03-07-15 09:35 PM
864 ... 1920212223 ...
tools
  1. TheBirdDog's Avatar
    Why should any company other than the ones that would benefit from it have to subsidize that. I'm sure Google, Amazon, Netflix,...well maybe not Apple would be happy to sell whatever they have to BlackBerry. BlackBerry just doesn't like the asking price.
    I don't think that BlackBerry would or should have to pay anything. The customers (us) would still be the ones paying for the apps. And the free ones should remain free or paid for by advertising. There is no reason for the prices to change, they should just be made accessible to everyone.

    I don't think that iMessage vs BBM was the best example but I guess it was just to illustrate the different positions that BlackBerry and Apple hold. I think that the biggest problem is with the strict licensing some of these companies have on apps so that they basically claim 3rd party apps as their own. (I'm looking at you, Google.)

    Apple is both a hardware and a software company so I understand why it is tricky and there is hardly anything black and white with whatever is 'fair' distribution of apps that they actually do own. Google, however, is primarily a software company right now and should be making their content available to everyone. As a Google client (I have a google account), I should have access to Google +, Google Hangouts, Gmail, Google etcetera from my mobile device if it is capable of handling the software.

    Anyone who disagrees, misses what John Chen is pointing to. And what BlackBerry is aiming at for their 'eco-system'. All devices should be able to connect and sync data and accounts seamlessly. And access information equally. If I want to have an iPad, a Windows laptop, a Sony walkman (that I wish to sync with my iTunes account), and continue to use my BlackBerry Passport as my mobile device, NO COMPANY should be allowed to block these choices. Or leverage their own product by blocking functionality of any competitors' devices.

    I've seen people bring up game consoles as an example. This isn't relevant to this discussion because we aren't just talking about games here. If I want to play Super Mario, I need a Nintendo. Nintendo created and owns Mario, that is fair. If I want a banking app on my phone, I should have access to it. If I want to access my Google account from my device, I should be able to. And I shouldn't have my access limited because I don't have the right logo on my device.

    Net neutrality means basically that no one gets to own the internet (I'm still looking at you, Google). It makes perfect sense to include the world of apps into our definition of the internet. Or, if not, to have the same principles applied to them as the nature of apps is very relative to the nature of the internet.

    Posted via my BlackBerry Passport
    01-24-15 11:07 PM
  2. Shuswap's Avatar

    I agree on all your other points, but again, ancient history.

    Posted via CB10
    2007 is far from ancient, but the point is moot in any case. Some people learn from experience rather than shrugging it off. Some don't.


    Sent from my Q10 using Tapatalk
    01-24-15 11:09 PM
  3. DaedalusIcarusHelios's Avatar
    I really think the point of John's message is to cause discussion of this topic. Closed ecosystems propagating further consolidation in the mobile market really is making iOS and Android monopolistic. If you want apps, you as a user don't really have much choice. Alternate OSes have no chance. The way forward is what was promised before Apple made "apps" so popular: the internet. Platform agnostic, and available anywhere. If your app can be considered a "service", then really it should be available anywhere (and you should want that).

    Enforcing all developers to build an app on every platform is clearly not the answer (nor is it possible), but the question of what can be done to accommodate platform agnosticism is what we should get out of this. Standards and open APIs are the answer for any app that is used for a service. Netflix is a service. It shouldn't be restricted to particular devices. It's already accessible via the internet. So if any legislation should be passed, it's to not allow restrictions on the type of device it is (a particular brand, being mobile vs. desktop, the OS, etc.). Legislation would be necessary to eliminate ridiculous restrictions imposed by Hollywood and such that restrict content being available on mobile devices for no apparent reason. At that point, the necessity of an app falls away. It can be good for convenience, but no longer is it required.

    I think the utopia of what John Chen is envisioning is a good one, and we should think about ways of how it can happen and moving toward that, rather than how a specific implementation of it won't work and how John Chen is an *****, etc.


    All the focus on this has been about the App Neutrality stuff, but no one is talking about his suggestion for net neutrality. Does anyone think his suggestion for using the Block C rules across the board as an alternative to Common Carrier designation is a good one? Since he actually made that same suggestion previously and no one picked up on it in the media, I wonder if the app neutrality stuff was meant to be a lightning rod to get out his other idea as well? The problem is that everyone is too focused on dog piling on him.
    01-25-15 12:03 AM
  4. dguy123's Avatar
    They did give you the service. You and you alone opted to to make that process more difficult than it needed to be. Now they should cater to you?

    Really?
    No. Netflix went out of their way, expended effort, to make the service _unavailable_ for BlackBerry devices. Adding BlackBerry devices to the no access list when their app runs perfectly fine on those devices.

    It's just petty and childish.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 12:08 AM
  5. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    No. Netflix went out of their way, expended effort, to make the service _unavailable_ for BlackBerry devices. Adding BlackBerry devices to the no access list when their app runs perfectly fine on those devices.

    It's just petty and childish.

    Posted via CB10
    I thought Netflix is contractually obligated to block service via mobile browsers (I could be wrong, and am happy to be corrected).

    In any case, it's business. BlackBerry going out off its way to disallow me from running BlackBerry Travel on my Android device isn't petty. It's smart business. That strategy might change, obviously, but it makes sense.
    01-25-15 12:37 AM
  6. BB_Junky's Avatar
    People / companies do indeed have full control over who gets and uses what they put on the Internet, all the crying in the world won't change that.

    Posted via the CrackBerry App for Android
    jmr1015 and twiggyrj like this.
    01-25-15 12:39 AM
  7. crackberry_geek's Avatar

    You don't whine your ecosystem into popularity.

    Sent from my Find7 using Tapatalk
    Lol.

    Yup, it takes advertising... something JC refuses to do.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 02:13 AM
  8. TheBirdDog's Avatar
    Lol.

    Yup, it takes advertising... something JC refuses to do.

    Posted via CB10
    BlackBerry CEO: 'We have to treat everything as part of our ecosystem, not just BlackBerry'

    http://m.crackberry.com/blackberry-c...dox-simplicity

    Posted via my BlackBerry Passport
    01-25-15 02:20 AM
  9. jmr1015's Avatar
    I don't think that BlackBerry would or should have to pay anything. The customers (us) would still be the ones paying for the apps. And the free ones should remain free or paid for by advertising. There is no reason for the prices to change, they should just be made accessible to everyone.

    I don't think that iMessage vs BBM was the best example but I guess it was just to illustrate the different positions that BlackBerry and Apple hold. I think that the biggest problem is with the strict licensing some of these companies have on apps so that they basically claim 3rd party apps as their own. (I'm looking at you, Google.)

    Apple is both a hardware and a software company so I understand why it is tricky and there is hardly anything black and white with whatever is 'fair' distribution of apps that they actually do own. Google, however, is primarily a software company right now and should be making their content available to everyone. As a Google client (I have a google account), I should have access to Google +, Google Hangouts, Gmail, Google etcetera from my mobile device if it is capable of handling the software.

    Anyone who disagrees, misses what John Chen is pointing to. And what BlackBerry is aiming at for their 'eco-system'. All devices should be able to connect and sync data and accounts seamlessly. And access information equally. If I want to have an iPad, a Windows laptop, a Sony walkman (that I wish to sync with my iTunes account), and continue to use my BlackBerry Passport as my mobile device, NO COMPANY should be allowed to block these choices. Or leverage their own product by blocking functionality of any competitors' devices.

    I've seen people bring up game consoles as an example. This isn't relevant to this discussion because we aren't just talking about games here. If I want to play Super Mario, I need a Nintendo. Nintendo created and owns Mario, that is fair. If I want a banking app on my phone, I should have access to it. If I want to access my Google account from my device, I should be able to. And I shouldn't have my access limited because I don't have the right logo on my device.

    Net neutrality means basically that no one gets to own the internet (I'm still looking at you, Google). It makes perfect sense to include the world of apps into our definition of the internet. Or, if not, to have the same principles applied to them as the nature of apps is very relative to the nature of the internet.

    Posted via my BlackBerry Passport
    You're still missing the fact that the software you're talking about, costs money to create and maintain/update. You, as a user, are not entitled to anything. The app may be free to you, but the developer certainly has some way to make money off of it... and that method is likely directly tied to install base numbers. Google lets who they choose have access to the software they have paid to develop. If you do not like it, then cease to use Google software and services. If you need Google software and services, then maybe consider purchasing a device that Google chooses to support with their services and software.

    Video game consoles, as well as personal computers, are completely relevant. They use software. That software is rarely universal. Apps are software. Regardless of if they are paid or free, or what that software does, from games, to music or video streaming, mobile banking... Whatever. It is software, and the software developer gets to choose what that software can, and cannot, be installed and supported on.
    01-25-15 03:01 AM
  10. FSeverino's Avatar
    Apple is gaining ground in the desktop/laptop word (especially laptop), but Windows is still king. I prefer OSX but I still need my PC for many things.
    So, you need two computers bc the apple device isn't good enough... but that's ok for apple. So why does everyone bash people for using two devices if one is a BlackBerry? That either means the BlackBerry isn't app friendly so they get a second device or the other device want secure so they get a BlackBerry... to me, neither of those deserves a criticism on BlackBerry based on the way everyone else looks at the situation, yet it is the norm to bash the BlackBerry as second device.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 03:29 AM
  11. FSeverino's Avatar
    In terms of netflix or other apps I have always said this.

    They say BlackBerry doesn't have 'the numbers' because developing for BlackBerry won't make them millions. It WILL turn a profit. There is no way porting or doing a simple redesign of an app that is already mostly done cannot turn a profit with the install base that BlackBerry has. It is impossible.

    I posted a lot of threads, and comments in other threads, about 'numbers' and how these companies could easily make money. The problem is that they want to make the most money with the least effort... which usually isn't a problem, but in the fast moving world of apps it is.

    Companies need to maximize the money from an app before it loses traction. If a company comes up with a game that makes $5 million on ios and android and they don't make a BlackBerry app they are maybe losing around $250 000. This isn't a lot of money for 'big companies'... but, if this happens two or three times that adds up. Later on, down the road that company is pushing games/apps out when they should get a bit more work on them... because they are pressured to make money. Yes, a company is going to go with the path of least resistance in order to get the most bang for their buck, but that means they aren't looking for 'break even'... what it means is that they are greedy.

    There is NO way that a port or simple redesign of an app from a billion dollar company is 'not worth it'... unless the definition of worth is held from a position of greed. Simple as that.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 03:38 AM
  12. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    So, you need two computers bc the apple device isn't good enough... but that's ok for apple. So why does everyone bash people for using two devices if one is a BlackBerry? That either means the BlackBerry isn't app friendly so they get a second device or the other device want secure so they get a BlackBerry... to me, neither of those deserves a criticism on BlackBerry based on the way everyone else looks at the situation, yet it is the norm to bash the BlackBerry as second device.

    Posted via CB10
    That's not okay for Apple. That's okay for him.

    Who is criticizing the use of BlackBerry as a second device? What is wrong with using two devices?
    01-25-15 03:39 AM
  13. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    in order to get the most bang for their buck, but that means they aren't looking for 'break even'... what it means is that they are greedy.
    Which is what corporations (BBRY included) do. Most money with the least input.

    Take the runtime for instance. It epitomizes the term "quick fix." The original Android prototype? Same thing, IMHO.

    It's what companies are tasked with doing via their shareholders.
    01-25-15 03:58 AM
  14. Carrtman's Avatar
    I think people really underestimate the time, money and work it takes to create an app. Basically an application is a smaller program but it's still software.

    Netflix as a company has spent money to create their service and it's up to them go decide which devices they want to support and which not. Don't like it ? Try Hulu or (increase your userbase by making products people will buy in masses). If I'm the ceo of Netflix my first reaction to this would have been OK this company will not got a Netflix app anytime soon.

    Html5 apps aren't the answer otherwise developers would have switched to that standard.

    Blackberry has never been about apps the focus was on productivity and the pkb.

    There is NO way that a port or simple redesign of an app from a billion dollar company is 'not worth it'... unless the definition of worth is held from a position of greed. Simple as that.
    And you know that because ? Developers and companies aren't dumb they won't just flip a coin and say it's not worth it they are going to do their research measure potential expenses versus revenue and then make their decision. Porting an app over isn't as simple as people think there are different codes, structures and of course api's. In that time a developer could make another Ios or Android app and reach 9 out of 10 customers.

    This thing isn't rocket science if people want certain things on another plattform well then buy a device from them.

    I'm using two devices at the moment a bb9900 and a note 4 it's a perfect combination.
    MikeX74 and mornhavon like this.
    01-25-15 05:01 AM
  15. FobiddenRiceman's Avatar
    Why are there so many morons commenting on this. It almost seems like they didn't read the article or the comments that followed.

    NO WHERE is it stated that developers HAVE TO develop apps for EACH individual platform.

    The idea is to take individual platforms out of the equation by making a SINGLE UNIVERSAL STANDARD for app development. (sorta like how the metric system of weights codified and unified what was otherwise the chaos of 100s of regional medieval weight systems). In that way access to content is not a prohibitive factor for other os; such as Firefox os, Tizen, Sailfish, Ubuntu, ect. Therefore creating a greater variety of viable Operating Systems which inherently leads to greater competition, which is a catalyst for innovation, and more frequent innovation will ultimately lead to better functionality for end users.

    What we are witnessing, through the mobile revolution and the apps that come with it, is a compartmentalization of the Internet by proprietary platforms and coding languages; which flys in the face of the original ideals of an open internet, where everyone and anyone has access to the collective information of humanity.

    Imagine if the internet worked in the same way and you were limited to which websites you could visit depending on which OS you are running. Imagine if you could only access wikipedia if you are running windows for example, "but hey man you can access wikipedia from like anywhere and it like does have a website". Yes this is the case with wikipedia but there are other services that are provided through apps that are exclusive to that sole platform and what happens when something as important as wikipedia or twitter is created for a sole platform or in today's case two platforms is everyone else on Mac, Windows, Ubuntu, and all other os just down s**t creek without a paddle

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 06:01 AM
  16. Soulstream's Avatar
    Why are there so many morons commenting on this. It almost seems like they didn't read the article or the comments that followed.

    NO WHERE is it stated that developers HAVE TO develop apps for EACH individual platform.

    The idea is to take individual platforms out of the equation by making a SINGLE UNIVERSAL STANDARD for app development. (sorta like how the metric system of weights codified and unified what was otherwise the chaos of 100s of regional medieval weight systems). In that way access to content is not a prohibitive factor for other os; such as Firefox os, Tizen, Sailfish, Ubuntu, ect. Therefore creating a greater variety of viable Operating Systems which inherently leads to greater competition, which is a catalyst for innovation, and more frequent innovation will ultimately lead to better functionality for end users.
    Building a universal standard for apps is really hard. The closest we have is JAVA for PC and HTML5 for Mobile. Also every OS (both mobile and desktop) has a different architecture/memory management/etc. That is why Java must run in a virtual machine to be "code once, run everywhere". Adding another universal runtime/emulator on top of you own native code is a system-hog and will likely ruin entry-level devices.

    Also, say whatever you want but within the Android ecosystem there is competition and inovation between OEMs.
    jmr1015 likes this.
    01-25-15 06:42 AM
  17. twiggyrj's Avatar
    Why are there so many morons commenting on this. It almost seems like they didn't read the article or the comments that followed.

    NO WHERE is it stated that developers HAVE TO develop apps for EACH individual platform.

    The idea is to take individual platforms out of the equation by making a SINGLE UNIVERSAL STANDARD for app development. (sorta like how the metric system of weights codified and unified what was otherwise the chaos of 100s of regional medieval weight systems). In that way access to content is not a prohibitive factor for other os; such as Firefox os, Tizen, Sailfish, Ubuntu, ect. Therefore creating a greater variety of viable Operating Systems which inherently leads to greater competition, which is a catalyst for innovation, and more frequent innovation will ultimately lead to better functionality for end users.

    What we are witnessing, through the mobile revolution and the apps that come with it, is a compartmentalization of the Internet by proprietary platforms and coding languages; which flys in the face of the original ideals of an open internet, where everyone and anyone has access to the collective information of humanity.

    Imagine if the internet worked in the same way and you were limited to which websites you could visit depending on which OS you are running. Imagine if you could only access wikipedia if you are running windows for example, "but hey man you can access wikipedia from like anywhere and it like does have a website". Yes this is the case with wikipedia but there are other services that are provided through apps that are exclusive to that sole platform and what happens when something as important as wikipedia or twitter is created for a sole platform or in today's case two platforms is everyone else on Mac, Windows, Ubuntu, and all other os just down s**t creek without a paddle

    Posted via CB10

    What you are saying already exists it is HTML5 yet developers haven't flocked to it. Simple as that, if they haven't adopted it then that's where that discussion ends. You have a universal standard which in theory is supposed to be wonderful for everyone and that's not being adopted by developers en masse doesn't that say something?
    01-25-15 06:54 AM
  18. Kurdis Blough's Avatar
    Why should devs code to the lowest common denominator for the sake of platforms that lack features. Android devices have had 4+ inch screens and dual core processors since 2010.

    Universal apps are what mobile sites are for. Websites are not a replacement for apps as they have access to hardware components like camera, sensors, NFC

    I don't get how anyone is buying this I'll informed, thinly veiled plea for a universal standard.

    Apps aren't important remember. Why the BlackBerry CEO and crackberry crew get to stroll in years late and tell everyone what they should be doing in 2015 is beyond me.

    The butthurt is very strong in this thread.

    !
    Cynycl, jmr1015 and mornhavon like this.
    01-25-15 07:24 AM
  19. Carrtman's Avatar
    Why are there so many morons commenting on this. It almost seems like they didn't read the article or the comments that followed.

    NO WHERE is it stated that developers HAVE TO develop apps for EACH individual platform.

    The idea is to take individual platforms out of the equation by making a SINGLE UNIVERSAL STANDARD for app development. (sorta like how the metric system of weights codified and unified what was otherwise the chaos of 100s of regional medieval weight systems). In that way access to content is not a prohibitive factor for other os; such as Firefox os, Tizen, Sailfish, Ubuntu, ect. Therefore creating a greater variety of viable Operating Systems which inherently leads to greater competition, which is a catalyst for innovation, and more frequent innovation will ultimately lead to better functionality for end users.

    What we are witnessing, through the mobile revolution and the apps that come with it, is a compartmentalization of the Internet by proprietary platforms and coding languages; which flys in the face of the original ideals of an open internet, where everyone and anyone has access to the collective information of humanity.

    Imagine if the internet worked in the same way and you were limited to which websites you could visit depending on which OS you are running. Imagine if you could only access wikipedia if you are running windows for example, "but hey man you can access wikipedia from like anywhere and it like does have a website". Yes this is the case with wikipedia but there are other services that are provided through apps that are exclusive to that sole platform and what happens when something as important as wikipedia or twitter is created for a sole platform or in today's case two platforms is everyone else on Mac, Windows, Ubuntu, and all other os just down s**t creek without a paddle

    Posted via CB10
    I'm wondering who is the moron here. .html5 was supposed to be that standard people (developers ) aren't using it for different reasons which are all fine.

    Also how net neutrality has nada to do with software and economic systems. Apple and Google spent a ton of money to create their own ecosystems and developers decided they want to focus on both or specialise in either one of them. It's called choice and nothing Chen and some apologists here are proposing is going to change that.

    Apple is a device and software company do they develop things that are optimised under their banner which brings advantages and disadvantages. Google is open source but they also have the Nexus line which is optimised for you guess...Android.

    Can't believe that people are crying for dictationship man the judges in court would make a ton of money with collective lawsuits.

    If apps are that important for people BlackBerry isn't the right Plattform. This stupid idea has now made their way onto forbes great job..but hey if everything is so unfair how about this: try to convert an IOS or Android app over to Bb10 because it's supposed to be so easy and according to some you can make 259.000 dollars by doing so.
    Cynycl and mornhavon like this.
    01-25-15 07:35 AM
  20. DaSchwantz's Avatar
    Carrier agreements have nothing to do with third party app support and Canada is not the US.
    And anti-competitive behavior is likely to occur throughout an entire organization, which makes carrier arrangements in Canada relevant to your statement.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 07:52 AM
  21. anon3923428's Avatar
    Your right. He could be talking about access to the api, which has been kept out of BlackBerry's hands. Facebook keeps getting nibblets. It's a fair argument so long as it does not require any work on the part of the app owners.

    Excellent point. This would be an example of a company discriminating against a particular company. If they make it available to one company, they should do the same for all.

    Posted via CB10
    Thank you.... someone gets it.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 08:03 AM
  22. twiggyrj's Avatar
    Thank you.... someone gets it.

    Posted via CB10

    Public API's should only be made available if the service is ok with it, if not then they shouldn't be forced to, i.e. Google has every right not to open their service fully up to a public API
    01-25-15 08:12 AM
  23. DaSchwantz's Avatar
    In terms of netflix or other apps I have always said this.

    There is NO way that a port or simple redesign of an app from a billion dollar company is 'not worth it'... unless the definition of worth is held from a position of greed. Simple as that.

    Posted via CB10
    Re Netflix - my prediction is that they will make a bb10 app in 1-2 years. Why? Because the Android version is now running flawlessly, so the Payola in whatever contracted arrangement they have to exclude BlackBerry will likely drop significantly, as the exclusion isn't working anyways.

    Posted via CB10
    01-25-15 08:15 AM
  24. DaSchwantz's Avatar
    Likewise for Instagram
    01-25-15 08:15 AM
  25. ADGrant's Avatar
    Re Netflix - my prediction is that they will make a bb10 app in 1-2 years. Why? Because the Android version is now running flawlessly, so the Payola in whatever contracted arrangement they have to exclude BlackBerry will likely drop significantly, as the exclusion isn't working anyways.

    Posted via CB10
    so who is paying Netfix to exclude BB10 and why?
    Cynycl and mornhavon like this.
    01-25-15 08:54 AM
864 ... 1920212223 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Why isn't my BBM loading or running on my BlackBerry Classic?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-27-15, 08:00 PM
  2. Can I get some help with sideloading on 10.3.1.2072?
    By jason18 in forum BB10 Leaked/Beta OS
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-22-15, 08:20 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-21-15, 04:40 PM
  4. Activating q10 on VZW
    By titussanders in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-21-15, 04:34 PM
  5. 10.3 on the Z 10 ?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-15, 03:26 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD