9477 and Jake Storm like this.
    12-19-11 02:27 PM
  15. lynntarbox's Avatar
    This is a side point, but that is not the attitude that Nokia took with respect to MS, is it?

    It will be more interesting to discuss the possibility of licensing BB10 when BB10 actually exists and can be evaluated.
    thats because nokia took a huge gamble not going with android by accepting microsofts money to use windows phone 7 instead.

    i HIGHLY doubt rim has that much $ to pay a huge phone manufacturer to solely focus on QNX. didn't MS pay nokia over a billion dollars? RIM's entire company is barely worth 7 billion now (down from 80 billion just some years ago)
    chealyjazz likes this.
    12-19-11 02:38 PM
  16. HybridGT's Avatar
    Other companies don't want or need QNX.

    Even RIM isn't making the best use of QNX
    12-19-11 03:31 PM
  17. Knightcrawler's Avatar
    so what would be the best use of qnx?
    12-20-11 06:23 AM
  18. trsbbs's Avatar
    QNX is run as a separate independent company --- ANYONE can license the OS.



    QNX is different from BB 10.

    QNX is owned by RIM. Lock, stock and barrel. So I would not say the are fully independent.

    I am sure any license for a phone or tablet would have to be approved by RIM.

    Tim

    Sent from my BlackBerry.
    12-20-11 06:46 AM
  19. trsbbs's Avatar
    Other companies don't want or need QNX.

    Even RIM isn't making the best use of QNX

    Not true. It is used in several industrial, consumer and high tech applications and has been since the 80's.

    Someone needs to do some fact checking.

    Tim

    Sent from my BlackBerry.
    12-20-11 06:49 AM
  20. Branta's Avatar
    i HIGHLY doubt rim has that much $ to pay a huge phone manufacturer to solely focus on QNX.
    RIM would not pay $$ to another manufacturer to have them use QNX, they would collect license fees from the manufacturer. It would be a source of revenue, not a cost to RIM.
    12-20-11 07:13 PM
  21. app_Developer's Avatar
    RIM would not pay $$ to another manufacturer to have them use QNX, they would collect license fees from the manufacturer. It would be a source of revenue, not a cost to RIM.
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic?

    It's well known that Microsoft paid Nokia a large sum of money to choose WP7 over Android. And it's also known that Google gives their OS to manufacturers for free.

    The business model of licensing a mobile OS as a source of revenue is not a business model that currently exists in the market. No one would pay RIM (or anyone else) a penny.

    I apologize if I missed the sarcasm in your post.
    Last edited by app_Developer; 12-20-11 at 07:47 PM.
    12-20-11 07:27 PM
  22. Sonic77's Avatar
    12-20-11 07:47 PM
  23. BuzzStarField's Avatar
    Not sure if you're being sarcastic?

    It's well known that Microsoft paid Nokia a large sum of money to choose WP7 over Android. And it's also known that Google gives their OS to manufacturers for free.

    The business model of licensing a mobile OS as a source of revenue is not a business model that currently exists in the market. No one would pay RIM (or anyone else) a penny.
    This thread has become a speculation on a speculator's speculation. It's tough to follow. The OP asked why RIM doesn't license QNX to other tablet companies. I guess your answer is the best so far - there are no bucks to be made in giving away what many of RIM's investors perceive to be a competitive advantage. I think it would be a crazy course of action too, notwithstanding some posters' considered opinion that QNX is worthless anyway.
    12-20-11 08:05 PM
  24. slalom's Avatar
    i think any strategy that expands the user base is a good one
    12-20-11 08:48 PM
  25. zoban's Avatar
    QNX Realtime Operating System (RTOS) software, middleware, development tools** and services for superior embedded design

    As a note the QNX is used in a lot more then just the Playbook. Car headunits/control centers for one that many of us have seen maybe even used and not realised what the OS was.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QNX
    12-20-11 09:16 PM
48 12
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD