1. givechanceachance's Avatar
    original commentary: here I wrote a short commentaty how BlackBerry did NOT fail. input on my short take is welcome: https://pagetelegram.blogspot.com/20...-fail.html?m=1

    commentary text:

    BlackBerry did not fail in its day with its phones! When iPhone came out pioneering touch screen slates, everyone ran to it while hard core keyboard fans kept BB alive just barely enough to get as far as they did. BlackBerry however didn't fail as a company. Their QNX acquisition was their greatest asset. The RealTime OS (The type of OS you want running your space ship) is being used across almost all auto-makers for IoT operations leading into self driving cars.

    When it comes to phones....folks in the masses have fallen for Fools Gold. So lack of good marketing on BB part may have been at fault. However the smart phone market is doomed by one principle: It has reached the market apex. Nothing more new can be done with smart phones that would pull people away from slates. And it is no longer a lucrative market.

    BlackBerry OS10 was BB last stand in being them in addressing productivity, reliability and security. When they succumbed to the Android market the only feature left to their advantage was physical keyboard phones. And by then only old timers knew their value in productivity while the market washes away with slates and a gazillion pixels of at least five cameras packed in something so thin and without bevels that people easily drop and break to replace as if that activity becomes accepted as a common mantra!
    Last edited by givechanceachance; 05-28-23 at 01:02 PM. Reason: grammar
    shakingthrough and ericvanh like this.
    05-28-23 12:58 PM
  2. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    All companies will fail if they stop innovation. BlackBerry did fail because the company is a shadow of itself despite the QNX purchase. Its value to stakeholders has declined as much, if not more, than its value in the mobile sector. The mobile device manufacturers that will survive into whatever is the next new product are those that continue innovation beyond what is currently available.

    Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
    05-28-23 01:41 PM
  3. givechanceachance's Avatar
    We disagree on the assessment. BB was innovative and still is: just not phones anymore. A company can be innovative and fail at the same time. There are many examples of way better products than the ones suckers buy into.

    Phone innovation is past the apex. Put a bottle opener on a phone and that is the extent of better innovation. The mainstream bought into the Koolaid to make bad water taste better.

    The facts we agree. We each have our own take/perspective on the matter. Be at will to find reasons to justify the glass as half empty. I think BB will need a bigger glass to stay half full once their contracts with the auto-industry take off.

    I do and have mentioned many times before that public perception is driven by opinions of authority positions and providing a negative view / perspective on a company serves no one any good in the long term.

    The only innovation in phones is hype. More megapixels, more cameras, thinner sleeker BS!
    ericvanh likes this.
    05-28-23 01:52 PM
  4. conite's Avatar
    original commentary: here I wrote a short commentaty how BlackBerry did NOT fail. input on my short take is welcome: https://pagetelegram.blogspot.com/20...-fail.html?m=1

    commentary text:

    BlackBerry did not fail in its day with its phones! When iPhone came out pioneering touch screen slates, everyone ran to it while hard core keyboard fans kept BB alive just barely enough to get as far as they did. BlackBerry however didn't fail as a company. Their QNX acquisition was their greatest asset. The RealTime OS (The type of OS you want running your space ship) is being used across almost all auto-makers for IoT operations leading into self driving cars.

    When it comes to phones....folks in the masses have fallen for Fools Gold. So lack of good marketing on BB part may have been at fault. However the smart phone market is doomed by one principle: It has reached the market apex. Nothing more new can be done with smart phones that would pull people away from slates. And it is no longer a lucrative market.

    BlackBerry OS10 was BB last stand in being them in addressing productivity, reliability and security. When they succumbed to the Android market the only feature left to their advantage was physical keyboard phones. And by then only old timers knew their value in productivity while the market washes away with slates and a gazillion pixels of at least five cameras packed in something so thin and without bevels that people easily drop and break to replace as if that activity becomes accepted as a common mantra!
    Something similar to this could have been written every year for the last 100 years, but we keep advancing nonetheless.

    Technology, like anything else, never reaches the end - it just keeps evolving. We are but a single data point in an endless stream of data points over time.

    Cameras will continue to improve - eventually replacing DSLR cameras completely. Display technology will continue to advance - eventually becoming rollable/foldable smartglass you can tuck in a small pocket. AI will continue to improve such that typing will become a quaint relic of bygone days.

    BlackBerry never made a dime off mobile phones apart from early SAF/BIS fees to carriers when data compression was required to make smartphones work feasibly.

    QNX has continued in the auto sector despite BlackBerry's involvement. But I suspect that ultimately it will be succeeded by offerings from the bigger players in the industry.

    The legacy of BlackBerry will be that they had a nifty product, at the right time in history, to enjoy a few years of success.
    Laura Knotek and Ph1llip like this.
    05-28-23 03:16 PM
  5. givechanceachance's Avatar
    Something similar to this could have been written every year for the last 100 years, but we keep advancing nonetheless.

    Technology, like anything else, never reaches the end - it just keeps evolving. We are but a single data point in an endless stream of data points over time.

    Cameras will continue to improve - eventually replacing DSLR cameras completely. Display technology will continue to advance - eventually becoming rollable/foldable smartglass you can tuck in a small pocket. AI will continue to improve such that typing will become a quaint relic of bygone days.

    BlackBerry never made a dime off mobile phones apart from early SAF/BIS fees to carriers when data compression was required to make smartphones work feasibly.

    QNX has continued in the auto sector despite BlackBerry's involvement. But I suspect that ultimately it will be succeeded by offerings from the bigger players in the industry.

    The legacy of BlackBerry will be that they had a nifty product, at the right time in history, to enjoy a few years of success.
    Self fulfilling prophecy here. Camera-phones replacing dSLR cameras is another aspect of feeding everyone Koolaid to make dirty water palatable. I could see that happen. I agree with that. I just don't honor it.
    05-28-23 03:21 PM
  6. conite's Avatar
    Self fulfilling prophecy here. Camera-phones replacing dSLR cameras is another aspect of feeding everyone Koolaid to make dirty water palatable. I could see that happen. I agree with that. I just don't honor it.

    What is the self-fulfilling prophecy? The fact that technology continues to advance?

    How are the incredible technical gains in smartphone camera quality Kool-Aid? What does that even mean?
    Laura Knotek and ddp_in like this.
    05-28-23 03:24 PM
  7. givechanceachance's Avatar
    What is the self-fulfilling prophecy? The fact that technology continues to advance?

    How are the incredible technical gains in smartphone camera quality Kool-Aid? What does that even mean?
    That at every fork in the road, demand typically chooses hype innovation over practical and useful innovation.

    Look at how M$ sold us Win3.1 when OS/2 was a much better product. Look at how Lamborghini bought Vector and turned it into garbage. Although there are a few examples recent of success of a nitch product of superiority making a presence: Sigma Foveon based cameras. Sigma was loosing money for the first four models against their Lens market. While some photographers still push Nikon and Canon, Sigma dSLR cameras have recently made a contribution in the market for their unique three layer sensor and pushing the tech of a mirrorless camera with full size CMOS sensor with lens SA mount. I can go on and on. Innovation never really makes it in mainstream. It is easier for companies to hype features of products and that's what tends to sell.
    Last edited by givechanceachance; 05-28-23 at 03:34 PM. Reason: spelling
    05-28-23 03:29 PM
  8. conite's Avatar
    That at every fork in the road, demand typically chooses hype innovation over practical and useful innovation.

    Look at how M$ sold us Win3.1 when OS/2 was a much better product. Look at how Lamborghini bought Vector and turned it into garbage. Although there are a few examples recent of success of a nitch product of superiority making a presence: Sigma Foveon based cameras. Sigma was loosing money for the first four models against their Lens market. While some photographers still push Nikon and Canon, Sigma dSLR cameras have recently made a contribution in the market for their unique three layer sensor and pushing the tech of a mirrorless camera with full size CMOS sensor. I can go on and on. Innovation never really makes it in mainstream. It is easier for companies to hype features of products and that's what tends to sell.
    That's a naive and simplistic view.

    For instance, many say that betamax was superior to VHS. However, in reality, VHS was superior because it offered what people actually cared about - tapes that could contain an entire movie, and an open-market that produced a wider range of equipment - all for much less money.

    Same can be said for the other things you listed. You have to evaluate the entire package - and their precise path to the marketplace.
    05-28-23 03:39 PM
  9. givechanceachance's Avatar
    That's a naive and simplistic view.

    For instance, many say that betamax was superior to VHS. However, in reality, VHS was superior because it offered what people actually cared about - tapes that could contain an entire movie, and an open-market that produced a wider range of equipment - all for much less money.

    Same can be said for the other things you listed. You have to evaluate the entire package - and their precise path to the marketplace.
    Marketing vs Innovation is not always on the same track. Chocolate covered manure with a cherry on top will sell better than anything real.

    I agree about the market outcomes of "innovation" and like I wrote I don't honor it:

    How BlackBerry did [NOT] fail...-os2020.jpg

    To assume just because a product catches on is irrelevant to innovation. It becomes propaganda.
    05-28-23 03:46 PM
  10. conite's Avatar
    Marketing vs Innovation is not always on the same track. Chocolate covered manure with a cherry on top will sell better than anything real.

    I agree about the market outcomes of "innovation" and like I wrote I don't honor it:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	OS2020.jpg 
Views:	71 
Size:	45.0 KB 
ID:	453951

    To assume just because a product catches on is irrelevant to innovation. It becomes propaganda.
    You are just making claims without any supporting evidence.

    I can't think of a single thing that people have really wanted that hasn't found its way to market.

    Marketing can only amplify appeal - appeal that has already been tested in focus groups, surveys, and market analysis.
    Last edited by conite; 05-28-23 at 06:12 PM.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    05-28-23 04:30 PM
  11. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    QNX is losing ground in the auto market, and is set to lose a LOT more ground as car manufacturers realize that they need to start over on a clean sheet of paper for EV designs, and that they need to bring most things fully in-house - ESPECIALLY the software - if they hope to survive long-term.

    This means you're going to see car companies that still use QNX for their ICE cars move to something like AGL (Automotive-Grade Linux) for their EVs. Given that EVs are far more heavily based on software than ICE cars, it's a HUGE liability to use a closed-source, third-party OS, so you'll see inertia keep QNX on board the ICE cars as demand for ICE vehicles plummets, and when they're no longer produced, QNX will be out of the auto market.

    There's some idea that QNX is the only RTOS out there, but that's far from the truth. Being a RTOS certainly didn't help BBOS on phones, and while that has some advantages in cars, others, including AGL, exist and have existed for a long time. Being open-source, using AGL allows each company to have FULL control over their software stack, and that's going to be vital for the long-term future.
    Laura Knotek, ddp_in and Tsepz_GP like this.
    05-28-23 04:38 PM
  12. abruzzo's Avatar
    QNX is losing ground in the auto market.... Being a RTOS certainly didn't help BBOS on phones,
    But any established OS would probably be better than what RIM developed in house. At least they could tick the OS box as done and focus on other problems.
    05-28-23 07:53 PM
  13. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    But any established OS would probably be better than what RIM developed in house. At least they could tick the OS box as done and focus on other problems.
    How would ANY closed-source OS, no matter how good or who developed it, help auto makers achieve full control and independence of their software? THAT is the goal, after all.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    05-28-23 07:56 PM
  14. abruzzo's Avatar
    How would ANY closed-source OS, no matter how good or who developed it, help auto makers achieve full control and independence of their software? THAT is the goal, after all.
    I know nothing about QNX in the automotive world so I cherry-picked words from your post. I have experience with OS and RTOS. I believe that RIM bought QNX because they did not have the quality OS they needed. You are right it did not seem to help but I don't think it was a mistake.
    Last edited by abruzzo; 05-28-23 at 08:19 PM. Reason: spelling
    05-28-23 08:18 PM
  15. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    Self fulfilling prophecy here. Camera-phones replacing dSLR cameras is another aspect of feeding everyone Koolaid to make dirty water palatable. I could see that happen. I agree with that. I just don't honor it.
    Ordinary people aren't going to lug around DSLRs everywhere they go. DSLRs are simply not practical for those situations. The camera on a phone is suitable for that purpose.

    Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
    Tsepz_GP likes this.
    05-28-23 09:32 PM
  16. Paul Reichert's Avatar
    Ordinary people aren't going to lug around DSLRs everywhere they go. DSLRs are simply not practical for those situations. The camera on a phone is suitable for that purpose.

    Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
    I think the question is, are they as good as DSLR.
    05-28-23 09:58 PM
  17. Laura Knotek's Avatar
    I think the question is, are they as good as DSLR.
    For everyday photos not taken by professionals, yes.

    Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk
    05-28-23 10:33 PM
  18. conite's Avatar
    I think the question is, are they as good as DSLR.
    Based on the progress made over the last 10 years, they will be.
    05-28-23 10:57 PM
  19. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    I know nothing about QNX in the automotive world so I cherry-picked words from your post. I have experience with OS and RTOS. I believe that RIM bought QNX because they did not have the quality OS they needed. You are right it did not seem to help but I don't think it was a mistake.
    It was definitely a mistake as far as smartphones - BB10 was more of a problem and less of a solution for BB. QNX definitely has its uses, but it's a small revenue generator, which was why it was owned by a small company. BB bought it as a big company, and have since become a vastly smaller company. That's pretty hard to justify from a business perspective. Still, QNX has been used by automakers for a long time as middleware, and so it had some built-in revenue.

    But EVs are MUCH more software-driven than ICE cars are - it's a massive change, much like the change between 1st-Gen smartphones (BBOS, Nokia, Palm) and 2nd-Gen smartphones (iOS, Android), and automakers are realizing that they MUST have TOTAL control of their supply chain and be fully vertically integrated - which is VASTLY different than ICE vehicles, where manufacturers bought almost everything from outside suppliers and just assembled it. That model is no longer viable with EVs, where everything MUST work together seamlessly, and where changes must be made quickly and elegantly, which just isn't possible when everything is outsourced.

    Thus, building your car company around a third-party OS makes no sense - you need to have full control over that software, and you'll never get that with a closed-source-code OS like QNX. Plus, nearly everything else in the world today is run on Linux, so you can get software engineers from any other company and have them work on Linux, but it's a lot less simple to find QNX engineers - even though the OSs have many similarities.

    BB has been reacting to existing trends instead of looking ahead and seeing what was coming in the future and getting ready for it, and that's not a recipe for success in business.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    05-29-23 12:12 AM
  20. Ph1llip's Avatar
    BlackBerry did not fail in its day with its phones!
    Please send me some of whatever you're smoking
    05-29-23 10:21 AM
  21. abruzzo's Avatar
    It was definitely a mistake as far as smartphones - BB10 was more of a problem and less of a solution for BB. QNX definitely has its uses, but it's a small revenue generator, which was why it was owned by a small company. BB bought it as a big company, and have since become a vastly smaller company. That's pretty hard to justify from a business perspective. Still, QNX has been used by automakers for a long time as middleware, and so it had some built-in revenue.

    But EVs are MUCH more software-driven than ICE cars are - it's a massive change, much like the change between 1st-Gen smartphones (BBOS, Nokia, Palm) and 2nd-Gen smartphones (iOS, Android), and automakers are realizing that they MUST have TOTAL control of their supply chain and be fully vertically integrated - which is VASTLY different than ICE vehicles, where manufacturers bought almost everything from outside suppliers and just assembled it. That model is no longer viable with EVs, where everything MUST work together seamlessly, and where changes must be made quickly and elegantly, which just isn't possible when everything is outsourced.

    Thus, building your car company around a third-party OS makes no sense - you need to have full control over that software, and you'll never get that with a closed-source-code OS like QNX. Plus, nearly everything else in the world today is run on Linux, so you can get software engineers from any other company and have them work on Linux, but it's a lot less simple to find QNX engineers - even though the OSs have many similarities.

    BB has been reacting to existing trends instead of looking ahead and seeing what was coming in the future and getting ready for it, and that's not a recipe for success in business.
    Interesting post well said.

    Suppose you are an OEM with products using QNX. You want to develop your own OS so that all software is in house. How do you transition?
    First, note that QNX is certified POSIX-compliant. This means you could replace it with another compliant OS. None of the other fully-compliant on the POSIX wiki page are suitable. However, there are other candidates which are mostly compliant, but not certified, including:-

    . Android (Available through Android NDK),
    . Darwin (core of macOS and iOS)
    . DragonFly BSD
    . FreeBSD
    . Linux (most distributions)
    . NetBSD
    And more...
    Linux is the elephant in the room but I would go with FreeBSD because it tends to be simpler and more stable than Linux. The FreeBSD team would welcome code contribution and money but they won't nag you for it. The code is copyrighted but you can make free use of it.

    Second step: Review your product code to ensure the developers have been using POSIX, not some backdoor kludges. Fix and test exceptions.

    Now you are ready to evolve your new software.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RIM could have opted for a free OS (only for phones) but I doubt it would have improved the business outlook.
    05-29-23 11:06 AM
  22. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    Interesting post well said.

    Suppose you are an OEM with products using QNX. You want to develop your own OS so that all software is in house. How do you transition?
    First, note that QNX is certified POSIX-compliant. This means you could replace it with another compliant OS. None of the other fully-compliant on the POSIX wiki page are suitable. However, there are other candidates which are mostly compliant, but not certified, including:-

    . Android (Available through Android NDK),
    . Darwin (core of macOS and iOS)
    . DragonFly BSD
    . FreeBSD
    . Linux (most distributions)
    . NetBSD
    And more...
    Linux is the elephant in the room but I would go with FreeBSD because it tends to be simpler and more stable than Linux. The FreeBSD team would welcome code contribution and money but they won't nag you for it. The code is copyrighted but you can make free use of it.

    Second step: Review your product code to ensure the developers have been using POSIX, not some backdoor kludges. Fix and test exceptions.

    Now you are ready to evolve your new software.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RIM could have opted for a free OS (only for phones) but I doubt it would have improved the business outlook.
    AGL....

    You build your own OS using AGL as the base, as it's open sourced and much more "supported" by developers and component manufactures. In the end that's already where we are... last big users of QNX for the top layer OS was Ford. QNX makes it into millions of cars a year, but it's running on a few subsystems. But as others have pointed out, the move is to get rid of subsystems in EV's, in favor of just one system (copy what Tesla has done across the board).... but that's not going to be QNX.

    AGL is under active development... when was the last version of QNX released (2017 with minor update in 2020)? How often does it get known vulnerabilities patched?

    Simply put BlackBerry doesn't have the resources to be innovative or cutting edge as a software maker. Nor do they have the money to buy other innovative products anymore.

    Just look at what their always having to consider the operational budget did with integration of Cylance that they spent $1.4 Billion on. I kept waiting for R&D spending to jump, as they would need to invest in the creation of SPARK and integration into other products. It never really happened, Chen kept a tight rein on spending and SPARK suffered. Meanwhile every other major security solution was able to magically add an AI based option (without spending $1.4 Billion), to their offerings. Which is why the 2022 Gartner Magic Quadrant for EPP has BlackBerry way behind 15 other competitors, which explains their revenue issues in Security Software.
    Last edited by Dunt Dunt Dunt; 05-30-23 at 02:20 PM.
    Ph1llip and Laura Knotek like this.
    05-30-23 07:18 AM
  23. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    No one cares about POSIX compliance. Linux quite literally runs most of the world today. Even Microsoft runs Linux to power its cloud. As Dunt pointed out, what matters in the real world is current and future development. AGL, and Linux in general, are both ACTIVELY and HEAVILY developed by a huge number of companies and developers - more than any other OS on the planet. There are more developers for Linux than any other platform. Linux grows more important every day, and is put in more products every day. Those are the things that make all the difference.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    05-30-23 09:58 PM
  24. Dunt Dunt Dunt's Avatar
    No one cares about POSIX compliance. Linux quite literally runs most of the world today. Even Microsoft runs Linux to power its cloud. As Dunt pointed out, what matters in the real world is current and future development. AGL, and Linux in general, are both ACTIVELY and HEAVILY developed by a huge number of companies and developers - more than any other OS on the planet. There are more developers for Linux than any other platform. Linux grows more important every day, and is put in more products every day. Those are the things that make all the difference.
    I know code is code in many ways.... but what has it cost Ford in the last decade with their move away from Windows SE, to QNX and then to Android Automotive OS for their user facing Infotainment System.

    Last week GM was added to a rather long list of car markers that will be using Android Automotive OS.... in at least some of their upcoming vehicles.... while still saying neither Android Auto (different product) and Apple CarPlay won't be offered - in other words they don't want users, using their smartphone with their smart car. They want independence and ongoing cash flow on the "services" they will be offering.

    But not clear on how many of these are moving away from separate tethered systems that traditionally they have used, towards one OS to rule it all... like Tesla does and many have expressed interest in moving that direction. For years QNX would be running the Breaking System Controller, or the Powertrain Controller or the Crash Avoidance Controller... right now and the foreseeable short term future, there is still room for QNX in Cars. And while they likly will see some growth in demand.... they are like suppliers of automotive ICE Engines, need to find something else to focus on for the long term.
    Laura Knotek likes this.
    05-31-23 07:24 AM
  25. abruzzo's Avatar
    As an aside to this interesting discussion, I have a comment about designers using Android for a personal, portable music player.

    I have a Fiio M7 which can play lossless FLAC and MP3 files. It has a USB for home hifi and a headphone output for on the go. Unfortunately, it has Android which is slow to turn on and it loses all the settings from the previous session. It has a small touchscreen and a little side wheel for adjusting volume. There is also a circular screen widget for adjusting volume. But after some fiddling it sounds good.

    I also have an old 10+ years Sansa MP3 player. It does not have an operating system or annoying touch screen. It turns on instantly ready to continue the previous session. And the sound is satisfactory. It has a steering-wheel which has 5 switches. It is probably a delicate thing but it never failed for me.

    So the Sansa is best for me because it satisfies the most important requirements which are usability, portabllity, and no scrolling touchscreen. The Fiio has too much design overreach. They forgot the KISS principle.
    dmlis likes this.
    05-31-23 08:11 PM
76 123 ...

Similar Threads

  1. My blackberry key 2
    By minnkhant in forum BlackBerry KEYone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-02-23, 07:41 AM
  2. Why my blackberry key 2 audio is not come out?
    By minnkhant in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-28-23, 01:42 PM
  3. blackberry porsche design p9982 autolader
    By Geogain in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-26-23, 07:06 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-24-23, 06:19 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD