[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Like my two year old Samsung that has only ever received two security updates. None in 2017.

What device and what carrier?

I have a almost two year old design, the Galaxy S7 on Verizon and it's gotten regular updates since I got it over the summer. But haven't really seen any promises of any schedule. Have seen some strong rumors that Samsung is even updating the three year old S6 to OREO, but m S7 is for sure on the list to get it.

But I don't think Samsung has updates worked out with all Carriers, and not all Samsung phones are KNOX enabled, and thus considered Enterprise class devices.

I suspect that as a major US Enterprise/Government provider that Verizon has decided that at least with the Galaxy devices... they are going to put forth more effort than in the past. My Moto only got quarterly roll-ups.

[Bbnivende]

What device and what carrier?

I have a almost two year old design, the Galaxy S7 on Verizon and it's gotten regular updates since I got it over the summer. But haven't really seen any promises of any schedule. Have seen some strong rumors that Samsung is even updating the three year old S6 to OREO, but m S7 is for sure on the list to get it.

But I don't think Samsung has updates worked out with all Carriers, and not all Samsung phones are KNOX enabled, and thus considered Enterprise class devices.

I suspect that as a major US Enterprise/Government provider that Verizon has decided that at least with the Galaxy devices... they are going to put forth more effort than in the past. My Moto only got quarterly roll-ups.

Galaxy A5 on Bell purchased November 2015. Last security update was November 2016. Phone no longer has a SIM card . Moved to a new phone November 2017.

[Matt J]

Galaxy A5 on Bell purchased November 2015. Last security update was November 2016. Phone no longer has a SIM card . Moved to a new phone November 2017.

As much as I don't have any love for Google, this is one good reason to get an unlocked Google device. At least the updates are monthly and (probably) longer than any other manufacturer.

I will keep my eye on BlackBerry/BlackBerry Mobile, but if these delayed updates and only 2 years of support become the rule, it may be time to move on.

[Chuck Finley69]

As much as I don't have any love for Google, this is one good reason to get an unlocked Google device. At least the updates are monthly and (probably) longer than any other manufacturer.

I will keep my eye on BlackBerry/BlackBerry Mobile, but if these delayed updates and only 2 years of support become the rule, it may be time to move on.

This is the dilemma for Android OEMs vs Google since Google has the advantage. However Google has determined in the past, it needs the OEMs because they do a lot of the heavy lifting infrastructure wise just like carriers do. If people keep buying through carriers for convenience then OEMs don't care about competing with factory unlocked. Same for Google selling their own devices or licensing the OS and Ecosystem.
If people are happy with the carriers and OEM devices, why fix what isn't broke?

[conite]

I will keep my eye on BlackBerry/BlackBerry Mobile, but if these delayed updates and only 2 years of support become the rule, it may be time to move on.

The fact that KEYᵒⁿᵉ sales have been double what was expected, it looks pretty good for TCL.

"BlackBerry launched the KeyOne in February 2017, and the initial plan was to sell it in around 10 to 15 markets. Less than a year later, it’s sold in more than 50 markets, and through 120 carriers globally. Hurn said BlackBerry (Mobile) underestimated demand by 50 percent, and called the period after its launch, “a roller coaster,” as the team came together and it learned to better manage the supply chain."

[Matt J]

The fact that KEYᵒⁿᵉ sales have been double what was expected, it looks pretty good for TCL.

If this is indeed the case, then this is good! It will be a strong motivator for TCL to keep high levels of customer support. This is how loyalty is earned.

[conite]

If this is indeed the case, then this is good! It will be a strong motivator for TCL to keep high levels of customer support. This is how loyalty is earned.

It was also indicated that 60% of sales have been to business, and 50% of sales were to former iPhone and other Android users.

Imo, the ONLY thing that would keep BlackBerry from extending support would be for the bottom to fall out.

[Invictus0]

It was also indicated that 60% of sales have been to business, and 50% of sales were to former iPhone and other Android users.

Typo? I'm all for giving 110% but I don't think that works here.

[conite]

Typo? I'm all for giving 110% but I don't think that works here.

They are two separate stats.

[Troy Tiscareno]

This is the dilemma for Android OEMs vs Google since Google has the advantage. However Google has determined in the past, it needs the OEMs because they do a lot of the heavy lifting infrastructure wise just like carriers do. If people keep buying through carriers for convenience then OEMs don't care about competing with factory unlocked. Same for Google selling their own devices or licensing the OS and Ecosystem.
If people are happy with the carriers and OEM devices, why fix what isn't broke?

Google could easily be a prime, heavily-competing smartphone manufacturer - but they have no desire to be one. In fact, they intentionally restrict manufacturing volumes and they barely advertise. Why? Because their whole reason for making their own phones is to keep the other manufacturers on their toes and to show what's possible with whatever new technologies they have available. They make enough phones to make their point, but not so many that they're serious competition with their OEMs.

It's much like what Microsoft has done with Surface. MS doesn't want to put Dell and Acer and HP out of the PC business, but they want to show what CAN be done with Windows and modern hardware, to get the other manufacturers to think outside the box and to embrace new MS technologies.

[bb10adopter111]

After all my experience with BlackBerry's security updates and promises and the most secure smartphones etc. I would not drive a car with BlackBerry security in it.

Posted via CB10

OK. So, depending on the model and year, you may not be driving an Acura, Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Maserati, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Toyota, or Volkswagen. As of several years ago there were more than 50,000,000 cars using BlackBerry software. Have fun figuring out which ones you're willing to drive.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[Chuck Finley69]

OK. So, depending on the model and year, you may not be driving an Acura, Audi, BMW, Chrysler, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar, Land Rover, Maserati, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Toyota, or Volkswagen. As of several years ago there were more than 50,000,000 cars using BlackBerry software. Have fun figuring out which ones you're willing to drive.

Posted with my trusty Z10

That one deserves a mic drop....

[Harshshah9]

Here it is (very disappointing):
"Thanks for your inquiry. BlackBerry phones are the world’s most secure Android smartphones because we’ve designed security into every possible piece of the software that runs them. For information regarding software updates please visit the following Blog post shared by Alex Thurber using this link: https://t.co/ufUW6bSw20. Regarding the update program, please stay tuned to Inside BlackBerry for further details. ^DT"

BlackBerry should learn from Apple. At least Apple is patching up all their devices doesn't matter how old they are (at least up until iPhone 6/ 6s). If BlackBerry is a software company now then it is even more easier for them to roll out a patch for their Android devices at the bare minimum. Serious questions on the claim by BlackBerry as the "most secure mobile device".

[conite]

BlackBerry should learn from Apple. At least Apple is patching up all their devices doesn't matter how old they are (at least up until iPhone 6/ 6s). If BlackBerry is a software company now then it is even more easier for them to roll out a patch for their Android devices at the bare minimum. Serious questions on the claim by BlackBerry as the "most secure mobile device".

BlackBerry rolled out the Krack fix more than 6 weeks before Apple.

BlackBerry also started to rollout the Jan Spectre patch today on the KEYᵒⁿᵉ - at the same time as Apple.

Android is, by its very nature, much more fragmented than iOS - with both hardware and software. So yes, it takes more time to get it out to everyone. Apple also gets to skip carriers and other agencies due to a sweet deal they made more than 10 years ago.

[Bbnivende]

It was also indicated that 60% of sales have been to business, and 50% of sales were to former iPhone and other Android users.

Imo, the ONLY thing that would keep BlackBerry from extending support would be for the bottom to fall out.

The articles I read indicated that 50 percent of buyers were former BlackBerry owners and 50 percent were from other brands.

I also read that they said that 60 percent of US sales were to enterprise customers.

The high enterprise sales percentage in the US probably relates to low over all sales in that country.

An independent analyst suggested that sales were 170k units the last quarter.

[Zidentia]

To begin with I wish the PC site was the same as the mobile site. It is a much better format.

As a software programmer for many years in a former life it always amuses me that people have no understanding that any software can be hacked to some degree. This is the inherent nature of technology. It always advances and new techniques and exploits are uncovered. Programming creates multi textural ways of interacting with hardware and this leads to problems and surprises. There are only a few programming sets of code that are nearly unbreakable. They can be broken into but they have enough layers that it becomes fruitless after a time. I am not talking about security software either.

The ironic part is the blame almost always falls back to the hardware and in the physical world you need software to communicate with it. It is true that hardware is made in varying degrees of complexity and viability and that adds to the task of securing it from malfeasance. Any silicone based or IT intended hardware has a different set of parameters and operating goals it needs to meet which creates the paradox of software reliance. Hardware has been, almost without exception, perfected to the point it does not break unless you have a manufacturing flaw or a real design issue.

Software , on the other hand, is a fluid ever changing product that has to be dynamic, stable and progressive. This CTQ has to be accomplished while still securing both sides of the interaction of product and end user.

If you take two similar but disparate types of hardware it becomes much clearer.

The telephone before 1973 was a solid mature technology that, depending on manufacture, never failed and provided long term service. It needed little security until end users started to exploit line technology and so forth. Smart phones essentially started out fulfilling the same purpose but had wildly different security needs that progressed rapidly. The software struggled to keep up with the problems and to this day it still does because the smart phone category is a fluid, dynamic type of hardware as most technology is now.

When we reach a lull or point in time where security is not as much as an issue then the technology has matured and innovation has leveled off and we should expect something to come along to disrupt it or totally change our perception of communication.

[CarstenF]

Great - Blackberry which claims to have the most secure Android devices does NOT even KNOW that the Priv IS affected by a variant of Meltdown due to its two A57 cores. Great security company...

[Chuck Finley69]

Great - Blackberry which claims to have the most secure Android devices does NOT even KNOW that the Priv IS affected by a variant of Meltdown due to its two A57 cores. Great security company...

PRIV is old device and they're no longer supporting the phone. It's what happens to defunct hardware companies. They meet the minimal legally required obligations when they have nothing to gain or lose.

[CarstenF]

To begin with I wish the PC site was the same as the mobile site. It is a much better format.

As a software programmer for many years in a former life it always amuses me that people have no understanding that any software can be hacked to some degree. This is the inherent nature of technology. It always advances and new techniques and exploits are uncovered. Programming creates multi textural ways of interacting with hardware and this leads to problems and surprises. There are only a few programming sets of code that are nearly unbreakable. They can be broken into but they have enough layers that it becomes fruitless after a time. I am not talking about security software either.

The ironic part is the blame almost always falls back to the hardware and in the physical world you need software to communicate with it. It is true that hardware is made in varying degrees of complexity and viability and that adds to the task of securing it from malfeasance. Any silicone based or IT intended hardware has a different set of parameters and operating goals it needs to meet which creates the paradox of software reliance. Hardware has been, almost without exception, perfected to the point it does not break unless you have a manufacturing flaw or a real design issue.

Software , on the other hand, is a fluid ever changing product that has to be dynamic, stable and progressive. This CTQ has to be accomplished while still securing both sides of the interaction of product and end user.

If you take two similar but disparate types of hardware it becomes much clearer.

The telephone before 1973 was a solid mature technology that, depending on manufacture, never failed and provided long term service. It needed little security until end users started to exploit line technology and so forth. Smart phones essentially started out fulfilling the same purpose but had wildly different security needs that progressed rapidly. The software struggled to keep up with the problems and to this day it still does because the smart phone category is a fluid, dynamic type of hardware as most technology is now.

When we reach a lull or point in time where security is not as much as an issue then the technology has matured and innovation has leveled off and we should expect something to come along to disrupt it or totally change our perception of communication.

That"s not necessarily true. I would agree on this for Android, as it is a relatively complex operating system. The problem there is that most of the code is written in C/C++ and that is a language in which it is easy to write hard to read code with security flaws by using for example pointers.
There are programming languages which can help the developer to avoid many of the security issues. Also programmers could be better trained on how to avoid security flaws.
Looking at the curriculum of my local university for IT students, there is currently no mandatory lecture in the curriculum on IT security or on how to write secure code.

[p1800nut]

Honestly, that phone is a disaster waiting to happen. I would wipe it and crush it.

Or load Lineage OS, an option not available for Blackdroid phones.

[CarstenF]

PRIV is old device and they're no longer supporting the phone. It's what happens to defunct hardware companies. They meet the minimal legally required obligations when they have nothing to gain or lose.

It is not really that old. I bought mine new about 12 months ago. Still adds "the most secure Android phone by BlackBerry" to all mails sent to it (or similar).
I should probably change it to "BlackBerry Priv - by the company that leaves customers exposed to security flaws a short time after they have taken your money "

[conite]

It is not really that old. I bought mine new about 12 months ago. Still adds "the most secure Android phone by BlackBerry" to all mails sent to it (or similar).
I should probably change it to "BlackBerry Priv - by the company that leaves customers exposed to security flaws a short time after they have taken your money "

To be fair, BlackBerry still supported the Priv for a full year AFTER they left the handset business completely, and for 6 months AFTER selling their last device - bringing support to 2 years.

There are, admittedly, other companies promising more than that, but they are still in the business.

[bb10adopter111]

It is not really that old. I bought mine new about 12 months ago. Still adds "the most secure Android phone by BlackBerry" to all mails sent to it (or similar).
I should probably change it to "BlackBerry Priv - by the company that leaves customers exposed to security flaws a short time after they have taken your money "

BlackBerry met it's contractual obligations to you. I understand that you expected more and are disappointed.

If you bought your Priv about 12 months ago, I'm surprised you didn't appreciate the very real risk that BlackBerry would exit hardware and provide any support beyond the warranty and license agreement that you signed when you set up your phone. By the time you bought your Priv, it was pretty obviously under performing in the market place.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[howarmat]

Great - Blackberry which claims to have the most secure Android devices does NOT even KNOW that the Priv IS affected by a variant of Meltdown due to its two A57 cores. Great security company...

They know about it, they just arent jumping to patch it on a device that is EOLed essentially. Same as 90% of the other android manufactures. Anyone expecting different just are out of touch with reality and bought hard and the fishing line BB was throwing out there to sell phones. It might still all get patched but its not a priority.