01-03-12 10:42 AM
67 123
tools
  1. ichat's Avatar
    After the awesome thread about the US prez having a BB, I decided to see if I could pull out another one of those threads. I love great discussions! Anyway, this time, I decided to focus my attention to Blackberry Software Updates vs. iOS Updates. Its not a comparison but I'm trying to ask everyone here why there is one big difference.

    Let me explain further:

    When you hook up to iTunes using an iOS device, you can update regardless of your carrier. It updates and you don't have bloatware.

    Now, when you hook up a Blackberry device to BBDM (Desktop Manager), it sometimes won't let you update to the latest and greatest because your carrier hasn't "approved" it.

    Why is that so? If I had a choice I would find iOS updates safer in security because its directly from Apple to you.

    Why does Blackberry have to make this system?

    Blackberry OS Makers (RIM) >> Carriers >> Blackberry Desktop Software >> Users >> Installation on BB Devices

    Whereas, iOS goes like this:

    Apple iOS Makers >> iTunes >> Users >> Installation

    To sum that up, its just straight forward. iOS doesnt have app links to crap around with because they don't give it to carrier. We all know iOS isn't as safe as BB OS but I find the way of updating your phone via Apple way better...

    What do you guys think?
    Last edited by ichat; 01-01-12 at 03:53 AM. Reason: FACTS WRONG... SORRY!!!
    dadymon likes this.
    01-01-12 03:35 AM
  2. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    Carriers don't put any Bloatware on blackberrys, what are you talking about? Those are just browser shortcuts. As soon as the update is finished you can see all the applications installed and you have full control over them.

    Carriers do need to test the radios, maybe that's why a BB has much better call quality and reliability.
    01-01-12 03:42 AM
  3. californiablackberry's Avatar
    If you want Bloatware, try Android.
    01-01-12 03:42 AM
  4. chunt69's Avatar
    Interesting, yes apple makes it easier but if your a bit tech savvy can you go in and play/hybrid ios? I'm no clued up on ios/apple. Also the fact you can only do it in itunes is very limited- simple but limited. Like most apple products tbh- very useable/easy but very restricted. (One size doesn't always fit all!)
    I like to play about and find wot works for me with the bb o/s, I also think the hybrid community is great.
    01-01-12 03:47 AM
  5. MartyMcfly's Avatar
    Interesting, yes apple makes it easier but if your a bit tech savvy can you go in and play/hybrid ios? I'm no clued up on ios/apple. Also the fact you can only do it in itunes is very limited- simple but limited. Like most apple products tbh- very useable/easy but very restricted. (One size doesn't always fit all!)
    I like to play about and find wot works for me with the bb o/s, I also think the hybrid community is great.
    You don't need iTunes to update your device.


    Sent from my IPhone 4s using Tapatalk
    01-01-12 03:52 AM
  6. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    You don't need iTunes to update your device.


    Sent from my IPhone 4s using Tapatalk
    You also don't need Desktop Manager to update a blackberry, you can do it in the browser or by downloading the OS directly to a pc.
    01-01-12 03:55 AM
  7. chunt69's Avatar
    You don't need iTunes to update your device.
    Sent from my IPhone 4s using Tapatalk
    Oh, fair enough.
    Can you customize the o/s?
    01-01-12 03:57 AM
  8. ichat's Avatar
    Oh, fair enough.
    Can you customize the o/s?
    you can absolutely do that. That is called making a "Hybrid OS"
    01-01-12 03:59 AM
  9. Moonbase0ne's Avatar
    Yeah, as far as I know, you donot need iTunes to update your phone anymore. Not since iOS 5 was released. You can do it over-the-air on wifi.


    War Is All We Know
    01-01-12 04:22 AM
  10. chunt69's Avatar
    you can absolutely do that. That is called making a "Hybrid OS"
    Hybrid OS, never heard of one of them.
    Sent from my 9900 using something called a "browser"
    01-01-12 04:22 AM
  11. ichat's Avatar
    Hybrid OS, never heard of one of them.
    Sent from my 9900 using something called a "browser"
    Theres an entire section on CB on Hybrid OS

    Its when you combine two different OS builds together. It mixes two different files. It takes advantages only
    01-01-12 04:35 AM
  12. MartyMcfly's Avatar
    You also don't need Desktop Manager to update a blackberry, you can do it in the browser or by downloading the OS directly to a pc.
    I never said you couldn't.


    Sent from my IPhone 4s using Tapatalk
    01-01-12 09:34 AM
  13. MartyMcfly's Avatar
    Oh, fair enough.
    Can you customize the o/s?
    Honestly I don't know, I'm the type that only download official updates. I rarely load leaks/hybrids on my blackberry.


    Sent from my IPhone 4s using Tapatalk
    01-01-12 09:35 AM
  14. chunt69's Avatar
    Theres an entire section on CB on Hybrid OS

    Its when you combine two different OS builds together. It mixes two different files. It takes advantages only
    That was sarcasm mate, read through your thread/topic.
    (I have an earlier reply)
    I'm fully aware of hybrids I wasn't sure if you could do them with ios.
    01-01-12 09:56 AM
  15. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    Apples Customers are End users first and foremost, Apple sees the Carriers as a necessary evil to get their products working, they have no love for the Carriers.

    RIM on the other hand has 2 Customers, the End User, and the Carriers, RIM does not have direct to the End user distribution and required the Carriers to support BIS/BES infrastructure, so RIM must give the Carriers more control over the OS, the Carriers get to have power over things like NFC, Wifi Hotspots, etc, Not great for the consumers, but we unfortunately are not the primary customer for RIM, though I suspect that will change with BB10, and we'll see OTA updates pushed by RIM not by the Carriers
    01-01-12 10:08 AM
  16. lnichols's Avatar
    Apples Customers are End users first and foremost, Apple sees the Carriers as a necessary evil to get their products working, they have no love for the Carriers.

    RIM on the other hand has 2 Customers, the End User, and the Carriers, RIM does not have direct to the End user distribution and required the Carriers to support BIS/BES infrastructure, so RIM must give the Carriers more control over the OS, the Carriers get to have power over things like NFC, Wifi Hotspots, etc, Not great for the consumers, but we unfortunately are not the primary customer for RIM, though I suspect that will change with BB10, and we'll see OTA updates pushed by RIM not by the Carriers
    I'd like to see this change @ RIM with BB10. At least in the US and here is why. RIM gives too much power to the carriers. I'd love to see RIM in control of the BIS and not the carriers, much like apple is in complete control of the ecosystem. Why not just get a generic BIS account tied to a Blackberry ID and when I switch carriers I get to keep my BIS e-mail and it becomes much more plausible to use it as a main e-mail because I know I'll have it as long as I stick with Blackberry, not if I stick with Blackberry and the same carrier. Updates are pushed by RIM and not the carrier. The carriers in the US are not working in RIM's best interest anymore, and in fact from all the stories we read on here from purchasers, the carriers are doing everything they can not to sell Blackberry phones. It is a major shift and would start the end of RIM getting revenue from BIS, because neither Apple or Google charge for entrance to the ecosystem, but its going to need to be done soon in the US because the carriers are no longer RIM's good faith business partner they once were.
    01-01-12 10:27 AM
  17. teeuwen's Avatar
    or you know,

    you could just get a mep unlock code and unlock your phone forever and never worry about your specific carrier.
    01-01-12 10:34 AM
  18. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    I'd like to see this change @ RIM with BB10. At least in the US and here is why. RIM gives too much power to the carriers. I'd love to see RIM in control of the BIS and not the carriers, much like apple is in complete control of the ecosystem. Why not just get a generic BIS account tied to a Blackberry ID and when I switch carriers I get to keep my BIS e-mail and it becomes much more plausible to use it as a main e-mail because I know I'll have it as long as I stick with Blackberry, not if I stick with Blackberry and the same carrier. Updates are pushed by RIM and not the carrier. The carriers in the US are not working in RIM's best interest anymore, and in fact from all the stories we read on here from purchasers, the carriers are doing everything they can not to sell Blackberry phones. It is a major shift and would start the end of RIM getting revenue from BIS, because neither Apple or Google charge for entrance to the ecosystem, but its going to need to be done soon in the US because the carriers are no longer RIM's good faith business partner they once were.
    RIM generated near 4 Billion dollars due to BIS revenue in 2011, It would be foolhearted to kill that revenue stream and have to maintain all of the costs themselves.
    The NOC ads some value to the Carriers in highly populated areas, in the presentation given I believe in 2009 it showed that 5 BlackBerry users can be connected for every 1 Non BlackBerry user to a tower using the same bandwidth, that has probably been reduced but is still relevant, RIM's loss of favour with the carriers was their failure to keep the consumer market interested, and their failure to create justifications for the costs of BIS beyond network management,

    I would Like to see RIM create a web interface with the Carriers, so on the Carrier NOC you have access to your BIS email, and more BIS functions such as truncation limits this will help improve carrier relations as it helps carriers further lock in Consumers to their services as email once did for ISP's before Hotmail started to reshape email access for the masses.

    It would be wise for RIM to start development of a RIM.BlackBerry.net BIS service so they can offer BIS service to wifi only devices and bill directly, this would be a very slow start as it would be a political nightmare with the carriers at first, and I'm not sure I have faith in their existing management to sell the relationship and the advantages to the carriers whilst preparing a service to by pass carriers.

    IF RIM didn't have their NOC, I would have 1 less BlackBerry, I'd probably have an Android, or WP7 phone as a Playphone because I would lose the data compression which makes my personal phone cheap enough to keep using while I travel, so I certainly don't want to see the Loss of the NOC, and RIM COULD very much create better relationships with the carriers if they just had some devices that offer the consumers features they want, like a Media store, and App ecosystem, WHICH BB10 is going to try and provide making it easier for developers to develop
    01-01-12 10:39 AM
  19. lnichols's Avatar
    RIM generated near 4 Billion dollars due to BIS revenue in 2011, It would be foolhearted to kill that revenue stream and have to maintain all of the costs themselves.
    The NOC ads some value to the Carriers in highly populated areas, in the presentation given I believe in 2009 it showed that 5 BlackBerry users can be connected for every 1 Non BlackBerry user to a tower using the same bandwidth, that has probably been reduced but is still relevant, RIM's loss of favour with the carriers was their failure to keep the consumer market interested, and their failure to create justifications for the costs of BIS beyond network management,

    I would Like to see RIM create a web interface with the Carriers, so on the Carrier NOC you have access to your BIS email, and more BIS functions such as truncation limits this will help improve carrier relations as it helps carriers further lock in Consumers to their services as email once did for ISP's before Hotmail started to reshape email access for the masses.

    It would be wise for RIM to start development of a RIM.BlackBerry.net BIS service so they can offer BIS service to wifi only devices and bill directly, this would be a very slow start as it would be a political nightmare with the carriers at first, and I'm not sure I have faith in their existing management to sell the relationship and the advantages to the carriers whilst preparing a service to by pass carriers.

    IF RIM didn't have their NOC, I would have 1 less BlackBerry, I'd probably have an Android, or WP7 phone as a Playphone because I would lose the data compression which makes my personal phone cheap enough to keep using while I travel, so I certainly don't want to see the Loss of the NOC, and RIM COULD very much create better relationships with the carriers if they just had some devices that offer the consumers features they want, like a Media store, and App ecosystem, WHICH BB10 is going to try and provide making it easier for developers to develop
    I know that they make a lot of Revenue currently off the NOCs worldwide, and I'm not saying get rid of it, but US carriers are not pushing Blackberry device and are not concerned about data savings, they just acquire more spectrum and whine to fcc to free more. Plus they don't pay Apple or Google $5 per month, which takes from the bottom line, like they pay RIM for the BIS. They are making less and less on NOC in the US as the sales here continue to slide so the Revenue stream from here is trending downwards anyway. US carriers would rather push people to data hungry devices and collect overage fees. Apple just built a NOC for the iCloud based services, but doesn't charge for them from the user of the carrier, it is value add to the product. RIM can still ride the paid BIS gravy train outside the US for a while, but I don't see the US market, whom they tout the BB10 as being built to compete in first, as it remaining viable, at least with the carrier paying for it, and eventually the rest of the world will follow that trend too IMHO as developing carriers get more bandwidth and care less about compression savings. They need to find other ways to create revenue from the end user, not the carriers who are looking at the bottom line.

    I think they can offset the BIS revenues with music sales, video sales, app sales, etc. that BB10 can bring to the table, and that the US and Canada can be the markets to start the change in business model away from carrier revenue and being at the mercy of the carrier to an end user revenue model.
    01-01-12 11:27 AM
  20. phonejunky's Avatar
    From a consumer standpoint and not the nerd standpoint portrayed here. Apples system is a lot easier and definitely better for the consumer. I don't think that's really up for debate.

    Now some here won't like that comment but the op has a good point. It's a lot easier for the end user the way apple does it.


    ?
    01-01-12 11:35 AM
  21. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    I know that they make a lot of Revenue currently off the NOCs worldwide, and I'm not saying get rid of it, but US carriers are not pushing Blackberry device and are not concerned about data savings, they just acquire more spectrum and whine to fcc to free more. Plus they don't pay Apple or Google $5 per month, which takes from the bottom line, like they pay RIM for the BIS. They are making less and less on NOC in the US as the sales here continue to slide so the Revenue stream from here is trending downwards anyway. US carriers would rather push people to data hungry devices and collect overage fees. Apple just built a NOC for the iCloud based services, but doesn't charge for them from the user of the carrier, it is value add to the product. RIM can still ride the paid BIS gravy train outside the US for a while, but I don't see the US market, whom they tout the BB10 as being built to compete in first, as it remaining viable, at least with the carrier paying for it, and eventually the rest of the world will follow that trend too IMHO as developing carriers get more bandwidth and care less about compression savings. They need to find other ways to create revenue from the end user, not the carriers who are looking at the bottom line.

    I think they can offset the BIS revenues with music sales, video sales, app sales, etc. that BB10 can bring to the table, and that the US and Canada can be the markets to start the change in business model away from carrier revenue and being at the mercy of the carrier to an end user revenue model.
    You can't think the rest of the world wouldn't notice RIM isn't charging for NOC access in the US, you can't do it for one and not expect to do it for the other

    RIM needs to find a way to generate new revenue, while mantaining current revenue, really if RIM does Carrier billing for more of it's services then the carriers get a cut from BBM Music, and other products, but in reality App store purchases are not as lucrative as BIS revenue in 2009 Apples App Store revenue was estimated at 2.9 Billion, and that is with far more devices than RIM has on the market,

    you realize spectrum isn't infinite right? Carriers right now are not as concerned about spectrum bandwidth, because they've recently invested heavily in new hardware for LTE, so they are not near their limits, but as wireless continues to dominate and more and more usage is found, they will need to do a few things either charge more for more usage, or find ways to shape traffic, which is what many ISP's do for home internet usage, IF RIM can market their products to have the must have features AND maintain the NOC it is best for all involved,
    the death of the NOC will put RIM much further behind than it's competitors since RIM's competitors all do far more than just make phones.
    01-01-12 11:52 AM
  22. lnichols's Avatar

    you realize spectrum isn't infinite right? Carriers right now are not as concerned about spectrum bandwidth, because they've recently invested heavily in new hardware for LTE, so they are not near their limits, but as wireless continues to dominate and more and more usage is found, they will need to do a few things either charge more for more usage, or find ways to shape traffic, which is what many ISP's do for home internet usage, IF RIM can market their products to have the must have features AND maintain the NOC it is best for all involved,
    the death of the NOC will put RIM much further behind than it's competitors since RIM's competitors all do far more than just make phones.
    I know spectrum isn't infinite. You do realize that LTE is more efficient than HSPA per MHz, which was more efficient than CDMA, which was more efficient than TDMA, etc. There will be something after LTE, and possibly quantum comms at some point (which would be very cool and require no spectrum just "spooky interaction")? So tech will continue to make better use of spectrum available, and pricing of data will limit use by end user and keep companies developing tech that makes better use of what is there.

    Again I'm not advocating getting rid of the NOC and I personally see the advantages of the data savings when I travel internationally and will stay with Blackberry for some time because of how they work. However the reality is that this is not benefiting RIM in the US at all where bandwidth and cheap data plans are plentiful, and it seems like Canada is seeing defections to droid and Apple too. As other countries deploy more advanced networks and data prices drop will they not trend the same way of carriers pushing other devices that give them more revenue? Yes they need to keep the NOC, but I think they need to get the revenue of that service from the end user somehow (either direct or indirect with offset from other services) and not from the carriers. Why would a carrier push a device that costs them $60 a year paid to a third party over a device that they charge the same for data plan for and costs them nothing? Or why would they sell a device that people can buy cheaper plans for because it is more efficient and costs them $60 per year when people are willing to pay more per month for data plan for a device that costs carrier nothing to a third party. This is the basis for my opinion that the costs need shifted from the carrier, who has huge influence on what is used on the network, to the end user. However at the same time you can't tell people that this Droid or iPhone gets e-mail and iMessage for free, but you have to pay RIM $5 per month for your e-mail and BBM if you get a Blackberry.
    Last edited by lnichols; 01-01-12 at 12:41 PM.
    01-01-12 12:39 PM
  23. palmless's Avatar
    Apples Customers are End users first and foremost, Apple sees the Carriers as a necessary evil to get their products working, they have no love for the Carriers.

    RIM on the other hand has 2 Customers, the End User, and the Carriers, RIM does not have direct to the End user distribution and required the Carriers to support BIS/BES infrastructure, so RIM must give the Carriers more control over the OS, the Carriers get to have power over things like NFC, Wifi Hotspots, etc, Not great for the consumers, but we unfortunately are not the primary customer for RIM, though I suspect that will change with BB10, and we'll see OTA updates pushed by RIM not by the Carriers
    ^^^This.

    RIM sells to carriers primarily. Carriers want to load bloatware, RIM gives them the tool to do it. Otherwise, you're at the back of the store and your phone has no spiffs, so the sales guys ignore it.

    Apple sells to the customers, the carriers clamor to get a sliver of margin on the transaction. The carriers are happy to get so many new data plans, and the fact that the support calls and refunds are about 1/3 the normal rate lowers after the sale costs and increases carrier profits. So if Apple says no to carrier bloatware, you get no bloatware.

    With Android, Google is giving it away. The commodity phone manufacturers are "bidding" to the carriers with specs and price to be the "hot" marketed Android phone of the quarter. Carriers load up as much bloatware as they want, and strip away any features that threaten carrier revenue.

    At upgrade time, no one (Google, manufacturer, carrier) has any motivation to port the next Android version to a phone that was sold yesterday. So they don't.

    We tend to fixate on the hardware, or the software, or the specs, gestures, minor development challenges, etc. The reason most of the profit in the industry belongs to Apple is because they came up with a better business model for mobile, not because they came up with better hardware or software.
    01-01-12 05:15 PM
  24. lnichols's Avatar
    ^^^This.

    RIM sells to carriers primarily. Carriers want to load bloatware, RIM gives them the tool to do it. Otherwise, you're at the back of the store and your phone has no spiffs, so the sales guys ignore it.

    Apple sells to the customers, the carriers clamor to get a sliver of margin on the transaction. The carriers are happy to get so many new data plans, and the fact that the support calls and refunds are about 1/3 the normal rate lowers after the sale costs and increases carrier profits. So if Apple says no to carrier bloatware, you get no bloatware.

    With Android, Google is giving it away. The commodity phone manufacturers are "bidding" to the carriers with specs and price to be the "hot" marketed Android phone of the quarter. Carriers load up as much bloatware as they want, and strip away any features that threaten carrier revenue.

    At upgrade time, no one (Google, manufacturer, carrier) has any motivation to port the next Android version to a phone that was sold yesterday. So they don't.

    We tend to fixate on the hardware, or the software, or the specs, gestures, minor development challenges, etc. The reason most of the profit in the industry belongs to Apple is because they came up with a better business model for mobile, not because they came up with better hardware or software.
    Unfortunately too many here think that RIM's business model, that is failing miserably now in the US, but doing ok but slowing worldwide based on the next quarter forecast, is just fine and requires no adjustment. The US market has shown what happens when you rely on the carriers and they one day stop pushing your product in favor of products that are more profitable to them. RIM needs to not only make desirable products again, but needs to get in a position to not have to be sub-serviant to the carriers. Apple has shown that this is possible and carriers are begging them to carry the iPhone on Apples terms. Rim needs to consolidate the product offering, get BB10 to market Asap in US, and with BB10 take the carrier out of the picture totally and be in complete control of the product and ecosystem IMHO.
    01-01-12 07:33 PM
  25. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    Unfortunately too many here think that RIM's business model, that is failing miserably now in the US, but doing ok but slowing worldwide based on the next quarter forecast, is just fine and requires no adjustment. The US market has shown what happens when you rely on the carriers and they one day stop pushing your product in favor of products that are more profitable to them. RIM needs to not only make desirable products again, but needs to get in a position to not have to be sub-serviant to the carriers. Apple has shown that this is possible and carriers are begging them to carry the iPhone on Apples terms. Rim needs to consolidate the product offering, get BB10 to market Asap in US, and with BB10 take the carrier out of the picture totally and be in complete control of the product and ecosystem IMHO.

    RIM's folly is NOT BIS though, RIM's folly has been lack of easy to develop for devices, and thus a non starting ecosystem,

    BIS IS not the issue, and the HUGE resources required to change that infrastructure would put BB10 2-3 years back instead of just 1 year back, you fundamentally change the way RIM does business, it isn't like throwing a switch.

    RIM's focus needs to be on getting the Devices to be hot, and the ecosystem to be attractive, RIM's push infrastructure can actually make App development attractive with pinnings into BBM,
    01-01-12 07:40 PM
67 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD