BBM Coming To iOS and Android

grub writes writes with news that BlackBerry CEO Thorsten Heins has announced that BBM (BlackBerry Messenger, one of the favorite features of BlackBerry device-owners) will soon be coming to rival mobile operating systems. Devices running iOS 6 and Android ICS or later will be supported, pending approval with the App Store and Google Play. "BBM uses carrier data networks to pass secure messages back and forth through its servers to other BlackBerry users. The service recently gained the ability to make phone calls, conduct video chats and even share screen tops with other BBM users (requires BlackBerry 10). Normal chat and group chats will be the first features to hit the Android and iOS BBM apps, followed by the others (including voice and video) during the course of the year. BBM for Android and iOS will be free." The company also unveiled a new smartphone today: the Q5. It's a budget device intended for emerging markets.

Comments

So?

[alen]

is it supposed to make me buy a new blackberry?

Re:So?

[coinreturn]

No, it's supposed to make you say, "Thank goodness, now I don't have to buy a Blackberry, but I can still chat with the people stuck with them."

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how long it took the first comment to appear, I don't think anyone cares about BBM.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

60, 000, 000 people seem to based on their active user numbers they released.

Re:So?

[MouseR]

No, its suppose to secure the BES server market which makes them more money than their phone.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't feel stuck with my BB10 device at all. It's far better than my last phone, an Android piece of junk that lagged with a horrible, clunky UI and needed to be put on the charger three times a day. It makes the iPhone look like a toy.

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.

Re:So?

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

^ This. Just switched to a BB. Not going to say it doesn't need improving, but I'm far happier with my phone than I was with my iPhone or Droid.

Re:So?

[aztracker1]

Which, if they were smart, they would have offered 3 years ago before competing devices started adding competitive features.

Re:So?

[ArhcAngel]

The 76 million of us still on BlackBerry are not amused.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who the hell cares? I have a BB10 device for work a Galaxy s3 as my personal phone. Either will do whatever I want, when I want. They are only toys if you use as them as toys.

My wife has a work issued iPhone 4s. It also does anything and everything she wants.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes me suspect BlackBerry will be releasing an Android phone in the near future with enhanced security in the near future. Things like being able to install programs, but deny them access to certain phone services. Include the ability for remote wipes by the user, multiple layers of encryption.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

The almost 1 billion people using Android and the nearly equal amount on iOS beg to disagree. Heck 189 million feature phones shipped last quarter- even they dwarf you. Your platform is irrelevant, and that's not even counting how out of touch with technology its management is (I work in the industry- as everyone else was touting how amazing the new smart phones were they were touting as a feature how little data their users used as a selling point).

Re:So?

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

Oh look over there, something new and shiny! And 1 billion people jump ship in a heartbeat.

Counting number of users on a platform is irrelevant considering how quickly those numbers change.

BB was once the king of smartphones, and then Apple came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship.

Google came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship.

All it takes is for a new shiny bauble to appear in the consumer electronics world and 1 billion people will simply vanish from one platform to another. it has nothing to do with features or quality, just how shiny it looks.

Re:So?

[ArhcAngel]

The almost 1 billion people using Android and the nearly equal amount on iOS beg to disagree.

Disagree with what?

I work in the industry

Gold star for you.

as everyone else was touting how amazing the new smart phones were they were touting as a feature how little data their users used as a selling point

Which is what their customers were asking for because data was prohibitively expensive. So much so only businesses and the affluent could afford it. You're talking about something that happened 7 years ago like it happened today.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

First off, BB was never the king- Symbian was. It always crushed BB worldwide.

Secondly, do you know how ridiculous you sound claiming that 1 billion people jump on anything in a heartbeat? These numbers don't grow fast, it took years to grow when smartphones had a huge advantage in features vs the competition (feature phones) and are only just now overtaking them in total. Moving those numbers when comparing apples to apples between smartphones is nearly impossible- Android only overtook Apple by creating a low end market.

Secondly, it was totally to do with features. BB was a powerful company that rested on their laurels. They didn't try to drive to the mass market, they were happy with the business market. When they got piledriven by Apple and Android they didn't react quickly. People wanted a great web browser, apps, a responsive touch screen UI, etc. BB took a long time to deliver, and arguably still doesn't. They tried dumb ideas like a tablet that needed to be connected to a BB phone to work. And it didn't even have email when it released!

They have enough cash that a resurrection is possible, they aren't going to dissolve in the next year or so. But for that to happen upper management needs to realize that the market has passed them up and that they need to respond. I've seen no recognition of that from them. And as time goes on it will be harder and harder to catch up, as they'll be so far behind in app ecosystems that they'll be unable to capture new consumers.

So yeah, BB is a joke.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

No, they weren't. This was happening TWO YEARS AGO. At a meeting with TELECOMs. Telecoms want people to use more data, not less- they want to sell streaming video services, extra gigabytes, exclusive content, etc. Basically they were trying to push their phones by touting that their customers would make the telecom less money than other phones. It was ridiculous.

Re:So?

[ArhcAngel]

No, Telecoms want users to PAY for more data and not use it because it saturates their networks. For someone who works in the industry you seem to know very little about it.
and you still didn't answer my question.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

(I work in the industry- as everyone else was touting how amazing the new smart phones were they were touting as a feature how little data their users used as a selling point)

Mobile data costs have come down in recent years, but they still aren't free.

And if you're roaming internationally, you will definitely appreciate how little data a blackberry uses.

Re:So?

[Anonymous Coward]

So a blackberry can't do SMS, or Yahoo, or XMPP anymore? I had one years ago, and it did all of those back then.

Re:So?

[noh8rz10]

BB was once the king of smartphones, and then Apple came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship. Google came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship

there's a really huge distinction here: customers actually jumped ship from BB to other companies - the number of BB users plunged dramatically. But nobody has "jumped ship" from apple or android - while the market share shifts, both companies have exploding customer base (obv there are people switching back and forth, but overall trends are sky high for both companies). so no, BB is not the same as iOS or Goog

Re:So?

[Lehk228]

I will miss my Bold 9700 when i upgrade to a Z10 or Q10, the BIS server side compression really helps with spotty reception areas my coworkers constantly complain that their iProducts and Droids can't get online in the building

Re:So?

[JimCanuck]

The almost 1 billion people using Android and the nearly equal amount on iOS beg to disagree.

The total number of smartphone users worldwide is only around 1 billion.

Apple itself has not even passed the 350 millionth phone mark in it's total sales from day one. And that doesn't include how many people have went from the iPhone 3 to 4 to 5 now. Just total headset sales.

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

Android is hitting the 1 billion point inside of a few months. They're seeing 1.5M activations per day. 357M Android devices were shipped in 2012.

http://bgr.com/2012/09/12/android-cumulative-shipments-2013-1-billion-units/
http://news.yahoo.com/googles-schmidt-sees-1-billion-android-phones-9-162220903--sector.html

Re:So?

[AuMatar]

And they'd like a pony too. Pink if possible.

Sure, they'd love to have you pay them and not use it. But given a choice between low usage low pay and high usage high pay with the ability to sell additional services, they want the second. They really don't care about the bandwidth used by the messaging app, which was all they could talk about.

Re:So?

[gmhowell]

No, Telecoms want users to PAY for more data and not use it because it saturates their networks. For someone who works in the industry you seem to know very little about it.

and you still didn't answer my question.

"Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped conjure up the stolen data tapes..."

Re:So?

[dfghjk]

"BB was once the king of smartphones, and then Apple came out with something shiny and new and people jumped ship."

Another child giving a history lesson on /.

BB was not successful in smartphones, it was successful appealing to business email users in an era before smartphones. A BB was more an evolution of the pager that was uniquely useful to business. It was not a smartphone though it tried poorly to become one.

People who switched to the iPhone were not BB users as a group, they were Apple users and smartphone user. The iPhone was technically NOT a smartphone either when it arrived. No apps, no SDK. Both grew into that market; only one successfully.

BB has been slowly dying because it WASN'T ever the king of smartphones, not because "1 billion" people switched away on a whim. You are an idiot.

Re:So?

[MachineShedFred]

How many of them are in the scrapheap of yesteryear's technology though? The same question could be asked of iPhone.

Just because they shipped that many, doesn't mean they are still in use.

Re:So?

[markkezner]

Oh look over there, something new and shiny! And 1 billion people jump ship in a heartbeat.

Windows Phone is both new and shiny, but the adoption has been slow. There's more to it than that.

Re: So?

[PixetaledPikachu]

The yesteryear smartphones still do what most of today's smartphones do. It might not play 1080p videos but will do everything else just fine. In fact the only glaring update between today's iPhone and its' yesteryear counterpart is only a row of icons

Re: So?

[MachineShedFred]

I also asked about Android, which you completely neglected to answer. There's been heaps of devices from manufacturers that shipped with obsolete software, with upgrades never announced nor delivered.

How many of those are still in use? How's the battery holding up on 3 year old devices after daily charge cycles?

Re:So?

[hobarrera]

I've been able to chat with people with BBs for years now. We all use something called XMPP. SMSs work fine as well.
Honestly, only BB users loves BBM so much. Users of other OS's don't care much for it.

Re:So?

[hobarrera]

[...]They're seeing 1.5M activations per day. [...]

How about deactivations? How many of those new devices replace discarted/broken old ones? I don't think 1.5M activations means 1.5M new users, the latter is probably way less.

Re: So?

[PixetaledPikachu]

I also asked about Android, which you completely neglected to answer. There's been heaps of devices from manufacturers that shipped with obsolete software, with upgrades never announced nor delivered.

How many of those are still in use? How's the battery holding up on 3 year old devices after daily charge cycles?

Nope, I did. Even those phone with android 2.3.x can do most of things that 4.1.x can, including NFC and stuff. You're mixing up feature with function. Battery? My N9 need to be daily charged, So does my Onyx 9700. I can get it to last for 2 days if I stick it to edge, but what smartphone uses edge? Even cheaply made chinese androids can get H+. Not much of a difference really

Re:So?

[ArhcAngel]

the number of BB users plunged dramatically.

The 1st quarter of 2013 is the first time in RIM/BlackBerry history they have ever posted a loss of subscribers (Down to 76 million from 79 million in 4th quarter 2012) Despite the drop they actually posted a profit.

Their market share has shrunk because the market for smartphones has exploded and BlackBerry's growth has remained constant.

timing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you say too little too late?

Re:timing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you say too little too late?

No. But I can BBM it.

It was inevitable ...

[perpenso]

It was inevitable, BBM was too important to fade away with the handset business. I wonder if this had anything to do with approving iOS and Android for use by certain governmental agencies (DoD, etc).

Re:It was inevitable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say that's exactly it. Good joined up thinking from you.

I have no mod points sadly

Re:It was inevitable ...

[gstoddart]

It was inevitable, BBM was too important to fade away with the handset business

So, I'll admit my ignorance up front before I ask ... why was it too important?

It's basically a proprietary version of SMS isn't it? And as I recall they've bent over for the Indian government and probably others to allow a MITM-type interception, and have probably done it for others now that they've set the precedent.

So, what benefit is there to me as someone with an Android phone to be able to use BBM? Does it actually get me something extra that I don't have now?

This seems more like a desperate attempt to make one of their few distinguishing features available to others, but I'm just not sure of what the benefit of that feature is for most people.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[perpenso]

It was inevitable, BBM was too important to fade away with the handset business

So, I'll admit my ignorance up front before I ask ... why was it too important?

Its important to its existing base of users, they want to continue using it.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[sl4shd0rk]

BBM was too important to fade away with the handset business.

You say that like BB is still relevant. The sales figures are questionable and hinge largely on Blackberry's word which, by means of a flailing company, is basically hearsay. It would be interesting to submit a slashdot poll about BB's Z10 and who actually bought one..

Re:It was inevitable ...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

They gave India what every other government gets: consumer messages when proper legal channels are followed. This isn't new or surprising, it's required by law. Every messaging platform provides it.

They have not and cannot give access to business messages because they do not own the keys that businesses use to encrypt their data within BES. So if you're using bes for BBM, you're still safe.

  If you aren't, you were never safe from a subpoena. If there is no subpoena your data is not interceptable even as a consumer.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[glop]

BBM is a very widely used online service a bit like Google Talk, Twitter etc.
Since Twitter is currently valued at around 20 billion and RIM/Blackberry at 7.7 billion dollars, salvaging the BBM service is probably smart.

That said, they should have done this years ago as it was pretty obvious:
- BBM was everywhere
- it was desirable (reasonably easy and lets you reach many people easily, no per message charge)
- iPhones and Androids were starting to be everywhere too and make BBM less desirable

So this is most likely a case of too little too late. But maybe they can make Microsoft pay them to have a Windows Phone version ;-)

Re:It was inevitable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope this version has the MS Lync conectivity via BBM as did the older version, that would be two birds with one throw.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[Bert64]

Which is why i run my own XMPP server... Some trusted friends have accounts on my server, while others run their own individual servers.
That way i only need to trust the person i'm talking to (which is implicit anyway), and not a third party.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's basically a proprietary version of SMS isn't it?

Not really. It's instant, reliable messaging where you get confirmation of delivery. RIM is also deploying other services over BBM, such as video chat & screen sharing.

And as I recall they've bent over for the Indian government

RIM was forced to comply with Indian law or stop operating in India. Indians have less protections & freedoms in law than people do in many other countries.

For India, RIM provided access to BIS (blackberry internet service) for Indian customers to the Indian government. Indian customers with BES (blackberry enterprise server) service are completely unaffected.

The BES platform was designed for high security. The BES is something you install on your servers in your office. The encryption keys are on the BES, and on the phone - nowhere else.

With BES, RIM doesn't have the encryption keys. The mobile carrier doesn't have the encryption keys. So if a govt shows up with a court order there are no encryption keys to hand over. It's really an elegant solution.

BBM was never high security. BBM uses 3DES encryption, which is really quite old. Brute forcing 3DES isn't that difficult. If you spend a million dollars on computing (which is trivial for a government or business), you can brute-force 3DES very quickly.

Further, you might wonder how does BBM work with every blackberry by default? The answer is there is a default encryption key, and this key is well known in the security community (no, I won't provide it to you). It is possible to change the BBM encryption key, but most people don't know how.

So, BBM uses a weaker algorithm, and most of the time uses a well-known key.

If the Indian government (or any other) says they aren't able to decrypt BBM then they are lying or incompetent.

Now, that's only BBM. When email goes back & forth to the blackberry it is encrypted with AES. Good luck brute-forcing that.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[juniorkindergarten]

BBM is not a proprietary version of sms, its different. SMS is limited to 140 characters while BBM is not, you can send as much text as you want, including pictures, voice notes, files, gps locations (including map), contacts and appointments. BBM uses your data plan so you wont be charged extra to send/receive sms or mms messages (sms/mms messages charges when compared to data are ridiculous), and yes I know there are plans for sms.
The most important reason BBM is better than sms is that you can see the delivery and read of the message in real time. No D for delivered beside the message - it's waiting for delivery because the phone is off or out of the service area, and when the D shows you know the chime has gone off to say a bbm has arrived. When the recipient opens the message you get an R. No guessing like sms messages.
I can turn my phone off during a meeting, and the moment I turn it back on, instantly all the pending bbm messages arrive, not when the sms system gets around to sending it.

Re:It was inevitable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's like iMessage....with 1/10 the number of users?

Re:It was inevitable ...

[Anonymous Coward]

One tenth the number of users? Srsly? At the current time, BBM has SIXTY MILLION CURRENT and ACTIVE users. ... Apple hasn't even sold 600 million iPhones, let alone signed up over half-a-billion iMessage users...

-AC

Re:It was inevitable ...

[MachineShedFred]

But, multi platform, Real Soon Now(tm).

Excellent!

[Radagast]

Now I can use this supremely user-friendly chat system that assigns me a random 8-digit hex string as an ID on my iPhone!

Re:Excellent!

[alen]

its retro dude, like the old ICQ user numbers.

Re:Excellent!

[Radagast]

Yeah, except more, since ICQ numbers at least had the decency to stick to decimal.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Shows exactly how up to date your knowledge is. Why even comment if you don't know what you're talking about?

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

This hasn't been true for years. BBM uses an email address to identify users, like most every other IM app on the planet: blackberryid.blackberry.com

Re:Excellent!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Nice to know you've looked sometime in the last two years ;)

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

And low ICQ numbers had some of a status symbol.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, you mean like the *random 10 digit number assigned by the phone company* you use for SMS?

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm gratified that you pointed out the prestige of low ID numbers to someone with a 4-digit Slashdot ID. I'm sure Radagast would never have imagined that otherwise.

Re:Excellent!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can send BBM invitations to your friends via SMS message, email, by QR scan or as a BB-PIN.

What exactly is your complaint?

(oh, and you register for BBM via email address now; the PIN# is as relevant to the experience as the MAC address on your NIC is to you using your browser...)

-AC

Re:Excellent!

[hobarrera]

At least they're shorter that ICQ! ;)

The new tech Buzz word

[axonis]

"iblackdroid"

Re:The new tech Buzz word

[CodeReign]

black-i-droid

Re:The new tech Buzz word

[axonis]

Thanks for the black eye, atleast there is agreement that droids come last socially, remember there is 'Skyamsn8' for those in the fast lane

Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[amansx]

It was only inevitable, now that the company has come to its senses "Whatsapp" and Apple's "Messages" might hit hard, can't say in terms of sales for respective brand's devices though.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood the appeal of Whatsapp.

It's just instant messaging, and restricted to mobile devices.

There are lots of other instant messaging platforms with a large installed base (google chat, MSN, yahoo chat, ICQ, etc) that work great with mobile devices, laptops, and desktops.

And unlike Whatsapp, they don't steal all your contact info (read the terms of use you agreed to from Whatsapp).

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[dugancent]

People like whatspp because your ID is your phone number. You don't have to know a handle or email.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[danbob999]

So what? You have to know a phone number, which is even harder to memorize.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[centipedes.in.my.vag]

It's more a matter of a phone number being something you're saving/memorizing already vs introducing a new bit of information. The complexity of the memorized bit is secondary.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[Anonymous Coward]

The majority of people had no reason to use BBM, and nothing has changed. SMS is the most universal instant message framework, so it's not going anywhere. Whatsapp and iMessages integrate closely with SMS so they aren't going anywhere either.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[danbob999]

A phone number is not a good identifier. A lot of people share a phone number (or have more than one), or is a land line and can't receive messages. It is also non portable from one country to another. What happens if you change your SIM card?
Anyways often the phone number IS the new bit of information, when you already have the email address.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[dugancent]

To each their own, but I know more phone numbers than email addresses. I don't use Whatsapp, but I can see the appeal.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[ZorinLynx]

It's a text messaging replacement.

It is most popular overseas, where flat rate text message plans, especially across international borders, are less universal than in the US.

In fact I have WhatsApp installed solely to text with international friends who don't have iPhones. It works damn well.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[Bert64]

The only thing that makes email difficult to memorise is all the free email services, where anything remotely memorable has already been taken... You end up being dugancent432423432432@gmail.com

Numbers are not terribly memorable, people memorise them out of necessity. I memorise several email addresses without problems, most people are name@company.tld which isn't exactly difficult to memorise.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[Bert64]

Only it's not a replacement, because it only works with those who have the same application installed...

Text messaging can reach anyone with a compatible handset, which is virtually all of them these days.
Email is much the same, virtually any networked client device has email capability.

And both of these offer you a huge choice of providers and clients, something you just don't get with proprietary services like whatsapp.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[shutdown -p now]

Who memorizes phone numbers these days?

Re: Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[PixetaledPikachu]

A shared phone numbers or landlines are unlikely attached to a mobile device with cellular connection, which is the main target of whatsapp. I like whatsapp. It's a no frill IM app, not cluttered with stickers and emoticons such as line and kakaotalk

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[Anonymous Coward]

So what? You have to know a phone number, which is even harder to memorize.

That's the thing: you don't have to memorize a phone number. You key them in once when you first meet the person. And you already have them for everyone you already know.

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[hobarrera]

I never understood the appeal of Whatsapp.

It's just instant messaging, and restricted to mobile devices.

On top of that, Whatsapp is actually slightly modified XMPP. Just the same as GTalk or WLM!

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[hobarrera]

People like whatspp because your ID is your phone number. You don't have to know a handle or email.

Is this a good thing because people tend to remember their phone numbers more than their emails, or because most people don't have emails?

Re:Whatsapp and Apple's Messages will be hit hard

[Anonymous Coward]

A phone number is not a good identifier. A lot of people share a phone number (or have more than one), or is a land line and can't receive messages. It is also non portable from one country to another. What happens if you change your SIM card?
Anyways often the phone number IS the new bit of information, when you already have the email address.

Maybe it's cultural, but in north America, the phone number is the first, and often only, contact identifier you get when you meet someone. On the rare instance you contact a new business associate by email first, they will almost certainly have their phone number in their email .sig.

You would almost never contact a non-business acquaintance by email first.

People generally retain their phone numbers if they change carriers. If they don't, they're probably trying to break ties with you.

Anyone who doesn't have (or isn't willing to share) a personal phone number is not someone with whom you would be sending messages to.

Wait...what?

[mcmonkey]

The service recently gained the ability to make phone calls, conduct video chats and even share screen tops with other BBM users

So this new service will allow me to make phone calls. With my phone.

So what does this do that I can't already do with Android or iPhone? I mean other than share screen tops. I don't I can do that with my current phone, as I have no idea what that is.

But send messages, send pictures, make phone calls. Things I already do, and I've never owned a Blackberry or used BBM.

Re:Wait...what?

[jo_ham]

You can message your friends who have Blackberries.

Just as WhatsApp enabled (free, non-SMS) cross communication between iOS and Android, now RIM has realised that they need to get in on that if they have any hope of keeping their existing users, let alone tempt any new users to BB devices.

Re:Wait...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

If all these features are carried forward, it allows you to make phone calls to a bbm user, over the network. If the user is in a different country, that is pretty awesome.

Re:Wait...what?

[gstoddart]

Just as WhatsApp enabled (free, non-SMS) cross communication between iOS and Android

And by free, you mean "with huge privacy implications", right?

Re:Wait...what?

[danbob999]

You mean just like the rest of us have been doing with VoIP for years?

Re:Wait...what?

[mcmonkey]

You can message your friends who have Blackberries.

Please be patient with me. I'm old (over 40) and there are kids on my lawn.

Could I not send text (SMS) messages to Blackberry users previously? I read the wikipedia entry on BBM, and I'm honestly stuggling with what this gives me (from the viewpoint of an Android, iOS, OR Blackberry user).

Text messages (to a person or group); send pictures; make phone calls. Voicenotes? Is that different than voice mail?

Send music files. That's the only thing on the feature list that jumps out at me as something I can't do (directly) with my Android phone.

Oh wait, I just checked. I can attach an audio file to an SMS message.

So is this just a branding thing? Like when a restaurant has "smashed potatoes?" You know, other places have mashed, but we have smashed. It's totally different.

Re:Wait...what?

[Bert64]

Doesn't email qualify as (free, non-SMS) cross communication between iOS and Android (and virtually any other device)?

Re:Wait...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two other additional benefits:
1.) it'll work over any data connection, so if you have wi-fi but no cellular data, the message will still transmit.
2.) you get an indication as to whether it's sent/delivered/read. Text messages are very reliable, but not bulletproof - there's no guarantee whether they left your phone, or whether the other person's phone received it. BBM lets you know exactly what happened so you can act accordingly.

Re:Wait...what?

[jo_ham]

If you're charged for SMS messages rather than having a monthly allotment, services like iOS Messages/WhatsApp/BBM really help since they use your data allowance rather than being specific things the telco can bill you for.

For me, iOS Messages allows me to send text messages, pictures, videos etc to my friends in the USA (I;m in the UK) for free - all it is is data, which I have a ton of (infinite if I'm on wifi), whereas my carrier charges 10-25p for international SMS and picture messages.

RIM's BBM service is like that but previously was exclusively for blackberry devices (as iMessage is for iOS), with WhatsApp being cross platform. Going cross platform with BBM is RIM's attempt to keep blackberry marketshare, since people are really starting to cotton on to these sorts of messaging services as an easy way to avoid massive carrier charges for sending pictures and SMS messages. Their only real downside is that they tended to be OS-specific.

Re:Wait...what?

[jo_ham]

Yes, but it's never really taken off as a substitute for SMS like these apps have. They're structured much more like instant messaging clients rather than email programs, even if the result is ultimately the same, it's all about the interface.

Re:Wait...what?

[swb]

Close your eyes and imagine its around 13 years ago. There are no smart phones and no SMS services. You have a magic device called a Blackberry that sends and recieves email.

You keep using this device for a while and it develops the ability to send short messages to other Blackberry users. You keep using this service, even as others get SMS and smartphones and the capability of BBM is essentially duplicated.

The only "advantage" this provides is a touchstone to long-time Blackberry users who don't understand that other phones have a short message system, chat apps, etc and who think they can't communicate with other Blackberry users withouth BBM. And maybe they can't.

AFAICT, the entire Blackberry universe still pretends its 1999 and carriers don't offer mobile IP service and the only way to send data wirelessly is with this cumbersome Canadian network.

Re:Wait...what?

[Anonymous Coward]

SMS offers you absolutely ZERO guarantees about what happens to your text/data after you press send...

It MIGHT go where and when you want it to, or it might not, some of it may get through, or none... or all, or maybe it will be in 160char chunks that are usually in order, but not always, and not necessarily all of them, or all at once, maybe.... and you'll never know unless the other person sends back a message asking WTH you just sent them (of course, if the message never went, or never arrived, it's unlikely they'll mention not receiving it). You might argue that you hardly ever experience some, any or all of these things, but you nevertheless must recognize that that condition is ENTIRELY due to luck, since, as I mentioned, the SMS protocol guarantees you ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the transmission of your message (except that it will be broken into chunks of no more than 160 characters, which may cost you $1.50 (or more!) each to send, depending on your rate plan, and whether or not you're roaming internationally...)

BBM offers endpoint-to-endpoint delivery. You get confirmation not only that the message has been transmitted successfully but also confirmation when it has arrived at the target device, AND notification when it has been read by the recipient. Furthermore, there are NO message boundaries (120/140/160 chars), the data is encrypted end to end, and compressed. You can also chat via text, or voice-over-IP, or video-over-IP. You can share desktops with the remote device, as well as files. Oh, and if the endpoints are using WiFi, there's absolutely ZERO usage of their cell phone data or minutes for these features.

SMS is ancient, unreliable shit compared to BBM, and being unable to distinguish the difference indicates just how deep in the dark ages you've been living...

-AC

Re:Wait...what?

[MachineShedFred]

Well, I imagine it allows you to do it with anyone using BBM, which would now include all Blackberry, iPhone / iPad / iPod Touch, and Android. That's at least more than iMessages on iOS does. I'm not tied into the Android ecosystem enough to know if there is an equivalent there, and if it is cross-platform or not.

Not in North America?

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the article this phone will not be available in North America. That's a shame, the Q5 looks to match my preferences. It's got a physical keyboard, it has the new BB10 operating system and it's less expensive than the Q10. Sounds perfect for me.... shame it won't be offered where I live.

Re:Not in North America?

[ZorinLynx]

"Emerging markets" is a codeword for "poor countries that can't afford our current devices."

If you live in the US they want you to buy the Q10, as it is more profitable for them. In other countries where very few to no one can afford the Q10, at least they'll make some money with the Q5.

Of course the client will be free

[msobkow]

They'll make their money off the back end servers.

Why

[Murdoch5]

They still have to finish BB10 for playbooks, they still have many bugs to solve on the Z10 and Q5, so why are they planning a new software project, get the old stuff finished, then start a new project. Blackberry takes all the ideals of Agile development and talks a big game but never delivers.

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

They still have to finish BB10 for playbooks, they still have many bugs to solve on the Z10 and Q5, so why are they planning a new software project, get the old stuff finished, then start a new project. Blackberry takes all the ideals of Agile development and talks a big game but never delivers.

Do you honestly think the software team that delivered the phones is completely the same as the one doing the server utils? Really?

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

lol right, cause BB has 1 team of 10 devs. dumbass

Re:Why

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's in their best interests to continue development for their tablet users, all 27 of them. They haven't admitted it overtly yet, but PlayBook is dead.

One word: encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

See topic.

Re:One word: encryption

[gstoddart]

One word: encryption

Oooh, encryption, encryption which they'll open up for governments to look at upon demand. I would feel absolutely confident in using encryption which can be bypassed like it wasn't there.

I mean, if it's encrypted it must be secure and good, right?

No, because since they can (and do) bypass it, their encryption is utterly useless. They've already demonstrated they can and will obviate your encryption.

So, I ask again, why is BBM so important? Because your argument for encryption is garbage when they can step around that.

Re:One word: encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set up your own BES and be the sole holder of the encryption key. I suppose some kind of government intrusion is possible (key loggers, cameras pointed at your phone, whatever), but if the government is motivated enough to go that far, you probably shouldn't be using a cell phone to make your secret plans. For the rest of us, it's plenty fine.

Re:One word: encryption

[jeffmeden]

One word: encryption

Oooh, encryption, encryption which they'll open up for governments to look at upon demand. I would feel absolutely confident in using encryption which can be bypassed like it wasn't there.

I mean, if it's encrypted it must be secure and good, right?

No, because since they can (and do) bypass it, their encryption is utterly useless. They've already demonstrated they can and will obviate your encryption.

So, I ask again, why is BBM so important? Because your argument for encryption is garbage when they can step around that.

It depends on if these new apps can join a BES (blackberry enterprise server) BBM system. In that mode, the encryption is maintained privately on the server, not by BB, Inc. and therefore it is theoretically secure. I say theoretically since there is still no guarantee that there is not a backdoor present which allows for snooping of intercepted messages anyway...

Re:One word: encryption

[realityimpaired]

Global reach... Cellular carriers pay a ton of money to pass SMS between carriers when they don't have a peering agreement, which is why a lot of cellular providers all over the world either don't offer international SMS, or charge a lot for it.

That's changing though... the carrier I'm with has peering agreements with enough carriers around the world that they give me unlimited international MMS/SMS messaging included in the base plan (even the $25/mo entry level plan).

3 years ago, BBM on my Android device would have been huge. Today? I don't see the point. None of my friends still have Blackberry, and I can already communicate with people around the world using Google Talk or SMS. Google Talk also lets me make free international long distance phone calls, while still only has the same limitations that BBM does: it's effectively insecure and only works with other people who subscribe to it.

Re:One word: encryption

[danbob999]

Google Talk also lets me make free international long distance phone calls, while still only has the same limitations that BBM does: it's effectively insecure and only works with other people who subscribe to it.

Not entirely true. It works with anyone with a XMPP account.

Re:One word: encryption

[Medievalist]

BES is a closed source app running on a windows server, so your use of the word "theoretically" is extremely appropriate here. It might provide secure encryption, but it'll be pretty hard to tell for certain.

Re:One word: encryption

[Just Some Guy]

You can set up your own BES and be the sole holder of the encryption key.

And you know this how? I've heard people say that BlackBerry claims that they use only your site-generated key for encrypting traffic, but it's closed source software. Who really has any idea how it works, outside the crypto team at BlackBerry?

Re:One word: encryption

[Bert64]

SMS is encrypted over the air on any modern GSM network...
Do you trust RIM more than your carrier? Both are still subject to government demands for lawful interception.

If you're really concerned about encryption, you should encrypt the data end to end where only you and who you're communicating with have the keys, not any third parties in between. BBM doesn't provide this.

Re:One word: encryption

[Bert64]

BBM goes through their network, not via your BES...

Incidentally, pull the battery out of your blackberry... Now put it back in, power it up and watch what it does...
It boots, then starts talking to your BES and retrieving mail in the background *before* you have unlocked the device. Therefore:

The unlock requirement is enforced by the device itself.
The keys necessary to access your BES and the encrypted data on the device are stored on the device itself.

This is known as client side security, and i shouldn't have to explain why it's bad.

Re:One word: encryption

[kwark]

"Google Talk [...] while still only has the same limitations that BBM does: it's effectively insecure and only works with other people who subscribe to it"

GTalk is XMPP which is both secure (OTR for end to end encryption and TLS for client/server communication) and open to the world (server2server/federation has been activated many years ago).

Re:One word: encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

You can set up your own BES and be the sole holder of the encryption key.

And you know this how? I've heard people say that BlackBerry claims that they use only your site-generated key for encrypting traffic, but it's closed source software. Who really has any idea how it works, outside the crypto team at BlackBerry?

If the US/Canadian/NATO governments knew that the crypto could be broken, they wouldn't give RIM certifications:

http://ca.blackberry.com/business/topics/security/certifications.html

We're not talking CLASSIFIED- or SECRET-level stuff, but it should be sufficient for most businesses to minimize the risk of industrial espionage.

Re:One word: encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

This is known as client side security, and i shouldn't have to explain why it's bad.

No. In this context it is a good thing.

A server relying on the client to validate inputs (aka "client side security") is a bad thing because a bogus client can provide harmful inputs which the server will foolishly trust.

However, with encrypted messages it is vital that the client is the only device that can decrypt them. If any other device (e.g. your messaging server) can decrypt messages then you have no way of knowing if the communications channel is still secure.

Re:One word: encryption

[Just Some Guy]

If the US/Canadian/NATO governments knew that the crypto could be broken, they wouldn't give RIM certifications:

And those governments are using the exact same server software that they'd sell to you or me?

Maybe BlackBerry is as secure as people claim them to be. I certainly hope so! But I absolutely would not take a proprietary encryption vendor's word for it.

Re:One word: encryption

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying "I don't need BBM because I can still communicate with ... SMS" is more or less equivalent to saying, "I don't need the internet, WesternUnion Telegraphy is plenty good enough for me!"

With over 60 Million current and active users, BBM is BY FAR the best and most popular method for instant-message communication between people, even though (until now) it's been confined strictly to BlackBerry devices.

BBM has message transmission validation, delivery notification and message-read confirmation, while SMS doesn't guarantee, well, ANYTHING about the integrity of your message or it's delivery... Additionally, BBM has peer-to-peer file sharing, desktop/screen-sharing, group-chat, channels (coming), voice-over-IP, video-over-IP, its transmissions are encrypted-by-default, and are sent using integral data compression...

But I'm sure you're right, SMS is just as good...

-AC

(oh, and here's a bonus: Since BlackBerry's business model doesn't have anything at all to do with selling your personal information to marketing agencies, every byte of what you send/share with your friends isn't being tracked, logged, indexed and sold...)

Re:One word: encryption

[hobarrera]

Where's the protocol's formal specifiction? Where's the source for the reference client implemention? And the server one?
Without any of those, there's no way to prove that what you're saying is true.

Re:One word: encryption

[hobarrera]

Google Talk also lets me make free international long distance phone calls, while still only has the same limitations that BBM does: it's effectively insecure and only works with other people who subscribe to it.

Google Talk is a federated XMPP server. I chat with dozens of friends who use it, without having my own google account; I just use my own XMPP server.
XMPP has end-to-end encryption, both for chat and video (pidgin-gpg, jitsi, etc).

I can't wait

[fermion]

To have all my activity, my searches for sideboob, my stops at the paraphernalia shop, all automatically reported to all the contacts on my phone. It will be better than Facebook!

Re:I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're admitting that you're too stupid to turn off a basic feature (that starts-out turn-off by default anyway?)

Please do us all a favour and stop wasting perfectly good oxygen...

-AC

(If you weren't such an idiot, you might've noted from the article you quoted, that the users have to OPT-IN to have that feature enabled...)

4 Years Too Late

[ryanmcdonough]

They should of done this ages ago, now they are on a burning platform and they can't escape.

Just in case you're concerned

[Anonymous Coward]

over the privacy of BBM vs regular sms
Police in Quebec filed a production report with Blackberry and got the sauce, matters of national security to prevent escalation in mafia shootouts. Google it and do your homework to get more on the story.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/blackberry-messages-may-be-used-in-mafia-murder-case-1.750303

It's cool to hate BlackBerry

[Urthas]

Therefore: lololol BB fail!

Apple pulls the app in 3, 2, 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

We're sorry. Your instant messaging app has been removed from the App Store (TM) because it duplicates the function of instant messaging. Better luck next time!

Re:Apple pulls the app in 3, 2, 1...

[dugancent]

You mean, just like google voice, google chat, whatsapp, textfree, text+ viber, and the other 8000 chat apps I'm forgetting? They no longer enforce duplicate functionality and haven't for some time.

Must have features!

[NoImNotNineVolt]

Finally, I'll be able to even share screen tops, so all those screen bottoms won't be lonely anymore!
Maybe the next version of BBM will let us share screen lefts, rights, fronts, and/or backs!
They're really creating a whole new market here. Most understated tech development of 2013, mark my words!
...
Wait, what?

Re:Must have features!

[MachineShedFred]

Tech companies are terrible at naming things, see FaceBook's "Chat Heads". I'm sure a "screen top" is an equivalent to sharing your desktop, except that you don't have a desktop on a tablet / phone, so they had to come up with something relevant, yet familiar.

They failed.

WhatsApp

[ZorinLynx]

I think RIM is seeing the success of WhatsApp and wants a piece of that pie.

They already have the infrastructure in place and only need to code client software. In the future they could charge users on non-Blackberry platforms a small subscription fee.

WhatsApp charges $1 a year. It's negligible, but when multiplied by hundreds of millions of users? Not so negligible anymore!

Re:WhatsApp

[MachineShedFred]

In the future they could charge users on non-Blackberry platforms a small subscription fee.

And they could watch their user base disappear. The only appeal that this has for me is cross-platform support for read receipts of MMS. I already get that with 85% of the messaging I do through iMessage, this would add the people I know that have Android.

I don't care enough to pay for that though.

Too many..

[Bert64]

There are far too many proprietary im services out there...

Email was great, there are many different email services, and they all interoperate...
The telephone is great too, there are many different telcos and they all interoperate.

But since then...
First we had IRC, all these disparate unconnected networks but at least you could still use a client of your choice.

Then we got instant messaging... ICQ, AIM, Yahoo etc, all unconnected and each with its own client. Multi protocol IM clients made this slightly less intolerable but still, you need a bunch of accounts to talk to different people and you end up having to sign up new accounts because one friend of yours happens to use a service you haven't used before.

And today it just gets worse and worse, services are increasingly proprietary and there are more and more of them every week. It's absolute madness!

Re:Too many..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but neither email nor telephone integrates encryption as standard (and even most mobiles will not prevent you using unencrypted phone networks, or indeed even notify you). It is true that BBM will be decrypted by BB when a govt requests it, but that still narrows the field of interception a whole lot.

It would be great to have something like GTalk/BBM/WhatsApp/etc but where the central organisation (if there is one) can't decrypt it, but that isn't out there right now and I suspect if it did appear and got large then it would get governmentally stomped for not enabling intercepts.

This could be achieved at endpoints alone by producing a system like WhatsApp that actually runs over existing XMPP networks and has encrypted content, which would address the issue of proprietary design. Indeed, OTR (also see the cypherpunks site provides that. Main issue is key exchange in that context, as usual.

Re:Too many..

[loconet]

Thank you. I thought I was alone in thinking that the world had gone absolutely crazy with the amount of messaging services out there.

Re:Too many..

[mattack2]

Email was great, there are many different email services, and they all interoperate...

Yeah, tell that to AOL, Delphi, CompuServe, etc. Don't you remember when they had Internet *gateways* to interchange their proprietary with the Internet (mail standard)? It wasn't there instantly, and certainly wasn't pretty.

The telephone is great too, there are many different telcos and they all interoperate.

There initially were different phone companies, with multiple lines running down the streets.

Re:Too many..

[Anonymous Coward]

Google is expected to announce their unified messaging system later this week at Goolgle I/O, consolidating Talk, Hangouts, G+ messenger, maybe even Google Voice in one package. Let's hope it is based or expands on XMPP.

Re:Too many..

[Anonymous Coward]

Woot -- awesome! Yet another way that everyone can feed more of their personal information directly into the marketing profile that Google retains about each of them (THAT profile IS, after all, Google's ONLY saleable good, and thus its central business function)... I'm sure the marketing schills are rubbing their hands together in glee at the prospect of this; In the meantime, I'll stick with BBM thanks...

-AC

Re:Too many..

[hobarrera]

Ever heard of XMPP? It's an IEEE standard, and Google Talk is just another federated XMPP server.
It descentalized just like email.
Set up your own xmpp server, tell your friends to use it, add you gtalk friends so you don't loose contact, and contribute to making propietary IM dissapear now! ;)

it lets you use your data plan

[Chirs]

It'll send text messages, voice, video chat, etc. over your data plan to any other BBM user. That way it burns through your data allotment rather than your voice/text allotment.

It'll be particularly handy if you have, say, a 3G tablet that doesn't do voice, or if you have access to a cheap data plan but your voice calls and texts are relatively expensive.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

No really, its a serious question, why use BBM when we have universal SMS already?

Interesting

[sootman]

As Rene Ritchie points out, "every single one of Apple's major mobile competitors now makes apps for iOS."

Re:Interesting

[Xest]

I'm not really sure that's interesting or new. All it confirms is what we already knew- that all other companies believe in cross platform interop to some degree is better whereas Apple still believes only in platform lock-in.

Google, Microsoft, Blackberry et. al. have simply decided there's more value in letting people use their products and services whatever platform they choose, whilst Apple has simply decided to keep all it's products and services Apple only in the hope that that will keep customers loyal and stop the decline in market share.

Apple's calculation is that if they allow iTunes on say Android then they'll see a catastrophic loss of iOS users as they could then easily migrate their purchases across to a different platform and as they make money as a hardware vendor they can't afford to do this. In contrast Google is primarily a software provider and Microsoft is comfortable being such too, so they're more than happy to maximise the profit they make off of software and services.

Two things

[Vrtigo1]

1) I wonder why RIM would take one of the things people like about their platform and give it away free to competing platforms? It's not like BBM is a wasteland with no existing users.

2) If only Apple would open up iMessage, then this would be a real story. I can only dream of the day when I can iMessage from a PC using Pidgin.

BBM and iOS/Android Secure Work Spaces

[markdowling]

I bet that once the MDM code for the BES10 Secure Work Spaces got done to talk to the SRP infrastructure, 90pc of the work to make BBM work on those platforms was done too.