03-23-12 05:37 AM
55 123
tools
  1. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    RIM didn't recieve criticism because they said the current LTE chips have terrible battery life. They do. They drew skepticism because they said the primary reason Blackberry 10 isn't launching in the near future is because they are waiting on better chips, implying that Blackberry 10 was near completeness and waiting on chips.

    Most people saw through the smoke and know that Blackberry 10 isn't complete yet.
    Good point.
    03-16-12 01:48 PM
  2. SCrid2000's Avatar
    RIM didn't recieve criticism because they said the current LTE chips have terrible battery life. They do. They drew skepticism because they said the primary reason Blackberry 10 isn't launching in the near future is because they are waiting on better chips, implying that Blackberry 10 was near completeness and waiting on chips.

    Most people saw through the smoke and know that Blackberry 10 isn't complete yet.
    If the Playbook is any indication (which it is lol) BB X is almost complete, it just needs some vital features such as much improved email and calendar and full bbm integration; the actual OS is probably pretty much done (again, as shown by the Playbook).
    Of course, RIM absolutely cannot release a BlackBerry without bbm regardless of the battery life it gets.
    03-16-12 01:54 PM
  3. chi-town311's Avatar
    I'm a Verizon customer, so unfortuntately, the only way I can get speeds faster than the pathetic EVDO Rev A is with an LTE upgrade. If I were on T-Mobile or ATT, at this point, I would probably rather have HSPA+ and no LTE. Just because coverage is more reliable and battery life is porbably better. But it sounds like not everyone can agree on that. Hopefully by the time for my next upgrade, LTE will be sick for Verizon in Chicago and I will have nothing to complain about. For now, my 3G connection is just slow as heck.
    03-16-12 01:57 PM
  4. brucep1's Avatar
    If the Playbook is any indication (which it is lol) BB X is almost complete, it just needs some vital features such as much improved email and calendar and full bbm integration; the actual OS is probably pretty much done (again, as shown by the Playbook).
    Of course, RIM absolutely cannot release a BlackBerry without bbm regardless of the battery life it gets.
    I'm not so sure they are just gonna port the PlayBook OS Software over to a phone. A while back, BB10 got "leaked" (really the only indication we have so far) and it didn't have that much in common with the PlayBook software. we also have that anonymous BGR source who said it wasn't near complete.

    Another issue is the battery life. RIM can't exactly port over the OS and put the PlayBook battery in it. The OS would probably have to be optimized for the new chips and size combination, or the battery life may suffer drastically.
    03-16-12 02:14 PM
  5. sleepngbear's Avatar
    If the Playbook is any indication (which it is lol) BB X is almost complete, it just needs some vital features such as much improved email and calendar and full bbm integration; the actual OS is probably pretty much done (again, as shown by the Playbook).
    Of course, RIM absolutely cannot release a BlackBerry without bbm regardless of the battery life it gets.
    Not to hijack, but I believe the problem with BBM on the PlayBook is more in getting one account to work on both a BB phone and a PlayBook rather than just getting it to work on QNX. That may still be an issue when phones are running BB10, but only on the PlayBook.

    I'm not so sure they are just gonna port the PlayBook OS Software over to a phone. A while back, BB10 got "leaked" (really the only indication we have so far) and it didn't have that much in common with the PlayBook software. we also have that anonymous BGR source who said it wasn't near complete.
    Let's forget for the moment how much stock most of us put in anything reported on BGR, especially things leaked by anonymous sources. What you saw was a UI sitting on top of the OS. There are things you can do with the extra screen real estate of a 7" tab that you just can't do cleanly or as effectively on a 4" phone. Apple can do it because they wrote the UI for a phone first, and what's on the iPad is just a blown up version of the same thing. I have no doubt that tweaks have to be made to make the QNX we see on a tab look and function cleanly on a handheld device. Other than that, the only thing the OS itself needs that it doesn't have on the PlayBook is the phone and radio software.
    03-16-12 03:03 PM
  6. kilted thrower's Avatar
    Well, could it be their chipsets aren't optimized for LTE? I don't know why they would even just straight up lie about somethign like this. Lying to consumers is stupid. I have the Galaxy Note that has a huge screen and I'm getting around 14 hours of heavy use with screen on time of between 5-6 hours and for my days of not being a phone person up to 19 hours of medium use.
    Last edited by kilted_thrower; 03-16-12 at 06:57 PM.
    03-16-12 06:55 PM
  7. mssca's Avatar
    RIM should have still included the LTE with the option of choosing between 2G/3G/3.5G(H+)/LTE if the network support it. But then, I found that BIS super slow compared to my friends iPhones on the same network.

    I posted this here before; RIM should consider two version of each phone when they release the BB10.

    1. One for the customers who hate BIS and want the TCP/IP connection directly to the service provider and

    2. Others for the people in cooperate, government and terrorist organizations who like to use BIS and BES encryption for security and privacy.
    Gouk likes this.
    03-16-12 08:13 PM
  8. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    They could even offer a choice of models. Why do they all have to be LTE?
    Blame Verizon,

    RIM would basically lose 40% of the US Market if they launched a BB10 Phone with HSPA+ for GSM users, and then made CDMA/LTE users wait 6-8 months, What incentive would Verizon have to sell ANY BBOS7 Devices, Pay ANY BIS user fees, and support Any future devices if RIM basically shafted them for 6-8 Months?

    I agree Globally HSPA+ is the way RIM needs to focus, I think they should be smart and have LTE disabled on GSM enabled devices and ask users if they want it enabled during heavy use activities, that would be a smart move for their software.

    CDMA is just too slow for them to do that with, and LTE is needed.
    03-16-12 08:58 PM
  9. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    RIM should have still included the LTE with the option of choosing between 2G/3G/3.5G(H+)/LTE if the network support it. But then, I found that BIS super slow compared to my friends iPhones on the same network.

    I posted this here before; RIM should consider two version of each phone when they release the BB10.

    1. One for the customers who hate BIS and want the TCP/IP connection directly to the service provider and

    2. Others for the people in cooperate, government and terrorist organizations who like to use BIS and BES encryption for security and privacy.

    So I assume user 1: doesn't want BBM or any RIM hosted services, and will stick to only 3rd party application,
    That certainly wont cause fragmentation in a platform....
    03-16-12 08:59 PM
  10. mssca's Avatar
    So I assume user 1: doesn't want BBM or any RIM hosted services, and will stick to only 3rd party application,
    That certainly wont cause fragmentation in a platform....
    Yes assuming that you don't care about BBM or RIM based push system. Also if RIM wants to introduce BBM to other platforms, they have to by pass their system.
    03-16-12 09:18 PM
  11. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    Yes assuming that you don't care about BBM or RIM based push system. Also if RIM wants to introduce BBM to other platforms, they have to by pass their system.

    How much more would you be willing to pay for the hardware to not need these services?

    since the fees for these services help off set hardware costs, also having to develop a secondary OS will increase R&D costing since RIM's OS is completely built around their push infrastructure from the Servers.
    app_Developer likes this.
    03-16-12 09:23 PM
  12. tmelon's Avatar
    I also prefer HSPA+ over LTE. Sure LTE is much faster, but with it's limited coverage and negative effect on battery life it's just not ready yet.
    03-17-12 12:02 AM
  13. swyost's Avatar
    Given the talk out of Verizon is that they will not take new devices unless they are LTE capable would suggest having a new device line lacking LTE is a bit less than smart. They are the company otherwise most friendly to RIM in the US and they are a partnership with Vodafone....
    03-17-12 12:26 AM
  14. RetroBerry's Avatar
    The industry clearly needs to do more R&D on battery development. What good is the product if the power source can barely produce adequate "juice" to support it?
    kittencounter likes this.
    03-17-12 02:38 AM
  15. mssca's Avatar
    How much more would you be willing to pay for the hardware to not need these services?

    since the fees for these services help off set hardware costs, also having to develop a secondary OS will increase R&D costing since RIM's OS is completely built around their push infrastructure from the Servers.
    I am in science and engineering programs so I am no expert on markets. But I attended to a large scale research analysis done by eight Business Professors for one of my options classes. If your traditional customer base is declining in any significant local market, the best option is to spend more money on R&D and create several options for the customers. They talk about RIM's downfall in North American market which is a significant market for the RIM.

    Look, BBM is declining in US and Canada and RIM must open up their narrow minded model to much more open model with better messaging options or YES, RIM SHOULD fragment their OS if that's the best way to approach the market problem.

    One of the professors asked the class; "How many of you willing to pay $5/month additional for BBM on your iPhones and Androids?" More than half of the class raised their hands. You may be living in an imaginary land; but in the real world, RIM is approaching rock bottom. RIM must open some of their features to other platforms to survive or come out with cutting edge phones in the next few MONTHS not next few YEARS.

    RIM is booming in Asia but the amount of money they get from this boom is far less that what they could earn from the significant European and North American markets.
    Last edited by mss-ca; 03-17-12 at 10:08 AM.
    03-17-12 10:00 AM
  16. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    I am in science and engineering programs so I am no expert on markets. But I listen to a large scale research analysis by eight Business Professors for one of my options classes. If your traditional customer base is declining in any significant local market, the best option is to spend more money on R&D and create several options for the customers. They talk about RIM's downfall in North American market which is a significant market for the RIM.

    Look, BBM is declining in US and Canada and RIM must open up their narrow minded model to much more open model with better messaging options or YES, RIM SHOULD fragment their OS if that's the best way to approach the market problem.

    RIM is booming in Asia but the amount of money they get from this boom is far less that what they could earn from the European and North American market.
    Before you take stock in a Business professor, make sure they ran a business.
    Theory and Practice are very different.

    To increase R&D AND increase product SKU's and having multiple OS's means Multiple product SKU's for a location, it means you must offer increased margins to your distribution network as they must put out more capital to carry your line.
    OR they cherry pick the line and only sell what they think will sell, which skews the actual potential market penetration.

    RIM's declining market in the US very little to do with BIS, and has a heck of a lot to do with Lack of App development, poor execution of App world,
    failure to address consumers desires.

    What RIM needs to gain back traction in the US market, and to not lose it's 1st place position in Canada is their iconic Candybar qwerty, in both fleet and premium class devices, and a Slab touchscreen device to have the me too product, with an OS that is snappy, and that developers will want to develop for.

    By Fragmenting the CORE of the operating system they would damage their app dev relationships, as app dev's would have to design push services to work with Both OS's fragmentation in an OS is not a good thing. Even Android sees this
    JAGWIRE, sam_b77 and addicted44 like this.
    03-17-12 10:09 AM
  17. mssca's Avatar
    Before you take stock in a Business professor, make sure they ran a business.
    Theory and Practice are very different.

    RIM's declining market in the US very little to do with BIS, and has a heck of a lot to do with Lack of App development, poor execution of App world,
    failure to address consumers desires.

    By Fragmenting the CORE of the operating system they would damage their app dev relationships, as app dev's would have to design push services to work with Both OS's fragmentation in an OS is not a good thing. Even Android sees this
    OK I agree with some of your points. The theory is different from practice. But why a profitable avenue such as selling BBM system to other platforms is not put in to motion? Even new CEO admits that they are looking in to opening the BBM platform to others.

    Regrading fragmenting, I can find you million software engineers who would say, diving the OS to secure and non-secure will NOT fragment the OS causing issues for the developers. For example, RIM have the access to smart HR who can modify the OS to run Facebook app on both secure and non-secure system from the OS coding not from the app coding. This way a developer has to make a one app, but depend on the BB customer, it will either run on BIS secure system or it will run on others.

    I know several oil & gas companies in Calgary who went from BlackBerries to iPhones for their employees. (over 2000+ BlackBerry devices sold at rock bottom prices) They use secure SSL sockets to feed data from their company servers to the iPhone. According to you, this should make iPhone OS fragmented and "would damage their app dev relationships" right?

    I am not asking RIM to change the core system; but modify the core system to allow secure BIS and non-secure direct connections. I hate stone age Internet speeds on 3.5G system.
    Last edited by mss-ca; 03-17-12 at 09:52 PM.
    03-17-12 09:50 PM
  18. _StephenBB81's Avatar
    OK I agree with some of your points. The theory is different from practice. But why a profitable avenue such as selling BBM system to other platforms is not put in to motion? Even new CEO admits that they are looking in to opening the BBM platform to others.

    Regrading fragmenting, I can find you million software engineers who would say, diving the OS to secure and non-secure will NOT fragment the OS causing issues for the developers. For example, RIM have the access to smart HR who can modify the OS to run Facebook app on both secure and non-secure system from the OS coding not from the app coding. This way a developer has to make a one app, but depend on the BB customer, it will either run on BIS secure system or it will run on others.

    I know several oil & gas companies in Calgary who went from BlackBerries to iPhones for their employees. (over 2000+ BlackBerry devices sold at rock bottom prices) They use secure SSL sockets to feed data from their company servers to the iPhone. According to you, this should make iPhone OS fragmented and "would damage their app dev relationships" right?

    I am not asking RIM to change the core system; but modify the core system to allow secure BIS and non-secure direct connections. I hate stone age Internet speeds on 3.5G system.
    Reasons for not Bringing BBM to other platforms I would say are more about paying for it and social economics than technical avenues currently RIM gets $60-70 per year for a user to have BBM, how many Apps can generate that kind of dollars, they must weight in the potential lost revenue vs gained revenue from porting BBM since I am sure they wont get regular users to pay such a rate for BBM

    I also would ask Software Engineers and comp sci people if they know how RIM does things, currently RIM's OS is linked to the NOC, they have a single point name server, not a DNS which is why when the Node in England went down, all of the devices couldn't get up and running they couldn't just switch servers. the fragmented OS would require RIM to add something seemingly as simple as a DNS, it would also require them to add polling requesting to the emails as not every service has push, currently the BIS/BES does the polling and pushes to the BB which helps them with battery life.

    Having taken Software and Eletrical Engineering, I can say I could probably find a million guy who would say Apple was stupid for what they did with their core OS making OSX, back 10 years ago, they had strong arguments for why OS9's tree still had life, clearly it Apple was right with OSX, Engineers are always bread to think WE ARE RIGHT, it's part of the profession.
    03-18-12 02:17 AM
  19. JAGWIRE's Avatar
    always fun to read the stuff that comes from deRusett LOL.

    The good thing about making their phone LTE is that in essence you are also making it for HSPA+ and HSPA. If an LTE phone is not in an LTE covered area it will drop down automatically to the next available one. Just because you are not in an LTE area doesn't mean your phone will die all together.
    03-18-12 02:57 AM
  20. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    This argument I'm afraid is irrelevant outside US or North America where LTE is non existent. Anybody who buys LTE phones now are just early adopters/testers for future generations. I don't see LTE in UK any time soon and it first has to overcome these problems:

    "TV Aerial interference is expected to be highest in remote rural areas where 4G signals will be broadcast at high levels. People who live close by to base stations will need to fit special 4G /LTE filters into their TV aerial coaxial cable. These filters are expected to be relatively easy to fit, just a case of unplugging the TV aerial cable from the Freeview box / TV and plugging the cable into the filter and the filter into the TV. These filters will be provided free of charge to all households that are expected to be affected by the 4G interference. Elderly or disabled people will receive help to install the filters.

    The cost of this will be covered by the winning bidder of the ‘spectrum’ auction later this year. Estimated costs will be around 108m

    As well as nearly 1 million homes needing to fit filters onto their TV aerials there will be approximately 10,000 homes where a filter isn’t enough to prevent interference from the 4G services, in these cases the households will have to move from using Freeview to alternative satellite or cable services (Freesat, Virgin media or Sky), the cost of which will again be met by the winning spectrum auction bidder.

    There is likely to be some households, around 500, that will be too close to the base stations to be able to receive cable or satellite service alternatives. In these cases they will be ‘given’ 10,000 to find an alternative solution. Along with the funding, education will be provided to help households be able to choose a suitable alternative such as fibre cabling – a very expensive alternative but reliable over long distances and shielded from common interface problems associated with Radio Frequency EMI (electromagnetic interference). Groups of households will be able to pool their funds together to be able to afford much more expensive solutions such as installing new Relay stations."


    4G Mobile Services To Affect Over 1 Million Freeview Viewers Cheap TV Aerials, Satellite Systems, AV Suppliers, Freeview Boxes, Buy Digital Aerials Online tradeworks.tv


    Was this a problem in US?
    03-18-12 05:19 AM
  21. sam_b77's Avatar
    @Belfast,
    Interesting info.
    If the LTE signals are so strong, has any study been done to measure the impact of prolonged exposure to LTE signals. If it is so strong that it can completely block TV signals for those who live near the base stations then the signal is packing some punch?
    03-18-12 06:13 AM
  22. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    @Belfast,
    Interesting info.
    If the LTE signals are so strong, has any study been done to measure the impact of prolonged exposure to LTE signals. If it is so strong that it can completely block TV signals for those who live near the base stations then the signal is packing some punch?
    My guess is no they didn't. Lightsquare LTE also blocked GPS signals. I certainly don't want one in my pocket.
    03-18-12 06:31 AM
  23. JAGWIRE's Avatar
    that's crazy. I havn't heard anything either of LTE signals being dangerous to people's health. if i was one of thoes houses though id just keep the 10,000. you needs cable when you can watch/download any TV show on the net.
    03-18-12 06:40 AM
  24. belfastdispatcher's Avatar
    that's crazy. I havn't heard anything either of LTE signals being dangerous to people's health. if i was one of thoes houses though id just keep the 10,000. you needs cable when you can watch/download any TV show on the net.
    Rural broadband is very slow, my speed is 1.6 my 3G is faster then that. And I'm not that far outside the city, not even 10 miles.
    03-18-12 06:44 AM
  25. tdawg00's Avatar
    @Belfast,
    Interesting info.
    If the LTE signals are so strong, has any study been done to measure the impact of prolonged exposure to LTE signals. If it is so strong that it can completely block TV signals for those who live near the base stations then the signal is packing some punch?
    LTE signal freq range is the issue not LTE. LTE is based off GSM ... Its just a form of EM waves.
    03-18-12 10:57 PM
55 123
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD