[asherN]

Provide a compiler that will work with packages written for google play services that can give options to work on other platforms as well that don�t have the dependencies.

Are you seriously advocating BB creates a compiler that redirects GPS API calls to it's own services? Nothing, legally speaking, could possibly go wrong with that, tight?

[conite]

Are you seriously advocating BB creates a compiler that redirects GPS API calls to it's own services? Nothing, legally speaking, could possibly go wrong with that, tight?

Not too mention your service would have to spoof an authentic Google Play Services verification check from the app trying to run.

[anon(3983727)]

Are you seriously advocating BB creates a compiler that redirects GPS API calls to it's own services? Nothing, legally speaking, could possibly go wrong with that, tight?

Not too mention your service would have to spoof an authentic Google Play Services verification check from the app trying to run.

That wasn't how I was imagining it working. This would take the ucompiled package that was written to be submitted to Google services and allow it to be submitted to Blackberry also with zero modifications. the code may be written to use Google Services APIs but the compiler would pick these up as errors and offer alternative APIs and replace code.
I don't know if this is realistic or not.

[asherN]

Not realistic at all. The massive complexity of that code generator, not compiler, is staggering. It would need to be able to analyze the API call, the API response and how that response is treated inside the app. Which may or may not be close to the actual call. It can't be automatic. It can't be flawless. At most, the compiler can flag calls to the GPS API and error out the compile. It is then up to the programmer to modify the code to the BB API. Any way you cut it, you have 2 version of the source code. The only way to not have that is for the BB API to be completely compatible with the GPS API, both input and responses. And that is reverse engineering a computer system and a violation of copyright.

[anon(3983727)]

Not realistic at all. The massive complexity of that code generator, not compiler, is staggering. It would need to be able to analyze the API call, the API response and how that response is treated inside the app. Which may or may not be close to the actual call. It can't be automatic. It can't be flawless. At most, the compiler can flag calls to the GPS API and error out the compile. It is then up to the programmer to modify the code to the BB API. Any way you cut it, you have 2 version of the source code. The only way to not have that is for the BB API to be completely compatible with the GPS API, both input and responses. And that is reverse engineering a computer system and a violation of copyright.

Can you give me some Google services API examples with specific function that couldn't be worked to new code? Just trying to wrap my head around it. From what I understood the functions were fairly standardized due to massive fragmentation in Android hardware/software.

[asherN]

All of them. BB has 3 choices.
1) Make their APIs absolute duplicates of GPS, name, arguments, everything.
2) Make their APIs functional duplicates. Different name but same arguments, returns, etc.
3) Create a new library of APIs that can duplicate the functionality but are not the same.

1 requires no change in the code.
2 requires a slight change, as in wherever the compiler sees GPSAPIx, change it to BBAPIx.

Both of those land them in legal trouble because it requires reverse engineering what the API does.

the third option requires a lot of manual change in the code because the name of the API is different, the input arguments are different and the returned results must be different. Essentially a BB10 version of the code.

1 and 2 also require BB to very quickly react to Google making changes to their APIs.

[anon(3983727)]

All of them. BB has 3 choices.
1) Make their APIs absolute duplicates of GPS, name, arguments, everything.
2) Make their APIs functional duplicates. Different name but same arguments, returns, etc.
3) Create a new library of APIs that can duplicate the functionality but are not the same.

1 requires no change in the code.
2 requires a slight change, as in wherever the compiler sees GPSAPIx, change it to BBAPIx.

Both of those land them in legal trouble because it requires reverse engineering what the API does.

the third option requires a lot of manual change in the code because the name of the API is different, the input arguments are different and the returned results must be different. Essentially a BB10 version of the code.

1 and 2 also require BB to very quickly react to Google making changes to their APIs.

I could see Google services updates being a problem... but I was thinking these apps would run in the Android runtime.

[DonHB]

And that is reverse engineering a computer system and a violation of copyright.

How do you think the IBM BIOS was cloned? And no, the issue of verification check is not an issue. He is talking about using alternate services libraries. Perhaps a situation where the device owner decides what service provider to use outside the app.

This is why Oracle vs. Google was such a big deal. We will see what happens with fair use in the lower court.

[StephanieMaks]

I didn't think there was anything wrong with reverse engineering per se. The problem would be if the BB version re-used any copyrighted code.

The way you avoid that is, I believe, referred to as clean-room reverse engineering? I may have the terminology wrong but essentially you have team A who does all the reverse engineering. They take the target OS / software / API apart, figure it out completely, inside out, and document everything absolutely and completely. And then team A is finished.

Team B gets the documentation and nothing more. They then write the new OS / software / API from scratch, designing it to fit the documentation they were given. Nobody from team A works with team B. There is no code exchanged.

In the end you get a new, 'clean' piece of software that does not violate copyright, but is functionally equivalent to the original.

The challenges are that 1) it's really expensive and time consuming to do this and you never know if it's 100% compatible with every single edge case, and 2) Team A can't break any laws (eg. dcma, decryption, etc) in their discovery / reverse engineering. And finally 3) it doesn't guarantee you won't get sued, only that you'll have a good defence when you do.

So, reverse engineering itself is not illegal. Just, doing it correctly is time consuming and expensive.

[bradpromac]

I was somewhat reserved about buying the Priv after watching how android apps start controlling people's phones all on their own.

Keeping my Passport as a backup I decided to buy the Priv to try it out. I have to say that BlackBerry seems to keep android disciplined and buttery smooth. The torch with an attitude, you WILL love this device!

I might be on my Passport, or I might be on my Priv. Either way, I'm up to my knees in BlackBerry JUICE!

[Prem WatsApp]

I was somewhat reserved about buying the Priv after watching how android apps start controlling people's phones all on their own.

Keeping my Passport as a backup I decided to buy the Priv to try it out. I have to say that BlackBerry seems to keep android disciplined and buttery smooth. The torch with an attitude, you WILL love this device!

I might be on my Passport, or I might be on my Priv. Either way, I'm up to my knees in BlackBerry JUICE!

Good to hear... might give in when the Marshmallows are roasted... :-)

�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

[DonHB]

So, reverse engineering itself is not illegal. Just, doing it correctly is time consuming and expensive.

Even less expensive if in Oracle vs. Google, Google wins on fair use. If the goal is provide alternative services from third parties a mostly new API would be required and no reverse engineering would be needed.

[qwerty4ever]

How do you think the IBM BIOS was cloned? And no, the issue of verification check is not an issue. He is talking about using alternate services libraries. Perhaps a situation where the device owner decides what service provider to use outside the app.

This is why Oracle vs. Google was such a big deal. We will see what happens with fair use in the lower court.

IBM used to publish the assembly language listing for the BIOS along with technical reference manuals covering the hardware.

BlackBerry Priv with CrackBerry App for Android

[JeepBB]

IBM used to publish the assembly language listing for the BIOS along with technical reference manuals covering the hardware.

Yes, this ^

The two situations are about as far away as it's possible to be. IBM wanted the BIOS "out there", so they could sell more stuff off the back of it. Google don't want GPS used by anyone who isn't a member of their cosy OHA club and will use their corporate might to protect their rights.

GPS will never, ever, not-in-a-billion-years, come to BB10. He'll won't just freeze over the day that happens, it'll become the #1 winter sports venue.

If you want GPS, buy a Priv (or any other Android handset).

[Voltel]

I have used 9900, Lenovo, Q10, Passport and again Q10! Before Priv I was having Passport for my communication and Emails and Q10 Gold for voice calls. Then BlackBerry has launched Priv and I was so inspired by Priv hardware and I bought Priv powered by Android!

OS comparison

BB10 is so powerful and secure Os as compare to Android. I never have complaint off apps! My necessary apps were there and five email accounts worked smoothly for 16 month.

Priv with Android

Priv hardware is very well built and again BlackBerry think out of box and made slider...perfect in every angle. Screen, battery and built quality even PKB very smooth.

Such a shame Priv launched with Android, so buggy and Un professional, so afraid to downloads any app (which usually need all permissions). Difficult to access many thing and your productivity is gone! Yeah Android is good for gaming things.

BlackBerry has sold loyalists to Android same like Hotmail sold us to Facebook and many other companies. NOW WHEN BLACKBERRY HAS SOLD HIS SOUL TO DEVIL IT WILL FLOURISH AGAIN AND BB10 SHALL BE DEDICATED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND GOVERNMENT (SAID BY CHEN). WAR AGAINST BLACKBERRY IS OVER NOW! DEVIL IS SUCCESSFUL AS USUAL!

Posted by Priv

Well said mate... I know at least 5 of my friend would kill for BB10 Priv.

[kvndoom]

5 down, 4.9 million to go.

BlackBerry Classic non-camera, Cricket Wireless

[DonHB]

IBM used to publish the assembly language listing for the BIOS along with technical reference manuals covering the hardware.

Your right. I think IBM stopped after the AT.

[DonHB]

The two situations are about as far away as it's possible to be. IBM wanted the BIOS "out there", so they could sell more stuff off the back of it. Google don't want GPS used by anyone who isn't a member of their cosy OHA club and will use their corporate might to protect their rights.

GPS will never, ever, not-in-a-billion-years, come to BB10. He'll won't just freeze over the day that happens, it'll become the #1 winter sports venue.

Actually, Google may caught between winning on one side and losing on the other. Google lost to Oracle on copyright, but may win on fair use. But if Google wins on fair use then Google's Mobile Services API's are fair game. Meaning third parties could use the API to provide alternative services. It may also allow changing of functionality of Android APIs which the Android CDC expressly forbids for implementations to be compliant. If fair use wins out apps that use GMS could just run in a third party (forked) Android environment. Somewhat torn on this as the quality of an API design is a competitive advantage, but copyright extends at least five times as long as patent protection.

[filanto]

Nah, gingerbread is Android fragmented crap!

All these cookie opinions. I have cookie facts


Posted via CB10

[ddamayanti]

.

So, it doesn't seem that BlackBerry has joined the OHA, but they have a separate agreement with Google, which can be negotiated. :-)

�   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   �

I wonder what Blackberry and Google exchanged between them, outside the availability of Play Store and Play Services in Priv ....

[ddamayanti]

Teenage mutant ninja turtles.

Arrow ? Flash ? Batman ?

[ddamayanti]

Good to hear... might give in when the Marshmallows are roasted... :-)

•   There's a Crack in the Berry right now...   •

Don't forget to share the marshmallow ... an the fun too

[kbz1960]

I wonder what Blackberry and Google exchanged between them, outside the availability of Play Store and Play Services in Priv ....

My guess is they can leave the runtime on BB10 as is, can't update it to a higher android OS version.

[ddamayanti]

I don't know what posts you are reading but It cant possibly be mine.

Since I am so un-informed can you provide some proof that counters my opinions? You are saying that Google is not hindering competition? They don't saturate the market and make it difficult for new competition?
Its like arguing with a cat in a santa suit....

.... I wonder what were the competitions doing back then in 2008 when Android was still in its infancy ......

[Tre Lawrence]

My guess is they can leave the runtime on BB10 as is, can't update it to a higher android OS version.

Plus no other new devices with the runtime installed.