[brookie229]

Why buy a new BlackBerry? Pretty simple IMO. If you want a physical keyboard - no other reason than that for me anyway. I don't need a PKB and that's why I bought a Huawei P10. Have the Hub on it and nothing else from BlackBerry. My wife is using it right now, however and will probably keep it. I will probably buy another one but still using my Passport.

Posted via CB10

[Thud Hardsmack]

Let's agree to be disagreeable without making it personal.

Since, of course, you all agreed to that in order to be able to post in the first place.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

No certainties in life. Like Samsung building exploding / melting phones.

My Dad once bought a GM truck that lunched the entire rear differential with about 10 000 km on it.

No guarantees on anything.

Samsung made good on those phones. Expect that GM made good on that differential too as that is part of the powertrain. Key take away is buy from companies that will be there to support you.

The question the OP asked is will BlackBerry and BlackBerry Mobile make good on providing updates going forward. No one knows for sure at this point... they both want you to believe that they will, but they haven't put anything like that in a warranty or guarantee.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Samsung made good on those phones. Expect that GM made good on that differential too as that is part of the powertrain. Key take away is buy from companies that will be there to support you.

The question the OP asked is will BlackBerry and BlackBerry Mobile make good on providing updates going forward. No one knows for sure at this point... they both want you to believe that they will, but they haven't put anything like that in a warranty or guarantee (don't think Apple does either and we know how good their update support is)

[anon(10268214)]

It's actually the point of this thread. The OP is equating what BlackBerry chose to do with its own devices, and what the three licencees will choose to do with their devices.

And what I am saying is that OP's criticism is a fair one. OS patching and updates, for which BlackBerry is supposedly responsible, is one of the principle tenets of the licensing strategy. There has been inconsistency and lack of transparency regarding OS patching and updates for the BlackBerry PRIVs and DTEKS, just as there was with BB10, and just like what we have seen so far from the two BlackBerry licensees. So while the technical arrangements may be completely different...so far at least, the perception and net result is very much more of the same.

[conite]

And what I am saying is that OP's criticism is a fair one. OS patching and updates, for which BlackBerry is supposedly responsible, is one of the principle tenets of the licensing strategy. There has been inconsistency and lack of transparency regarding OS patching and updates for the BlackBerry PRIVs and DTEKS, just as there was with BB10, and just like what we have seen so far from the two BlackBerry licensees. So while the technical arrangements may be completely different...so far at least, the perception and net result is very much more of the same.

As far as KEYᵒⁿᵉ software updates are concerned, look no further than what TCL contracted BlackBerry to provide them with. The buck stops at TCL.

BlackBerry has provided at least one (and in some cases 3) updates for each of the 12 separate KEYᵒⁿᵉ OS branches since launch 3 months ago.

[glwerry]

As far as KEYᵒⁿᵉ software updates are concerned, look no further than what TCL contracted BlackBerry to provide them with. The buck stops at TCL.

BlackBerry has provided at least one (and in some cases 3) updates for each of the 12 separate KEYᵒⁿᵉ OS branches since launch 3 months ago.

My PRIV has an update waiting to install as we speak ... it would be either the 2nd or 3rd update that I've received.

I can't say as that I really pay much attention to how many updates are provided.

[igorochek]

Why people so much care about the updates, so far all key one updates is zero, all bugs still in place

[anon(10268214)]

As far as KEYᵒⁿᵉ software updates are concerned, look no further than what TCL contracted BlackBerry to provide them with. The buck stops at TCL.

BlackBerry has provided at least one (and in some cases 3) updates for each of the 12 separate KEYᵒⁿᵉ OS branches since launch 3 months ago.

There is absolutely no basis for you to suggest TCL is responsible for the frequency of K1 OS updates and patches. Do you have any factual evidence to support this claim? And how about Aurora? And before you go there, I realize that is not a TCL phone. However, last I heard it has not even been updated once, and it was released before the K1. As I stated, inconsistency and lack of clarify. The exact same BlackBerry we have known for years.

Trying to sweep BlackBerry's past under the rug or behind the licensees is completely useless, and even counter-productive. It does nothing except further erode confidence in the brand.

[conite]

There is absolutely no basis for you to suggest TCL is responsible for the frequency of K1 OS updates and patches. Do you have any factual evidence to support this claim? And how about Aurora? And before you go there, I realize that is not a TCL phone. However, last I heard it has not even been updated once, and it was released before the K1. As I stated, inconsistency and lack of clarify. The exact same BlackBerry we have known for years.

Trying to sweep BlackBerry's past under the rug or behind the licensees is completely useless, and even counter-productive. It does nothing except further erode confidence in the brand.

It is up to the licencees to fix whatever arrangement they wish to make with BlackBerry.

Clearly PT BB Merah Putih and TCL have different objectives and therefore different contractual requirements of BlackBerry.

Here is my analogy: McDonalds sells the Big Mac. McDonalds decides to get out of the restaurant business. TCL approaches McDonalds corporate to license the brand name of the Big Mac, and also hires them to supply the special sauce. TCL's Big Mac is TCL's responsibility - so is whatever arrangement they made for the supply of the special sauce.

[anon(10268214)]

It is up to the licencees to fix whatever arrangement they wish to make with BlackBerry.

Clearly PT BB Merah Putih and TCL have different objectives and therefore different contractual requirements of BlackBerry.

Here is my analogy: McDonalds sells the Big Mac. McDonalds decides to get out of the restaurant business. TCL approaches McDonalds corporate to license the brand name of the Big Mac, and also hires them to supply the special sauce. TCL's Big Mac is TCL's responsibility - so is whatever arrangement they made for the supply of the special sauce.

No one knows what the arrangement is with its licensees, including whether or not BlackBerry's performance is up to par. Citing the licensees as the cause, and absolving BlackBerry of all accountability, completely undermines the credibility of the brand and the purpose of licensing it in the first place.

To quote your hamburger analogy...what you are suggesting is the equivalent to McDonald's licensing its Big Mac, but letting it's licensees decide how it tastes. How is that ever going to work? Lol. That is a ridiculous comparison.

[conite]

To quote your hamburger analogy...what you are suggesting is the equivalent to McDonald's licensing its Big Mac, but letting it's licensees decide how it tastes. How is that ever going to work? Lol. That is a ridiculous comparison.

I'm sure there would be some minor clauses as part of the branding licence. But if the Aurora got accepted, I can't fathom how rigorous they would be.

But yes, ultimately TCL would be solely responsible for the taste, availability, price, consumer satisfaction, and any other metric you could dream up.

All BlackBerry does is pump out updates as per its contractual agreement, and collect royalty checks.

[anon(9742832)]

If BlackBerry are no longer supporting BlackBerry 10, how can I trust they won't just stop supporting the new Android line if I buy one.

Posted via CB10

While I hate to say this, if you want long term support. You have only one choice, Apple they just stopped security updated for the I Phone 3. Last year, that's a long haul and if you still used one. Gave you money off a new Apple.

[anon(10268214)]

I'm sure there would be some minor clauses as part of the branding licence. But if the Aurora got accepted, I can't fathom how rigorous they would be.

But yes, ultimately TCL would be solely responsible for the taste, availability, price, consumer satisfaction, and any other metric you could dream up.

So in your opinion, the BlackBerry name means absolutely nothing. Glad we sorted that out. It's amazing what we can settle for if we set the bar low enough!

[conite]

So in your opinion, the BlackBerry name means absolutely nothing. Glad we sorted that out. It's amazing what we can settle for if we set the bar low enough!

You are suggesting somehow that the three licencees themselves have no interest in protecting the brand that they have paid a lot for. I'm not sure why you believe this. I would argue that it means more to them than BlackBerry, who is now focused on other things.

I don't think anything TCL does with the KEYᵒⁿᵉ influences BlackBerry UEM or Radar in the least bit.

[anon(10268214)]

You are suggesting somehow that the three licencees themselves have no interest in protecting the brand that they have paid a lot for. I'm not sure why you believe this. I would argue that it means more to them than BlackBerry, who is now focused on other things.

I don't think anything TCL does with the KEYᵒⁿᵉ influences BlackBerry UEM or Radar in the least bit.

No, that is what you are suggesting.

[conite]

No, that is what you are suggesting.

[anon(10268214)]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...deadd9446f.jpg

You are hilarious! At least you are consistent in one aspect..you always manage to produce an explanation that absolves BlackBerry of all accountability. But I don't think it is very helpful, or even that accurate. According to you, BlackBerry is letting its licensees make up their own rules as they see fit, just so it can collect a few bucks in royalties.

You will have to forgive me, but even under an extremely incompetently managed licensing scenario...that sounds a little far fetched, even for the likes of BlackBerry. Lol.

[conite]

You are hilarious! At least you are consistent in one aspect..you always manage to produce an explanation that absolves BlackBerry of all accountability. But I don't think it is very helpful, or even that accurate. According to you, BlackBerry is letting its licensees make up their own rules as they see fit, just so it can collect a few bucks in royalties.

You will have to forgive me, but even under an extremely incompetently managed licensing scenario...that sounds a little far fetched, even for the likes of BlackBerry. Lol.

BlackBerry is fully responsible for everything they have done to date with devices. I'm absolving them of absolutely nothing except the actions of its licencees going forward.

BlackBerry is just happy that devices will continue to exist running BlackBerry software. Licencees weren't lining up at the doors. I'm sure whatever discussions were had made BlackBerry confident that they will respect the brand. The fact that they paid good money for it, would seem to confirm that.

[koesn]

What we can trust is their choice to make famous OS as secure as their own OS. The future of mobile market is clear. Android platform is the only open solution to play with since Android's code are much possible to modify to their standard.

Google ties Android's Linux to their proprietary Google's services platform. So BlackBerry puts another highly customized layer the top of it which they call it "security", which is impossible for them to implement on Windows or iOS.

So for they choice to make a hardened Android is a clever choice. And yes, we can trust.

[anon(10268214)]

I'm absolving them of absolutely nothing except the actions of its licencees going forward.

You are absolving them of everything regarding devices, because (a) they are out of the hardware business and can no longer be held accountable for their legacy devices and (b) you attribute all responsibility for new devices solely to the licensees, including software.

[conite]

You are absolving them of everything regarding devices, because (a) they are out of the hardware business and can no longer be held accountable for their legacy devices and (b) you attribute all responsibility for new devices solely to the licensees, including software.

They are out of the device business, but are still charged with supporting what they have out there already according to whatever terms they are required to uphold. I've never said anything different.

BlackBerry has a responsibility to its licencees to provide software as per the requirements of their contract - but have no responsibilities to the end customer at all.

[anon(10268214)]

They are out of the device business, but are still charged with supporting what they have out there already according to whatever terms they are required to uphold. I've never said anything different.

BlackBerry has a responsibility to its licencees to provide software as per the requirements of their contract - but have no responsibilities to the end customer at all.

Does BlackBerry have any specific legal responsibility to uphold regarding legacy devices? Certainly doesn't seem like it. Ask anyone who owns a BB10 device or a DTEK. And the fact they are out of the business now anyway makes for a very convenient excuse, regardless.

As for responsibilities to licensees, it sure sounds like you are talking through both sides of your mouth. First you were quick to finger the licensees for software updates (or lack thereof) based on whatever they are alleged to have agreed to with BlackBerry. Yet you also acknowledge BlackBerry has a contractual responsibility. On what basis can anyone assume that BlackBerry is upholding their end of these arrangements and performing per contract?

[conite]

Does BlackBerry have any specific legal responsibility to uphold regarding legacy devices? Certainly doesn't seem like it. Ask anyone who owns a BB10 device or a DTEK. And the fact they are out of the business now anyway makes for a very convenient excuse, regardless.

As for responsibilities to licensees, it sure sounds like you are talking through both sides of your mouth. First you were quick to finger the licensees for software updates (or lack thereof) based on whatever they are alleged to have agreed to with BlackBerry. Yet you also acknowledge BlackBerry has a contractual responsibility. On what basis can anyone assume that BlackBerry is upholding their end of these arrangements and performing per contract?

Various regions has different legal requirements for support, and BlackBerry would be forced to abide by whatever they may be. They may also have support contracts with some enterprise clients.

As far as licencees are concerned, I've been entirely consistent. The licencees are 100% responsible to the end user with respect to every single aspect of the device - including software and support. The licencees pay for updates from BlackBerry, and BlackBerry's only responsibility is to them according to the terms they agreed to.

[drobbie]

Various regions has different legal requirements for support, and BlackBerry would be forced to abide by whatever they may be. They may also have support contracts with some enterprise clients.

As far as licencees are concerned, I've been entirely consistent. The licencees are 100% responsible to the end user with respect to every single aspect of the device - including software and support. The licencees pay for updates from BlackBerry, and BlackBerry's only responsibility is to them according to the terms they agreed to.

The licensee's will guarantee BlackBerry demise. You can't outsource your corporate reputation. Either BlackBerry make their own phone with the build quality we expect (at a loss) or get out of phone business completely and focus on areas of strength.