03-07-15 08:35 PM
864 ... 2122232425 ...
tools
  1. MikeX74's Avatar
    "applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system".

    Forcing "at least a single simplified Web version with equivalent functionality using html5" is just as bad as forcing developers to produce multiple native versions.
    Looks like someone did some selective reading. Him, not you.
    01-25-15 03:18 PM
  2. annon91221's Avatar
    After all of the back and forth on this issue, there are some things some people still don't understand, including John Chen:
    1. No developer has an obligation to make an app for a platform if they don't want to.
    2. No developer should be forced via government mandate to build apps for a platform if they don't to.
    3. No company has an obligation to make a proprietary service cross-platform.
    4. No company should be forced via government mandate to make a proprietary service cross-platform.
    5. No platform should have an app made for them just because another one does.

    It's time to get past the sense of entitlement.
    Following same line of rhetoric..

    1. No ISP has an obligation to neutralize what goes through their infrastructure..
    2. No Digital Content Provider should be able to force government to award them free loader's pass..
    3. No ISP has an obligation to guarantee HD streaming for free loaders like Netflix.
    4......

    You see what I am getting at here..

    How is it that what's good for goose isn't good for gander...

    Posted via CB10
    menshawy likes this.
    01-25-15 03:34 PM
  3. ADGrant's Avatar
    Following same line of rhetoric..

    1. No ISP has an obligation to neutralize what goes through their infrastructure..
    2. No Digital Content Provider should be able to force government to award them free loader's pass..
    3. No ISP has an obligation to guarantee HD streaming for free loaders like Netflix.
    4......

    You see what I am getting at here..

    How is it that what's good for goose isn't good for gander...

    Posted via CB10
    ISPs could be considered common carriers, particularly the telcos. They also frequently have a monopoly in the geographical service in which they operate (few US households have a choice in who there broad band ISP is). Furthermore, those same monopolies are often in the business of selling expensive cable service. They therefore have an incentive to "discriminate" against other video providers.

    As for free loading, ISPs bill their customers according to how much peak bandwidth they require and/or how much total data they wish to download in a given timeframe). The issue is what happens to traffic on the backbone.
    01-25-15 03:48 PM
  4. DenverRalphy's Avatar
    Looks like someone did some selective reading. Him, not you.
    Actually, he didn't. It was pretty straight forward.

    Penned via Tapatalk
    01-25-15 03:59 PM
  5. annon91221's Avatar
    ISPs could be considered common carriers, particularly the telcos. They also frequently have a monopoly in the geographical service in which they operate (few US households have a choice in who there broad band ISP is). Furthermore, those same monopolies are often in the business of selling expensive cable service. They therefore have an incentive to "discriminate" against other video providers.

    As for free loading, ISPs bill their customers according to how much peak bandwidth they require and/or how much total data they wish to download in a given timeframe). The issue is what happens to traffic on the backbone.
    ISP's have been around forever compared to smartphone makers and Digital content providers. They have invested billions in infrastructure and other aspects of their businesses to stay profitable and also been able to create these monopolies.. How is their model any different than Apple and such who have paid billion to EU in penalties over monopolistic measures and are in court for same reasons in countries such as Canada. Only difference is their smartphones just haven't been around for nearly long enough compared to telcos..

    ISP's bill their cutomers for peak bandwidth but they don't have an obligation to guarantee it all the time. They have to make billions in order for them to stay competitive and bring even faster internet and services. Therefore they want to make a return on their investment before offering next best thing. That is how the trade works. Giving Digital Content Providers free pass is like shooting their own foot. If they allowed such things then we would still be on dial up and there would be no Netflix or iPhone for that matter, to begin with.

    Therefore.. free it all or free non..

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by annon91221; 01-25-15 at 04:34 PM.
    01-25-15 04:15 PM
  6. jmr1015's Avatar
    01-25-15 04:20 PM
  7. reeneebob's Avatar
    Boy did they ever put their feet in their mouths.
    I remember when the quotes were made originally and thinking "Sometimes they REALLY shouldn't be allowed to talk".

    BB got in a terrible position and it's because they started the ball rolling. And sometimes I really think BB is their own worst enemy, one step forward and two steps back with a bone headed PR blunder. Since 2008, wash, rinse, repeat.


    Just watching the puppets dance for their masters, shaking my head via Tapatalk
    MikeX74 likes this.
    01-25-15 06:11 PM
  8. MikeX74's Avatar
    Following same line of rhetoric..

    1. No ISP has an obligation to neutralize what goes through their infrastructure..
    2. No Digital Content Provider should be able to force government to award them free loader's pass..
    3. No ISP has an obligation to guarantee HD streaming for free loaders like Netflix.
    4......

    You see what I am getting at here..

    How is it that what's good for goose isn't good for gander...

    Posted via CB10
    1. Why would an ISP have an obligation to neutralize anything that goes through their network? They probably have reasons, but obligations? No.
    2. Which content provider is trying to force the government to give them a "free-loaders pass?" If we're still talking about Netflix, they're perfectly willing to pay ISP's. They're not trying to get smooth traffic for free.
    3. If an ISP is being paid for smooth and speedy data transmission(by Netflix, for example), they certainly do have an obligation.

    Now, back to apps, since that's what most of the uproar is all about. Apps are(usually) created by one source and(usually) distributed by another. Content(app) creators have built apps and have them distributed by Apple, Google, Microsoft, and BlackBerry( the content providers in the mobile space). Of course, as it stands, most devs have CHOSEN to only have their apps distributed by Apple and Google. Again, CHOSEN. Why did I capitalize the word chosen? Simple. Because they created the content, it's the developers' right to choose which distributors they want to release their apps for. If growing their app catalogue is the goal, it should be done through building strong developer relationships and showing devs why their apps should be on BB10, not through legislation.
    01-25-15 06:18 PM
  9. Witmen's Avatar
    I understand why developers would have been hesitant at the launch of bb10, but I think nows the time to for them to realize the untapped potential in blackberry.
    For most developers, the only good time to develop for BB10 was before and at launch. Back when BlackBerry was so desperate for apps that they happily paid $200 a pop for crap that could be made in a few minutes. They also handed out free devices and all expenses paid trips in exchange for apps. I know because I took advantage of all of those promotions.

    Back then, BlackBerry made developing for BB10 worth it. Now, with a market share of just barely over nothing, developing for BB10 is simply a waste of resources.

    If Chen wants apps, he should offer $200 a pop again. I and several other small independent developers could use a few extra thousand dollars worth of ridiculously easy money.
    01-25-15 07:32 PM
  10. lnichols's Avatar
    Following same line of rhetoric..

    1. No ISP has an obligation to neutralize what goes through their infrastructure..
    2. No Digital Content Provider should be able to force government to award them free loader's pass..
    3. No ISP has an obligation to guarantee HD streaming for free loaders like Netflix.
    4......

    You see what I am getting at here..

    How is it that what's good for goose isn't good for gander...

    Posted via CB10
    Actually the Internet was founded on getting packets from A to B. You pay for your pipe into your home, Netflix pays for its pipe out of its data centers.Your connection nor their connection is free and is being paid for. ISP's make their money by charging the end users for X amount of bandwidth. They should not be able to discriminate against a particular services packets or charge a content provider a fee if they aren't providing the connection to their data center. They don't have to guarantee the packets get to you, but if they offer poor service the free market fixes that by them losing customers. Net neutrality and Chen's app neutrality are to totally different things and to try and compare them is like comparing apples to oranges.

    Posted via CB10
    jmr1015, ADGrant, Cynycl and 4 others like this.
    01-25-15 07:35 PM
  11. ADGrant's Avatar
    ISP's have been around forever compared to smartphone makers and Digital content providers. They have invested billions in infrastructure and other aspects of their businesses to stay profitable and also been able to create these monopolies.. How is their model any different than Apple and such who have paid billion to EU in penalties over monopolistic measures and are in court for same reasons in countries such as Canada. Only difference is their smartphones just haven't been around for nearly long enough compared to telcos..

    ISP's bill their cutomers for peak bandwidth but they don't have an obligation to guarantee it all the time. They have to make billions in order for them to stay competitive and bring even faster internet and services. Therefore they want to make a return on their investment before offering next best thing. That is how the trade works. Giving Digital Content Providers free pass is like shooting their own foot. If they allowed such things then we would still be on dial up and there would be no Netflix or iPhone for that matter, to begin with.

    Therefore.. free it all or free non..

    Posted via CB10
    Its completely different. Telcos are a regulated monopoly, Apple is not. Telcos get to lay cables alongside public rights of way, Apple does not. Telcos and Cable companies require government licenses to operate, Apple does not.
    01-25-15 08:01 PM
  12. app_Developer's Avatar
    If Google or Apple were blocking access to BBM, then Chen would have a legitimate complaint. Then he would be a service/content provider who is being blocked from providing a service to his customers.

    That's a very different point from saying that other content/service providers must accommodate his platform no matter how unpopular it is.

    Does Netflix even have a strong presence or strong content in Canada?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    MikeX74 likes this.
    01-25-15 08:20 PM
  13. TheBirdDog's Avatar

    Does Netflix even have a strong presence or strong content in Canada?


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    As it is now, I would say Netflix is the ONLY choice for subscription based internet movie streaming. Others are coming, Shomi, for example. But Netflix is pretty huge here. With all of the big chain video rental stores closed down, I'd say Netflix is pretty darn popular in Canada.

    Posted via my BlackBerry Passport
    3MIKE likes this.
    01-25-15 09:04 PM
  14. reeneebob's Avatar
    As it is now, I would say Netflix is the ONLY choice for subscription based internet movie streaming. Others are coming, Shomi, for example. But Netflix is pretty huge here. With all of the big chain video rental stores closed down, I'd say Netflix is pretty darn popular in Canada.

    Posted via my BlackBerry Passport
    Bell has a new option called Crave TV which is pretty solid too. But I agree, Netflix is the only game in town, especially for those of us who don't want to circumvent the CRTC and bypass location by proxies.


    Sent from my iPad Air using Tapatalk
    01-25-15 10:33 PM
  15. Bbnivende's Avatar
    You need a cable subscription with certain providers to obtain Crave TV and then you may stream it. Netflix requires no cable subscription at all. Neither Shomi or Crave are supported by Apple TV as far as I know. You can play Shomi and Crave on your devices via wifi.
    01-26-15 01:16 AM
  16. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    You sites may be cross platform but plenty are not. Even "responsive" sites built with Twitter's Bootstrap libray don't always work correctly on all browsers. I admit I am not primarily a web developer though I have built Single Page Apps with Bootstrap and Angular.js and RESTful backend services using Java or C#. I prefer native toolkits and my mobile apps have been built using Objective-C and C++. I have been a professional developer since 1988 but most of that time has been spent building desktop apps and frameworks.

    Then there is the performance. Native Objective-C and C++ apps have a much smaller memory footprint and are much faster than HTML/CSS/Javascript apps. Even Android apps written in Java are much more efficient than Web apps.
    You're mostly right on all fronts.
    I'm not advocating HTML5 here, it just appears that it is the only platform that - today - can fit most.
    Should it be Oc or C++ or java or ... whatever ... is not my approach here. What I mean is that in a world where most devices will now support apps and/or services, having a shared technical *base* would be a nice thing for everyone.
    As for the "app neutrality", like many banking "apps" for instance, having dedicated ones plus a web based one is quite a simple task to achieve nowadays. Netflix is a good example (of not doing it for unknown purposes) and pls note here that it's not only about BlackBerry but also other platforms/navigators. I have it on my Sony TV but have to trick (easy : snap) to get it on my BlackBerry 10 ...
    (edited)
    What I mean here is that I can understand no one (me included) want app developers to be forced to go agnostic (could it only be possible ? I sincerely doubt.) but those who can obviously afford to offer even a slightly deprecated option and choose not to have to be pointed out and offer explanations above the usual smog.
    3MIKE likes this.
    01-26-15 04:08 AM
  17. reeneebob's Avatar
    You need a cable subscription with certain providers to obtain Crave TV and then you may stream it. Netflix requires no cable subscription at all. Neither Shomi or Crave are supported by Apple TV as far as I know. You can play Shomi and Crave on your devices via wifi.
    Rogers owns Shomi as well, though, and is only available right now in two provinces and to Rogers and shaw providers so they are even more exclusionist than Crave. Crave has an app coming for Apple TV and Chromecast.

    "Can access Crave on their set-top boxes, the web, smart TVs, and iOS or Android smartphones and tablets, expanding to Xbox consoles, Apple TV and Chromecast next year. While Bell is negotiating with Apple to add a dedicated CraveTV channel to its Apple TV catalogue, Bell will offset some of that inconvenience by allowing AirPlay Mirroring out of the box, something Shomi doesnt allow from an iPhone or iPad. Bell says it is also negotiating with Rogers and Shaw to bring CraveTV to cable subscribers, but with Shomi getting so much marketing it may be a while until they can access it."




    Just watching the puppets dance for their masters, shaking my head via Tapatalk
    01-26-15 06:45 AM
  18. MmmHmm's Avatar
    You're mostly right on all fronts.
    I'm not advocating HTML5 here, it just appears that it is the only platform that - today - can fit most.
    Should it be Oc or C++ or java or ... whatever ... is not my approach here. What I mean is that in a world where most devices will now support apps and/or services, having a shared technical *base* would be a nice thing for everyone.
    As for the "app neutrality", like many banking "apps" for instance, having dedicated ones plus a web based one is quite a simple task to achieve nowadays. Netflix is a good example (of not doing it for unknown purposes) and pls note here that it's not only about BlackBerry but also other platforms/navigators. I have it on my Sony TV but have to trick (easy : snap) to get it on my BlackBerry 10 ...
    (edited)
    What I mean here is that I can understand no one (me included) want app developers to be forced to go agnostic (could it only be possible ? I sincerely doubt.) but those who can obviously afford to offer even a slightly deprecated option and choose not to have to be pointed out and offer explanations above the usual smog.
    Netflix has good reason to not allow its service through mobile browsers. Netflix cannot offer movies through mobile browsers because content owners (the ones who actually own the movie copyrights) won't allow it. Content owners are demanding (through contracts) that their movies are protected by DRM. There is a long history and controversy surrounding DRM and EME in browsers, which are used to block/protect content. It hasn't actually been very long since you needed plugins on PC browsers to play protected content, and some browsers are just starting to implement the protocols to allow protected content. DRM and EME through html5 is very new.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-hol...eo-in-firefox/

    Netflix doesn't work on mobile browsers because the content owners won't allow it. Netflix doesn't make a BB10 app because the marketshare is too low. I think people should lay off the Netflix hate as there are in fact good reasons for the current state of affairs. Also, in general BB and its users have been vocally antagonistic to Netflix, so I imagine there may be some spite there. I don't expect Netflix to come to BB10 unless Netflix figures out a way to bring it to mobile browsers without running afoul of content owners demands.
    01-26-15 06:51 AM
  19. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    Netflix has good reason to not allow its service through mobile browsers. Netflix cannot offer movies through mobile browsers because content owners (the ones who actually own the movie copyrights) won't allow it. Content owners are demanding (through contracts) that their movies are protected by DRM. There is a long history and controversy surrounding DRM and EME in browsers, which are used to block/protect content. It hasn't actually been very long since you needed plugins on PC browsers to play protected content, and some browsers are just starting to implement the protocols to allow protected content. DRM and EME through html5 is very new.

    http://www.cnet.com/news/mozilla-hol...eo-in-firefox/

    Netflix doesn't work on mobile browsers because the content owners won't allow it. Netflix doesn't make a BB10 app because the marketshare is too low. I think people should lay off the Netflix hate as there are in fact good reasons for the current state of affairs. Also, in general BB and its users have been vocally antagonistic to Netflix, so I imagine there may be some spite there. I don't expect Netflix to come to BB10 unless Netflix figures out a way to bring it to mobile browsers without running afoul of content owners demands.
    Thanks for confirming. I thought I recalled that it was the content providers that cause the restrictions.
    01-26-15 06:53 AM
  20. app_Developer's Avatar
    As for the "app neutrality", like many banking "apps" for instance, having dedicated ones plus a web based one is quite a simple task to achieve nowadays. Netflix is a good example (of not doing it for unknown purposes).
    I think most banks do have a mobile website in addition to their native apps (if they have native apps).

    Netflix can't do this because they have to protect the content they distribute in a way that everyone can agree.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Superfly_FR likes this.
    01-26-15 07:31 AM
  21. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    Content owners are demanding (through contracts) that their movies are protected by DRM. There is a long history and controversy surrounding DRM and EME in browsers
    Absolutely and Netflix was in my mind an example, not "guilty" 100%.
    Yet, seems that W3C choosed the way to promote it and that would fit (what I believe bright) "universal" objectives. There's a complementary "pro" and the W3C draft about it.

    DRM in HTML5 is a victory for the open Web, not a defeat | Ars Technica
    Encrypted Media Extensions

    So, again, it'll all about standards and the will of editors to embrace them or continue to twist around ...
    But isn't that the point of this whole discussion ?
    Last edited by Superfly_FR; 01-26-15 at 07:48 AM. Reason: (edited: your article wasn't a "con" sry. Misworded
    3MIKE likes this.
    01-26-15 07:43 AM
  22. DaSchwantz's Avatar
    I for one think he was that stupid this time around. The use of the word discrimination proves he doesn't understand the definition of the word.
    With a non-human legal 'person' (i.e. a corporation) the word 'discrimination' implies anti-competitive behavior, and has nothing to do with human rights.

    I for one think that Chen choses every word carefully, and that was proven by the Reuters correction regarding the Samsung buyout talks. Go ahead and keep telling everyone he's stupid...I want more cheap shares....

    Posted via CB10
    3MIKE likes this.
    01-26-15 10:47 AM
  23. early2bed's Avatar
    John Chen's comments discussed on TWiT yesterday starting at 24:30

    01-26-15 12:00 PM
  24. MmmHmm's Avatar
    With a non-human legal 'person' (i.e. a corporation) the word 'discrimination' implies anti-competitive behavior, and has nothing to do with human rights.

    I for one think that Chen choses every word carefully, and that was proven by the Reuters correction regarding the Samsung buyout talks. Go ahead and keep telling everyone he's stupid...I want more cheap shares....

    Posted via CB10
    Chen said, "Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them."

    He is talking about discrimination against customers, not against a corporation. If he meant what you think he meant, then he didn't choose his words carefully.
    01-26-15 01:18 PM
  25. Superfly_FR's Avatar
    John Chen's comments discussed on TWiT yesterday starting at 24:30
    So ... FaceTime on every device as S.J told it should be and "the world would be better" ...
    There's schizophrenia somewhere or that's me ?
    01-26-15 01:21 PM
864 ... 2122232425 ...

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, 07:00 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, 07:20 AM
  3. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-21-15, 03:40 PM
  4. Activating q10 on VZW
    By titussanders in forum Verizon Wireless
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-21-15, 03:34 PM
  5. 10.3 on the Z 10 ?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-15, 02:26 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD