1. sorinv's Avatar
    05-20-18 02:08 AM
  2. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    Yeah it really doesn't matter what Chen's view is.... as BlackBerry really isn't in the position to matter much in the discussion of consumer data, as they aren't a consumer business.

    Sold off the phones business, and BBM to other companies... what those companies do with those products... that's out of BlackBerry's control.

    Whole purpose of RADAR and BlackBerry UEM is tracking, monitoring and control... but then in those cases the "customer" is the company, not the end user.
    05-21-18 08:26 AM
  3. anon(10321802)'s Avatar
    Yeah it really doesn't matter what Chen's view is.... as BlackBerry really isn't in the position to matter much in the discussion of consumer data, as they aren't a consumer business.

    Sold off the phones business, and BBM to other companies... what those companies do with those products... that's out of BlackBerry's control.

    Whole purpose of RADAR and BlackBerry UEM is tracking, monitoring and control... but then in those cases the "customer" is the company, not the end user.
    I must disagree with you, there. BlackBerry have been positioning themselves to provide the platform and infrastructure for consumer businesses and IoT. So this is absolutely a relevant and important conversation for them to be engaged in.
    05-21-18 08:49 AM
  4. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    I must disagree with you, there. BlackBerry have been positioning themselves to provide the platform and infrastructure for consumer businesses and IoT. So this is absolutely a relevant and important conversation for them to be engaged in.
    Do you have an example?

    Thor was talking about IoT (he invent it you know) long ago.... but so far the only "product" is RADAR and than isn't very consumerish.

    BlackBerry can offer security, but privacy is in the domain of the Company using their products. BlackBerry isn't going to be a consumer facing company...

    Even BlackBerry's UEM isn't "private"... lot's of info a company can choose to monitor on devices, as is their right on company owned devices.
    05-21-18 10:07 AM
  5. anon(10268214)'s Avatar
    Aside from Chen's seemingly altruistic musings...somehow all of the necessary development, infrastructure, and services need to be funded. Otherwise the 'Internet' would still consist of logging into a Unix terminal at a university library searching through library of Congress indexes and emailing people from a command prompt.

    Unless...for the cost of said 'privacy', he is vying for the impossibility of coercing people into to paying the real cost of cloud storage, OS and app development, services, and infrastructure when all the above are essentially available for 'free' under the current model?

    Good luck with that.
    Troy Tiscareno and cribble2k like this.
    05-21-18 11:16 AM
  6. Invictus0's Avatar
    Do you have an example?

    Thor was talking about IoT (he invent it you know) long ago.... but so far the only "product" is RADAR and than isn't very consumerish.

    BlackBerry can offer security, but privacy is in the domain of the Company using their products. BlackBerry isn't going to be a consumer facing company...

    Even BlackBerry's UEM isn't "private"... lot's of info a company can choose to monitor on devices, as is their right on company owned devices.
    Yeah the only direct from BlackBerry consumer facing product that I can think of is Hub+ services on Android, for everything else you're dealing with a licensee.
    05-21-18 02:01 PM
  7. sorinv's Avatar
    And let's not forget that Chen partnered with and sold out to the "Do as much evil until you get caught" company.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...a-apple-safari

    Posted via CB10
    05-22-18 03:36 AM
  8. anon(10268214)'s Avatar
    And let's not forget that Chen partnered with and sold out to the "Do as much evil until you get caught" company.

    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...a-apple-safari

    Posted via CB10
    Blackberry already had the closest thing to a private and more secure mainstream mobile OS with BB10, and it was a complete failure commercially and nearly ruined the company. Therefore the choices Chen made were the correct ones (for BlackBerry, the company), even though ultimately we are all worse off because of it. Competition is never a bad thing. I don't think there is any doubt however, that it is precisely the data mining and associated advertising dollars that stacked the cards overwhelmingly in favour of BlackBerry's competitors.
    05-22-18 08:17 AM
  9. anon(10321802)'s Avatar
    Blackberry already had the closest thing to a private and more secure mainstream mobile OS with BB10, and it was a complete failure commercially and nearly ruined the company. Therefore the choices Chen made were the correct ones (for BlackBerry, the company), even though ultimately we are all worse off because of it. Competition is never a bad thing. I don't think there is any doubt however, that it is precisely the data mining and associated advertising dollars that stacked the cards overwhelmingly in favour of BlackBerry's competitors.
    I believe that is the ultimate reason BB10 failed - not because it was a bad OS, but because it didn't provide the opportunities for data collection and monetization that iOS and Android provided. It was TOO private. App developers probably would have been more willing to support it, otherwise.
    05-22-18 08:42 AM
  10. sorinv's Avatar
    Blackberry already had the closest thing to a private and more secure mainstream mobile OS with BB10, and it was a complete failure commercially and nearly ruined the company. Therefore the choices Chen made were the correct ones (for BlackBerry, the company), even though ultimately we are all worse off because of it. Competition is never a bad thing. I don't think there is any doubt however, that it is precisely the data mining and associated advertising dollars that stacked the cards overwhelmingly in favour of BlackBerry's competitors.
    Indeed. Nobody wanted a secure system that undermined the data surveillance pyramid scheme of an economy that has emerged in the last 5 years.

    Posted via CB10
    05-22-18 02:05 PM
  11. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    Every 6 months or so, some newspaper or blog writes an alarmist story about data collection and ads, and a handful of people freak out for a minute, but nothing really changes because the vast majority of people would much rather "pay" with their data and targeted ads vs. paying in cash and still enduring non-targeted ads.

    It's not much different than broadcast TV in the respect that people could have voted for ad-free basic TV for a yearly fee, but much preferred the ad-based model. (Obviously the amount of data collected is much different, though companies still collect a surprising amount of information from cable and satellite TV customers).
    05-22-18 03:46 PM
  12. sorinv's Avatar
    Every 6 months or so, some newspaper or blog writes an alarmist story about data collection and ads, and a handful of people freak out for a minute, but nothing really changes because the vast majority of people would much rather "pay" with their data and targeted ads vs. paying in cash and still enduring non-targeted ads.

    It's not much different than broadcast TV in the respect that people could have voted for ad-free basic TV for a yearly fee, but much preferred the ad-based model. (Obviously the amount of data collected is much different, though companies still collect a surprising amount of information from cable and satellite TV customers).
    This is John Chen saying it, not some newspaper. Please read before you write.

    Posted via CB10
    05-22-18 05:49 PM
  13. KellyM4's Avatar
    Do you have an example?

    Thor was talking about IoT (he invent it you know) long ago.... but so far the only "product" is RADAR and than isn't very consumerish.

    BlackBerry can offer security, but privacy is in the domain of the Company using their products. BlackBerry isn't going to be a consumer facing company...

    Even BlackBerry's UEM isn't "private"... lot's of info a company can choose to monitor on devices, as is their right on company owned devices.
    if you use the UEM to personally manage your own devices security settings then its the most private and secure device you can get right?
    05-22-18 07:12 PM
  14. sorinv's Avatar
    This is John Chen saying it, not some newspaper. Please read before you write.
    Posted via CB10
    Yes, the majority of the people on Earth can't afford to pay, they have nothing but their data to offer for their addiction. Therefore, they can be easily bullied into agreement to part with it.

    That does not mean that the rest of us should not have the option to pay for a service without sharing our data.
    Right now, that option does not exist.




    Posted via CB10
    05-22-18 10:04 PM
  15. qwerty4ever's Avatar
    Yes, the majority of the people on Earth can't afford to pay, they have nothing but their data to offer for their addiction. Therefore, they can be easily bullied into agreement to part with it.

    That does not mean that the rest of us should not have the option to pay for a service without sharing our data.
    Right now, that option does not exist.




    Posted via CB10
    If the encryption keys reside on a server controlled by BlackBerry Limited, the data can still be decrypted and furthermore the data would still be unencrypted after leaving BlackBerry servers enroute the destination.
    05-23-18 03:15 AM
  16. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    This is John Chen saying it, not some newspaper. Please read before you write.
    I'm well aware of who is saying it this time - but it makes little difference. Google and Amazon and even Microsoft have proven to be pretty good at protecting the data they collect (Apple and Facebook less so), and since the vast majority of users value the services the gain "free" access to in return for that data, you can bet that there isn't going to be any major changes.
    05-23-18 05:14 PM
  17. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    One of the biggest threats that Android had last year... were a couple of apps used to mask you Pokemon Go location. The apps were find, but the engine that delivered the apps could create a lot of issues for the users. Users who installed the apps, even though the received warnings via Google Protect.

    People will do what people will do.... which is why true "security" comes from robbing people of the right to do what they want. Companies easily do that by owning the phones and locking them down so the user can't do anything but what is expected - BlackBerry was very good at that, thus they were despised.
    05-25-18 02:08 PM
  18. sorinv's Avatar
    I'm well aware of who is saying it this time - but it makes little difference. Google and Amazon and even Microsoft have proven to be pretty good at protecting the data they collect (Apple and Facebook less so), and since the vast majority of users value the services the gain "free" access to in return for that data, you can bet that there isn't going to be any major changes.
    I guess you don't read the news either.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44248122

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44228756


    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by sorinv; 05-26-18 at 12:14 AM.
    05-26-18 12:04 AM
  19. sorinv's Avatar
    If the encryption keys reside on a server controlled by BlackBerry Limited, the data can still be decrypted and furthermore the data would still be unencrypted after leaving BlackBerry servers enroute the destination.
    Yes, and that's not acceptable either!
    But progress is being made. Slowly but surely...
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-44252327

    Posted via CB10
    05-26-18 12:29 AM
  20. conite's Avatar
    Neither of these are breaches.

    The first is an inadvertent but deliberate instruction to communicate with a known contact. All this says is that the AI needs to be improved.

    The second is a matter of fair use of publicly posted videos.
    Last edited by conite; 05-27-18 at 12:40 AM.
    05-26-18 12:35 AM
  21. sorinv's Avatar
    Well, if they intentionally or mistakenly or incompetently release private conversations, they (Amazon) obviously are not protecting users' data.
    As for the Google breaches, they are obvious. The article explains it clearly.
    Google have been repeatedly caught red-handed.
    There is a very good reason why they chose the motto: "do no evil".
    Only someone with a guilty conscience can think of such a motto for a company.

    Posted via CB10
    05-26-18 10:50 PM
  22. arkenoi's Avatar
    I believe that is the ultimate reason BB10 failed - not because it was a bad OS, but because it didn't provide the opportunities for data collection and monetization that iOS and Android provided. It was TOO private. App developers probably would have been more willing to support it, otherwise.
    are you serious about that?
    05-27-18 04:34 AM
  23. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    are you serious about that?
    Yes he is....

    Or Wall Street, or Western Media, or Apple's quest for Global domination by paying Carrier's not to offer BlackBerries. Many here want the blame to fall on someone, other than BlackBerry management and their poorly delivered products.
    arkenoi likes this.
    05-29-18 08:16 AM
  24. stlabrat's Avatar
    Why have to be either/or? Bb fail is not black and white, it is grey. More likely, all the above. One thing for sure, it got take advantage by prem. Using high interest Corp bond to control with quarter of the price. Master of chess player.

    Posted via CB10
    05-29-18 08:27 AM
  25. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    Why have to be either/or? Bb fail is not black and white, it is grey. More likely, all the above. One thing for sure, it got take advantage by prem. Using high interest Corp bond to control with quarter of the price. Master of chess player.

    Posted via CB10
    Pretty black/white too me.

    Apple changed the market in 2007, Google recognized this and made adjustments even before the iPhone launched, and they and their core OEMs followed suite. Apps became very key to the user experience, and while BBOS had the capability to have apps they were limitations and it was a very unfriendly platform for developers.

    BlackBerry "failed" to see the changes in the market and failed to adjust for YEARS. 2010 (three years later) was too late to start, and 2013 was much too late to deliver a buggy beta of their attempt to catch up. And they were much too small to compete against the Apple, Google and Samsung of the day.

    By the time PREM and CHEN were involved... it was already over with. Prem had the most to loose, can't fault him for making sure he got something out of it....
    05-29-18 02:02 PM
31 12

Similar Threads

  1. T-Mobile WiFi Calling in 2018 on PP
    By markmall in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-26-18, 09:33 AM
  2. Viber on Q5 won't sync with android tablet 7.0
    By Vladislavt in forum BlackBerry 10 OS
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-29-18, 12:21 PM
  3. "Intune Company Portal" possible on Q10?
    By GraCal in forum BlackBerry Q10
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-20-18, 08:55 AM
  4. can not send the vidio on whats app
    By Avinka Hidayat in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-18, 12:01 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-18-18, 05:52 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD