[bobshine]

I like the cost estimation approach but I disagree with only 70 potential subscribers.

The Play Store shows more than 1 million downloads (up to 5 million) for the hub suite. It is very hard to predict the potential user base but if we assume for a second that one million users would actually subscribe at a monthly fee of $1. Or 500k subscribers would for $2 a month. This would result in annual revenues of $12 million. Based on 30 developers (let’s say $3 million) and some additional staff (let’s say another $1 million) plus utilizing the existing BlackBerry business (again another $1 million), there should be enough to generate a positive contribution margin (up to $7 million).

I believe an Android runtime update is crucial for any potential subscriber. From the discussions on crackberry I had the impression it was an issue because of the Priv (no Android runtime update if a handset manufacturer is selling Android devices). Well, as BlackBerry is a pure software company now, this shouldn’t be the problem for potential negotiations with Google. But it would be a problem for TCL, if we assume they are the only ones allowed to manufacture new BBOS devices keeping their license agreement with BlackBerry in mind. Any suggestion for this problem?

That’s the number of downloads... and free downloads. Once you introduce a fee to it, you’ll see the downloads plummet.

So let’s take the higher end of your number, 5M. Let’s be generous and say that people only updated the app 5 times, so 1M users.

Then let’s be generous again and say that 10% will pay a monthly fee. So that’s 100,000 users left.

Now do the math

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

. Am I really the only one?

No..... But again, there aren't enough of you.

It really comes down to why would anyone jump through the hoops of buying hardware (who is going to make it) that would run BB10, then buying/licensing and installing BB10 on that hardware, and then buying service for that device. And hoping you know who to call if there is an issue and wont just get a finger pointing fight when there are problems.

It would be more expensive, it would be more difficult and it would be a support nightmare..... Why would users do it?

I suspect you'll soon find it doesn't work for Sailfish.... Two year old hardware, no hardware warranty (voids the warranty) and 40 steps to install the OS, plus the initial cost and yearly (unannounced) update costs.

[app_Developer]

app_Developer is probably right with the number of developers because Jolla (Sailfish OS) seems to employ arround 150 developers. Interestingly, Jolla raised $14 million in last years series C funding round. Therefore, a $15 million R&D expense guess for 150 developers does not seem to be too far stretched.

Keep in mind those 150 people don't have to do nearly as much heavy lifting of making drivers for all the different hardware out there, and they don't need Qualcomm to commit resources to helping them in that. All because they use Linux.

BB and Microsoft did (and Apple does) something much more ambitious. Those are the only 3 companies I can think of that don't use Linux. WebOS was Linux also.

[Elephant_Canyon]

BB and Microsoft did (and Apple does) something much more ambitious. Those are the only 3 companies I can think of that don't use Linux. WebOS was Linux also.

And Apple sells more phones in a single quarter than Blackberry has sold in the last 4 years.

[app_Developer]

And Apple sells more phones in a single quarter than Blackberry has sold in the last 4 years.

yes, and they had years of experience running Mach on battery powered devices, and they make their own SoC and their own compiler suite. So their choice makes rational sense. They can also afford to throw thousands of people at the problem.

[Troy Tiscareno]

As app_developer said, BB10 won't run on any hardware currently being made, and there is no inventory of old parts that BB10 supported.

Since BB10 development ended, the whole industry has transitioned from 32-bit to 64-bit hardware, but BB10 is still 32-bit. Apple and Google each spent 2 years moving from 32-bit to 64-bit, with far, FAR more resources available. BB10 would need to be migrated to 64-bit (using 64-bit QNX as the base), which in itself is a huge project.

Then you'd need to migrate the development environment. BB uses Cascades, which is a fork of QT, but Cascades is based on a very old version of QT that is several years EOL and doesn't support 64-bit. So that's another big project.

In the process, the Android Runtime would need to be removed, because BB is now a Google licensee and is prohibited from working on devices that use any kind of fork of Android, which would include the Runtime. That's another sizable project, because BB10 was built with the Runtime deeply embedded, and when you rip it out, you have to patch each and every hole that is left.

Then you'd need to update all of the stock apps. The browser is the obvious example, but BB also never got the Contacts app right, and the forums are filled with posts about duplicate contacts, missing contacts, and all kinds of other issues.

Next, you'd need to pay QualComm (or whatever chip vendor) to write optimized drivers for QNX for the SoC, and the same to other component vendors. You'd need mobile camera software experts, for example, and those guys don't come cheap - and few likely have experience with QNX, so more time would need to be taken.

Once that's done, you'd have to find a manufacturer to make the hardware. Simple enough if you have cash up-front to pay for it... do you? BB routinely spend half a billion to several billion on phone hardware, and then had to wait for it to sell to get their money back.

And after all that, what do you have? A modern BB10 phone with no apps, no developer interest, no mobile payments, and no Android Runtime to run Android apps on.

You'd need to figure out what your cost per phone would need to be just to break even if you sold 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, or 20.000 phones. It is worth knowing that SilentCircle's Blackphone only sold 20,000 devices (they anticipated sales of 250,000) before they went bankrupt. Remember, that's an Android-based phone that has access to the full Android app & services ecosystem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb.../#26bd1ffb3b30

If you do the math (an estimate of R&D costs, which, as pointed out, would need to be paid for up-front), plus the costs of the hardware, and divide by the likely number of buyers, you will see YOUR cost per phone. Then you have to figure out what you'd have to charge users.

All of that is moot, though, since BB would have to agree to do all of this, since they own QNX and BB10 and it isn't open-source. And given that BB not only never made a single cent in profit on BB10, but, rather, LOST around $10 BILLION, I doubt you'd find them very motivated to spend anything further. That math I mentioned should tell you why.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

All of that is moot, though, since BB would have to agree to do all of this, since they own QNX and BB10 and it isn't open-source. And given that BB not only never made a single cent in profit on BB10, but, rather, LOST around $10 BILLION, I doubt you'd find them very motivated to spend anything further. That math I mentioned should tell you why.

I doubt patches for KRACK were in any budget plans Chen had.... so more losses for BB10 (unless they don't do them).

[Ment]

Keep in mind those 150 people don't have to do nearly as much heavy lifting of making drivers for all the different hardware out there, and they don't need Qualcomm to commit resources to helping them in that. All because they use Linux.

BB and Microsoft did (and Apple does) something much more ambitious. Those are the only 3 companies I can think of that don't use Linux. WebOS was Linux also.

In addition the Sailfish team has run into delay after delay even with their resources: so much so that the phone that picked to work on the OS paid download model is due to be sunset by Sony at the end of the year. After that fans will have to buy the model off the secondary market or hope another model gets certified to work with it by then.

[app_Developer]

Then you'd need to migrate the development environment. BB uses Cascades, which is a fork of QT, but Cascades is based on a very old version of QT that is several years EOL and doesn't support 64-bit. So that's another big project.

Ugh, I totally forgot about the Qt problem.

Yeah, you couldn't even hire an engineering leader to head this project up. Any VP+ tech leader who knew anything about anything would look at this one fact and walk out the door (or jump out the window if she already took the job)

So forget BB10, what about adding the features people like from BB10 to Sailfish? That's still a difficult lift but it's not nearly as difficult or expensive as trying to resurrect BB10.

BTW, if I was that VP I'd be very angry with Lazaridis for buying QNX. Yes, it worked out in the long run because now BB has a car business to fall back on. But trying to put that thing into phones was just so silly and it's a big part of why BB10 can't be resuscitated now. I also think it was a huge reason why BB10 was so late.

If only QNX had been a German or Korean or American company. Then Lazaridis would never have fallen in love with QNX, probably never have even heard of it, and everything might have turned out differently.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Ugh, I totally forgot about the Qt problem.

Don't worry - I'm sure there are several things I missed too that should be added to this list.

Yeah, you couldn't even hire an engineering leader to head this project up. Any VP+ tech leader who knew anything about anything would look at this one fact and walk out the door (or jump out the window if she already took the job).

I'm sure you could find SOMEONE - but you'd have to make the Golden Parachute pretty hefty, and know that the person you hired was really just there for the retirement cash. LOL.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

I doubt patches for KRACK were in any budget plans Chen had.... so more losses for BB10 (unless they don't do them).

Not unless He charges for an os update per device ($50/yr) as stated elsewhere. Security isn't free. The hacks up the game, so the defenders have to as well, and users will understand some cost towards this -escpecially for a security minded phone- just like car maintenance or painting the house periodically. A mid-market device that charges annual os upgrades still comes in lower tcos than the flagship phones..

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

As app_developer said, BB10 won't run on any hardware currently being made, and there is no inventory of old parts that BB10 supported.

My guess is that the current parts are not radically different from what blackberry was using. Incremental changes for bb10. Did they destroy the proverbial dies in any case?

Since BB10 development ended, the whole industry has transitioned from 32-bit to 64-bit hardware, but BB10 is still 32-bit. Apple and Google each spent 2 years moving from 32-bit to 64-bit, with far, FAR more resources available. BB10 would need to be migrated to 64-bit (using 64-bit QNX as the base), which in itself is a huge project.

BB10 would not have to be 32 bit as long as a hypervisor was running between it and the 64bit architecture.
Question is how different would the hypervisor look to qnx/bb10, since it would be emulating 32 bit, i doubt it would be hugely different.
QNX going to 64 bit would be QNX's work, not bb10. At some point when ready a migration could be made.

Then you'd need to migrate the development environment. BB uses Cascades, which is a fork of QT, but Cascades is based on a very old version of QT that is several years EOL and doesn't support 64-bit. So that's another big project.

Again if bb10 doesn't need to be 64 bit, this point is moot. Question is, what in QT is a vast improvement on the bb10 fork. Quite possibly not much of huge significance. Eventually you could migrate to 64 bit. Doubt there would be a huge difference in 32bit performance vs 64 bit os on a 64 bit processor as historically shown in terms of user experience

In the process, the Android Runtime would need to be removed, because BB is now a Google licensee and is prohibited from working on devices that use any kind of fork of Android, which would include the Runtime. That's another sizable project, because BB10 was built with the Runtime deeply embedded, and when you rip it out, you have to patch each and every hole that is left.

Given the virtual monopoly position of Google/android in the global smartphone marketplace....if there are contractual limitations, and I'm not sure that there are...it would be doubtful that these could be enforced in a US Court of Law. Android without Google Api's is not supposed to have such restrictions, is my understanding of the original Android project. Also isn't it Amazon's Android they are using, or just the vanilla Android with Amazon's storefront.

Then you'd need to update all of the stock apps. The browser is the obvious example, but BB also never got the Contacts app right, and the forums are filled with posts about duplicate contacts, missing contacts, and all kinds of other issues.

If true, these are bug fixes, not an overwhelming barrier. Doubt the browser is as terrible an undertaking as you might be suggesting. Most things still work, can't say i've encountered anything or much that doesn't still work

Next, you'd need to pay QualComm (or whatever chip vendor) to write optimized drivers for QNX for the SoC, and the same to other component vendors. You'd need mobile camera software experts, for example, and those guys don't come cheap - and few likely have experience with QNX, so more time would need to be taken.

Did all the QNX 'expert' driver writers suddenly die? You do realize that QNX and Android do share Unix origins....I would imagine they aren't a foreign language for the driver writers.

Once that's done, you'd have to find a manufacturer to make the hardware. Simple enough if you have cash up-front to pay for it... do you? BB routinely spend half a billion to several billion on phone hardware, and then had to wait for it to sell to get their money back.

...as do all smartphone manufacturers..smartly I think they do this is batches now, not just one huge run and pray they sell, so costs are spread out as revenue comes in.

And after all that, what do you have? A modern BB10 phone with no apps, no developer interest, no mobile payments, and no Android Runtime to run Android apps on.

Not necessarily.

You'd need to figure out what your cost per phone would need to be just to break even if you sold 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, or 20.000 phones. It is worth knowing that SilentCircle's Blackphone only sold 20,000 devices (they anticipated sales of 250,000) before they went bankrupt. Remember, that's an Android-based phone that has access to the full Android app & services ecosystem.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasb.../#26bd1ffb3b30

Blackberry's worst full bb10 year, what just under 1million devices sold? Not a terrible number, just hyped that it was terrible.
BB10 development was largely an upfront capital cost, that required years to recoup or larger sales. Since most of that is already paid-for, its a great place for somebody to start.

If you do the math (an estimate of R&D costs, which, as pointed out, would need to be paid for up-front), plus the costs of the hardware, and divide by the likely number of buyers, you will see YOUR cost per phone. Then you have to figure out what you'd have to charge users.

All of that is moot, though, since BB would have to agree to do all of this, since they own QNX and BB10 and it isn't open-source. And given that BB not only never made a single cent in profit on BB10, but, rather, LOST around $10 BILLION, I doubt you'd find them very motivated to spend anything further. That math I mentioned should tell you why.

They've got no problem putting QNX is cars they don't own, and power plants they don't own.....so again not a big obstacle.
But they might want to control some aspects of the development granted.

Losses 8billion roughly. You'd have to crack the books to see where all the expenses on the bb10 device specific dev,sales,legal,overhead,plant and support were going, weeding out the corporate security software and services and misc were going.....what was working what wasn't.

You still have Brand. Brand is worth something. Just don't plan to sell 40million a year. Around 1 million a year is a good place to start, and do the accounting from there. Figure out where the drain was in the original bb10 launch and sales and see if it is mitigateable for around 1million per year devices.

[conite]

My guess is that the current parts are not radically different from what blackberry was using. Incremental changes for bb10. Did they destroy the proverbial dies in any case?


BB10 would not have to be 32 bit as long as a hypervisor was running between it and the 64bit architecture.
Question is how different would the hypervisor look to qnx/bb10, since it would be emulating 32 bit, i doubt it would be hugely different.
QNX going to 64 bit would be QNX's work, not bb10. At some point when ready a migration could be made.


Again if bb10 doesn't need to be 64 bit, this point is moot. Question is, what in QT is a vast improvement on the bb10 fork. Quite possibly not much of huge significance. Eventually you could migrate to 64 bit. Doubt there would be a huge difference in 32bit performance vs 64 bit os on a 64 bit processor as historically shown in terms of user experience

Given the virtual monopoly position of Google/android in the global smartphone marketplace....if there are contractual limitations, and I'm not sure that there are...it would be doubtful that these could be enforced in a US Court of Law. Android without Google Api's is not supposed to have such restrictions, is my understanding of the original Android project. Also isn't it Amazon's Android they are using, or just the vanilla Android with Amazon's storefront.


If true, these are bug fixes, not an overwhelming barrier. Doubt the browser is as terrible an undertaking as you might be suggesting. Most things still work, can't say i've encountered anything or much that doesn't still work


Did all the QNX 'expert' driver writers suddenly die? You do realize that QNX and Android do share Unix origins....I would imagine they aren't a foreign language for the driver writers.


...as do all smartphone manufacturers..smartly I think they do this is batches now, not just one huge run and pray they sell, so costs are spread out as revenue comes in.


Not necessarily.

Blackberry's worst full bb10 year, what just under 1million devices sold? Not a terrible number, just hyped that it was terrible.
BB10 development was largely an upfront capital cost, that required years to recoup or larger sales. Since most of that is already paid-for, its a great place for somebody to start.




They've got no problem putting QNX is cars they don't own, and power plants they don't own.....so again not a big obstacle.
But they might want to control some aspects of the development granted.

Losses 8billion roughly. You'd have to crack the books to see where all the expenses on the bb10 device specific dev,sales,legal,overhead,plant and support were going, weeding out the corporate security software and services and misc were going.....what was working what wasn't.

You still have Brand. Brand is worth something. Just don't plan to sell 40million a year. Around 1 million a year is a good place to start, and do the accounting from there. Figure out where the drain was in the original bb10 launch and sales and see if it is mitigateable for around 1million per year devices.

Please let it go for the sake of your own sanity.

There is no parallel universe that exists where BB10 has a formula to rise again. None. It's dead and buried. BlackBerry is done with it, with not a single taker for licencing.

The fat lady sang, lived the rest of her life, and died a long time ago.

[markmall]

Please let it go for the sake of your own sanity.

There is no parallel universe that exists where BB10 has a formula to rise again. None. It's dead and buried. BlackBerry is done with it, with not a single taker for licencing.

The fat lady sang, lived the rest of her life, and died a long time ago.

Can't people have opinions about the business viability of something? This is all very subjective.

He makes an outstanding point about Google's monopoly status. If BlackBerry told Google it wanted to make another go of it, I'll bet Google wouldn't be in a position to object. It doesn't want any more attention to Its power over everything. Using its app monopoly to prevent a possible competitor? Not a great look for Google.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Can't people have opinions about the business viability of something? This is all very subjective.

He makes an outstanding point about Google's monopoly status. If BlackBerry told Google it wanted to make another go of it, I'll bet Google wouldn't be in a position to object. It doesn't want any more attention to Its power over everything. Using its app monopoly to prevent a possible competitor? Not a great look for Google.

Posted via CB10

Of course people can have opinions about the viability of BB10.

I'm only sharing mine too - which also happens to be BlackBerry's. The latter makes the whole subject somewhat moot.

[kvndoom]

Google doesn't have an app monopoly because IOS is a thing. As lawsuit happy as the US is, if there was even a modicum of a chance for antitrust/monopoly legal action it would have happened by now.

It was Apple who coined the phrase "there's an app for that," not Google. Google was just smart enough to see that was the future and not sit on its laurels like Blackberry (and Microsoft) did.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

My guess is that the current parts are not radically different from what blackberry was using. Incremental changes for bb10. Did they destroy the proverbial dies in any case?


BB10 would not have to be 32 bit as long as a hypervisor was running between it and the 64bit architecture.
Question is how different would the hypervisor look to qnx/bb10, since it would be emulating 32 bit, i doubt it would be hugely different.
QNX going to 64 bit would be QNX's work, not bb10. At some point when ready a migration could be made.


Again if bb10 doesn't need to be 64 bit, this point is moot. Question is, what in QT is a vast improvement on the bb10 fork. Quite possibly not much of huge significance. Eventually you could migrate to 64 bit. Doubt there would be a huge difference in 32bit performance vs 64 bit os on a 64 bit processor as historically shown in terms of user experience

Given the virtual monopoly position of Google/android in the global smartphone marketplace....if there are contractual limitations, and I'm not sure that there are...it would be doubtful that these could be enforced in a US Court of Law. Android without Google Api's is not supposed to have such restrictions, is my understanding of the original Android project. Also isn't it Amazon's Android they are using, or just the vanilla Android with Amazon's storefront.


If true, these are bug fixes, not an overwhelming barrier. Doubt the browser is as terrible an undertaking as you might be suggesting. Most things still work, can't say i've encountered anything or much that doesn't still work


Did all the QNX 'expert' driver writers suddenly die? You do realize that QNX and Android do share Unix origins....I would imagine they aren't a foreign language for the driver writers.


...as do all smartphone manufacturers..smartly I think they do this is batches now, not just one huge run and pray they sell, so costs are spread out as revenue comes in.


Not necessarily.

Blackberry's worst full bb10 year, what just under 1million devices sold? Not a terrible number, just hyped that it was terrible.
BB10 development was largely an upfront capital cost, that required years to recoup or larger sales. Since most of that is already paid-for, its a great place for somebody to start.




They've got no problem putting QNX is cars they don't own, and power plants they don't own.....so again not a big obstacle.
But they might want to control some aspects of the development granted.

Losses 8billion roughly. You'd have to crack the books to see where all the expenses on the bb10 device specific dev,sales,legal,overhead,plant and support were going, weeding out the corporate security software and services and misc were going.....what was working what wasn't.

You still have Brand. Brand is worth something. Just don't plan to sell 40million a year. Around 1 million a year is a good place to start, and do the accounting from there. Figure out where the drain was in the original bb10 launch and sales and see if it is mitigateable for around 1million per year devices.

1 Million Devices is a bad number... if selling those 1 Million cost you more than you made. The WHOLE problem with BB10 as a unique OS, is it required an army to keep it going. And no amount of cost cutting or outsourcing was going to allow them to make money on that scale with BB10. Android does, as Google does all the heavy lifting... I expect many would be surprised just how few BlackBerry has working on Android.

There is a difference in Android of years past and Google's new "private" version of Android . It's why Amazon is so far behind Google in version number and why few Developer bother updating their apps for the Amazon Store anymore. It's also why other OS that at one time hoped to piggy back on Android, are fading away.... Tizen, Sailfish, BB10. There is no future because Google has made THEIR product less friendly for sharing. Yes in general Android is still open source and you can do what you want with the older versions. That won't help you if developers are focused on Google private version.

Hypervisor... is no BB10 Hypervisor. Proable take as much development to make it work with BB10 as it would to just update BB10 to 64Bit, along with all the other components that need to be updated to the latest standards and versions. Expect it would take two years and hundreds of millions of dollars to train a development team and get to work on migrating everything "up". In the end not sure if they'd be able to make it work with past apps completely, and I doubt you'd get even 10% of the apps in App World compatible.

"As Is"... BB10 isn't going to sell new hardware. How many of those almost 1 million phones sold in those last years where heavily written off devices that cost BlackBerry 100's of millions to sell? If they pushed out a KEYone, same specs and same price with BB10 on it, and it even had the 4.3 Android Runtime. Do you really believe they'd sell a million?

What value the "brand" had... has been greatly diminished over the last seven years.... I doubt even their "key customer" (enterprise) would give BB10 a second chance at this point.

[kvndoom]

I know if I lost 10 billion dollars on a business venture, I would not hesitate to invest all of my remaining capital into it. It's only money, right?

Can't believe nobody has started a thread suggesting Warren Buffett buy BB10.

[glwerry]

Can't people have opinions about the business viability of something? This is all very subjective.

Posted via CB10

It's not so much that we begrudge people their opinions - it's more the repetitive nature of some of the ideas and the seeming unwillingness to deal with reality.

This poster at least seems to have some knowledge about software and development. I've seen some posters who say things like "I don't know anything about software but it seems to me it would be simple to do this ....".

Just loverly - someone who knows nothing about software trivializing the work involved in something.

So, periodically people who know resort to being snarky.

[Chuck Finley69]

Can't people have opinions about the business viability of something? This is all very subjective.

He makes an outstanding point about Google's monopoly status. If BlackBerry told Google it wanted to make another go of it, I'll bet Google wouldn't be in a position to object. It doesn't want any more attention to Its power over everything. Using its app monopoly to prevent a possible competitor? Not a great look for Google.

Posted via CB10

With your background, you know there's no business viability to BB10.

[markmall]

Google doesn't have an app monopoly because IOS is a thing. As lawsuit happy as the US is, if there was even a modicum of a chance for antitrust/monopoly legal action it would have happened by now.

It was Apple who coined the phrase "there's an app for that," not Google. Google was just smart enough to see that was the future and not sit on its laurels like Blackberry (and Microsoft) did.

The legal definition of monopoly does not mean a complete monopoly. For example, Microsoft was determined to be a monopoly in 2003 or so and Apple existed. It was only because the Bush White House backed off and gave them a sweetheart deal that Microsoft did not get slammed.

Also, just wait a year or two and you will see that something will happen to google just like it already has in Europe. People are already waking up as to the problems with Big Tech.

Posted via CB10

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

..yes you don't have to be a completed monopoly to be engaged in monopolistic or anti-competitve practices. In fact it would be a failure of a regulatory regime (ie the law) if the monopoly came about before responsible parties acted.

[i_plod_an_dr_void]

One aspect of US Anti-Trust law.... for example did netflix dropping support for bb10 harm consumers, because google/android and the OHA handset producers had (and were expected to have) such an overwhelmingly dominent share of the marketplace? Likewise Snap....and a long list of 3rd party app developers because the near monopoly position of Android /Apple make it a dis-incentive to continue to support products produced for the BB10 consumer, and as a result did this further drive bb10 from the marketplace? Compounding the matter was the potential ability to support all 3 environments through a single web-based app, and the further disincentive to do this due to the structure of the storefronts and the push to proprietary apps (Google Appstore/Apple Storefront), making it a disincentive to produce webbased device neutral web-apps.

[kvndoom]

Strong with the tin-foil, this one is.

[conite]

One aspect of US Anti-Trust law.... for example did netflix dropping support for bb10 harm consumers, because google/android and the OHA handset producers had (and were expected to have) such an overwhelmingly dominent share of the marketplace? Likewise Snap....and a long list of 3rd party app developers because the near monopoly position of Android /Apple make it a dis-incentive to continue to support products produced for the BB10 consumer, and as a result did this further drive bb10 from the marketplace? Compounding the matter was the potential ability to support all 3 environments through a single web-based app, and the further disincentive to do this due to the structure of the storefronts and the push to proprietary apps (Google Appstore/Apple Storefront), making it a disincentive to produce webbased device neutral web-apps.

Everyone is out to make a buck. BB10 was a money pit from almost every point of view. The market decided - not the NSA.