Slashdot Mirror
Blackberry CEO: Net Neutrality Means Mandating Cross-Platform Apps
DW100 writes In a bizarre public blog post the CEO of BlackBerry, John Chen, has claimed that net neutrality laws should include forcing app developers to make their services available on all operating systems. Chen even goes as far as citing Apple's iMessage tool as a service that should be made available for BlackBerry, because at present the lack of an iMessage BlackBerry app is holding the firm back.
Some excerpts from Chen's plea: Netflix, which has forcefully advocated carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. ... Neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system. Since "content providers" are writing code they think makes sense for one reason or another (expected returns financial or psychic), a mandate to write more code seems like a good way to re-learn why contract law frowns on specific performance.
I very much doubt that iMessage will save Blackberry from landing in the bit bucket.
Really?
Net Neutrality means mandating that developers and services must create something that works on your dying platform? Does that mean that NetFlix will have to make sure it works with Symbian too? How about PocketPC 2003?
What an idiot.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Seems to me if this meant anything it would more mean the various platforms should be compatible with each other, at least the commercial ones. Even that seems like a massive stretch.
The solution is not that Apple should take iMessage to every platform out there, but that we start using open protocols instead like XMPP.
I would comment about that but, to abide by his thinking, I would have to respond in every language on the planet so that I don't discriminate against non-english speakers...
Blackberry's operating system is proprietary and closed. Why would they be demanding support for their platform and throwing words like 'free' and 'open' around? Ridiculous.
I reckon that might go a ways toward explaining why the company's doing so badly.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
"Forcing" individual devs isn't it: Go to the compiler makers. Make it so THEY have YOUR API's/SDK's available in THEIR compilers.
(That way, individuals HAVE a choice...)
E.G.-> Borland (Embarcadero) does JUST about *every* platform there is under the sun in Delphi XE7 (not blackberry though), so there's an opportunity (it's a great tool for development, best there is) -> http://www.embarcadero.com/pro...
APK
P.S.=> The compiler maker, in turn, can benefit as well (as does the individual developer, with more options on HIS end too)... apk
Absolutely. Companies should be forced to write their software for any single person that might want it on their hardware. Not only Blackberry, but also Nokia, and since I have an original Palm device, Apple should be forced to write all their apps for me too. And support them. And make sure they are bug free. They must expend the resources to build teams for this, and of course, it should be free to me. Oh, and I also have a a Radio Shack pocket computer from the '80s, and so everyone should have to write apps for that too. Otherwise, I am being oppressed.
I want to go back to the time this guy thinks he still lives in and have a look around.
It'd be an interesting place.
From BlackBerry's BBM page:
BBM Video is currently only available for BlackBerry 10 smartphones. Version 1 of BBM for Windows Phone does not support BBM Voice, BBM Channels, Stickers, or location sharing powered by Glympse.
I love this idea!
Oh, and I just developed a variant of a linux that you need to pay me $1,000,000 to develop software for.
“Unlike BlackBerry, which allows iPhone users to download and use our BBM service, Apple does not allow BlackBerry or Android users to download Apple’s iMessage messaging service,” he wrote.
Sure it does now. Had BBM been on other devices 5+ years ago, I don't think Blackberry would be in the shape it is now. Around that time BBM was all the rage, unfortunately it was Blackberry only. Now no one uses BBM....
Chen even goes as far as citing Apple's iMessage tool as a service that should be made available for BlackBerry, because at present the lack of an iMessage BlackBerry app is holding the firm back.
I say that because I remember time when Blackberry's BBM was a "Blackberry only" affair. Can someone please remind this CEO about those early BBM days?
How about other Blackberry services that are only available on Blackberry now?
Or should other companies' strategies include making rival companies relevant?
Android is free, Blackberry is free to switch over to it. But they chose not to do so.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
This just seems bizarre.
Net neutrality is about forcing inaction: an ISP is already providing service to a customer, but is not allowed to actively discriminate by not providing the same level of service under various conditions.
What Chen seems to be proposing here is a requirement for action on the part of every app developer in the world, requiring them by law to spend their resources producing additional software regardless of any desire or commercial viability.
I think we can safely predict how this one ends. It's amazing his PR people didn't stop him before it started, though, because IMHO it just reinforces the perception that BlackBerry is desperate and struggling to stay in business by any means it can find.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When will Blackberry stops discriminating against non-Blackberry users by releasing their mobile OS to other manufacturers?
So, the biggest challenge facing Blackberry is that their competitors won't port their products to the BlackBerry platform?
This is idiocy beyond belief.
This has nothing to do with "openness and neutrality", and has everything to do with the fact that your platform is dying, and you're now expecting everyone else to solve that.
Boo fucking hoo.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
The solution is not that Apple should take iMessage to every platform out there, but that we start using open protocols instead like XMPP.
I totally agree, but that's something blackberry would have to start with inside the house
circa 1998
Times have changed.
Just my 2 kopeks: nyet neutrality, comrade!
So he's complaining about a comms app (Apple Messenger) not being cross platform and author spins this as 'app developers being forced to write for all platforms'.
Yet if Apple simply stuck to published specs, or opened its own, then OTHER DEVELOPERS THAN APPLE would write compatible clients.
So author's claim is not correct, rather its spin. Everyone should be using open comms specs, because otherwise you have little walled gardens of communication.
Does that include fart apps? Or should developers just be required to port the "super" ones?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/09/29/1842252/rim-doesnt-want-200-fart-apps
Rot in hell you has-beens :) You had your chance and you fucked up. This is what you get for inflicting the shit-pile that was BES on admins, then having the gall to charge out the ass for it on top of premium phone plans.
Not going to lie. When got rid of the of the last BB phone we officespaced the /fuck/ out of that remaining BES server.
Meh, make it so the code I write for iOS/Android works on the BB OS.
"I think that word does not mean what you think it means..."
Neutrality doesn't mean service providers have to support everything. According to his argument, app Devs would have to support every shit platform out there
You've lost your grip on reality Chen, neutrality only means infrastructure providers can't discriminate based on the source or content of traffic. Like the power company does not charge different prices for electrons that power my tv or those that power my TV
Yes, like Hangouts too. At least Google tried. They used xmpp for Google Talk and tried to get other companies to follow suit, but none of the major players did, so there was no interoperability.
There is no limiting principle in the arguments for net neutrality generally that prevent this argument. If the argument is that I as a consumer have a right to not have my ISP discriminate against my choice of content providers, then where in that argument is the limiting principle that prevents me from forcing the content providers to provide the content on a device of my choosing rather than theirs? No appeals to "common sense." Where in the standard network neutrality "principles" do you find a concrete and rational basis for limiting the whole battle to the transport level?
Why should Verizon have to take all comers but Apple gets to build a walled garden that prevents Android users from making use of iMessage? Their property? Isn't that precisely what Verizon and Comcast argue about being able to prioritize traffic?
You could come up with a lot of these daft sayings:,
... Having to write your web page in every language
... Having to have it accessible on any output device
... Having to make it understandable to anyone of any educational level.
Net Neutrality means
Perhaps fortunately it doesn't mean any of these things
Firstly, what a load of crap. Secondly, I think John Chen should take a break from his failing company and actually go read a definition of neutrality, and then go ahead and read even a short blog post about NET-neutrality. This isn't above forcing your competition to allow you to piggy back on their success (hint I hate apple, don't go there) it's about ensuring a level playing field on the NETWORK. It has nothing to do with apps. It has everything to do with traffic shaping, packet manipulation, and avoiding a tiered internet ala the cable industry. We're not talking about apple, android, facebook. We're talking about telcos and their networks (the internet) and stopping them from changing the fundamental way the internet works. A packet is a packet is a packet, and it should stay that way. Obviously we need some traffic shaping to ensure the content that needs QoS gets it, that's a moot point. When you plug your samsung TV into your power outlet, it gets power regardless of the fact it's Samsung. An electron is an electron is an electron. Packets should be (within reason) dealt with the same.
Android apps can be ported to QNX, so why aren't app developers doing that? Oh yeah, I forgot, no one uses QNX devices ... and no one wants to develop J2ME apps for BBOS either.
Maybe Mr Chen should be more focused on developing his ecosystem. Incentivize developers to port their apps and help partners create apps that offer the equivalent of the most popular apps in the other app stores.
It's just the inane ramblings of a desperate man clinging to the helm of a sinking ship. I hope everyone recognizes this nonsense for what it is.
Let's start by re-releasing the QNX source code as open source. You know, like it was before you cocksuckers bought it.
Choke on a bag of dicks.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
But I understand why the poor guy is making it. Unless BlackBerry adopts the Android OS or Samsung changes their minds about a buyout, BlackBerry is screwed. As in, short your positions and make a mint in 2015, screwed.
Finding God in a Dog
Great! Maybe that will mean that I will be able to get all these neat apps on my Java phone, thus ending the superior attitude of all of my smart phone-toting brethren who belittle me because I lack x and y app on my device.
Untrue (in a way): Android = Linux. MacOSX/IOS = BSD. It used to DIRECTLY support Linux (lookup Kylix) desktop/server: Wish it still did (maybe in XE8).
Alternative that is EXTREMEMLY "Delphi-like"?FreePascal & it's Lazarus IDE make up for it though (almost *exact* clone of Delphi 2-7 really) *IF* you develop for Linux that is.
As to that decision? Marketshare talks loudly.
I.E. - Linux doesn't have enough marketshare on the PC Desktop to justify it for them apparently. Again, too bad.
I.E. - BSD is the same as desktop Linux. Just not enough "usership" to justify it apparently.
After all/again: There *was* Kylix before (not anymore).
---
* In ANY event? I still think it's best for Mr. Chen to pursue putting his SDK/API set into compilers... to give devs the option to develop for his platform.
APK
P.S.=> Languages like Java are a security risk & interpreted SLOWER as well. As to Eclipse? DOES ECLIPSE DO BLACKBERRY?? I have no idea, clue me in either way... apk
So I guess the next step will be that Blackberry starts sueing developers for not providing app versions for the their platform? I can see a whole new revenue stream happening...
become the CEO of Blackberry?
If an app developer chooses to devote their resources into certain platforms I can understand which would include not devoting resources into platforms that won't pay off.
Imagine if his same logic is applied to software. Should Outlook be ported for both Apple, Linux, and any other OS out there simply because it's fair?
Here's a tip, if developers aren't adopting your platform it may be due to something besides neutrality. Could your business model suck? Could they perceive your platform as not having as large a user base?
Instead of crying that things should be made even look at your business model and business strategy.
Here's a novel thought, contact those developers on other platforms and ask them what your company could do to encourage them and possibly other developers to also develop on your platform.
If you ask me the "Crackberry" fad has entered winter.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I would argue that there should be some sort of regulation that ensures that phones are interoperable with one another for "phone stuff". That is, if you sell a phone in this country, by law it should be able to make a phone call to every other phone sold in the country. The problem is, what qualifies as "phone stuff" is rapidly expanding.
iMessage is a good example. Apple is trying to leverage its dominant market position to make text messaging something that's iPhone only. Remember the whole debacle with people who had an iPhone and then didn't suddenly not being able to receive text messages from other people who still had iPhones. Apple's solution was broken and only partially effective - and I think at least somewhat intentionally so. Same with FaceTime. You want to talk to your friends with an iPhone? Well, you need an iPhone too!
So yeah, we as a society need to decide what we define as "phone stuff". Having the ability to communicate with every other phone for "phone stuff" is critical from an economic perspective, and eventually will also be so from a safety perspective. Requiring inter-phone communications to be standardized isn't too far-fetched of an idea.
(Requiring the same non-phone-stuff apps to work on different platforms though is stupid.)
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
They didn't spend xx million dollars developing a new protocol and software for both server-side and client-side to replace their already existing Talk because Talk was working great already. They made that investment in order to have a better service.
> how is being the only one using XMPP worse
The key words there are "being the only one". You don't get interoperability by being the only one using the "standard". Instead, they were the only major player hurt by the limitations of XMPP. For example, XMPP is designed around a reasonably consistent network connection and fairly stable IP, while mobile phone IPs might change several times in five minutes. Synchronization of audio and video isn't great, etc.
XMPP would have had the advantage of interoperability IF other major providers used it. Since the other major providers did not use XMPP, there was no interoperability advantage and therefore no convincing reason to stay with it, other than the money and time it would take to develop something new and switch.
What?
Sorry, this makes no sense to me. Why should Apple be forced to open up its protocol? Why is that necessary for the public good? As people are always delighted to point out, Apple's market share is by no means the majority. Apple isn't a utility.
If people don't like iMessage or people they know aren't on iMessage, then they can use something else. I chat with friends on Hangouts (which, if I'm honest, is the worst of all the chat apps out there), WhatsApp (some clumsy UI elements, but lots of good features) and Facebook Messenger (surprisingly good, despite the fact that Facebook is behind it; also the one I'm least likely to trust privacy-wise). I don't demand that my friends only use iMessage. I'll find a way to chat with them one way or another.
If I happened to have a friend with a BlackBerry, I'd use the BBM app. Or ordinary texts. There's plenty of interoperability here.
If Apple didn't allow the BBM app (or any other chat app) on their phones in order to ENFORCE iMessage use, maybe you'd have a point.
BlackBerry missed the boat about a dozen times at this point and that's their fault, not Apple's.
I am a big fan of Cross Platform Application Development.
However these are for applications that do not really take the advantage of the platform.
Having made web apps for Blackberry then for iPhone and Android... things such as different screen dimensions, different input methods, additional features also come into play.
Even the fact that each System has a different sets of interface standards, that can come in to make your app look good or crappy
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Development for platforms should be set as ease for porting. Microsoft went full-force with this by unifying the OS (Win10) across any device. What is BB doing to make it easier?
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
It's about damned time.
I demand VLC on my MVS mainframe.
Not to mention my VME machines.
Oh... and my ZX80.
Best idea I've heard in ages :)
I really want netflix to run in lynx.
iMessage complies with your suggestion. afterall iMessage allows communication either via it's own protocols (blue) or SMS (green)...
If he'd at least stopped at saying that content companies must make their content/platform available via open API's or something I could have at least given it a thought. Suggesting that the provider of an app like iPhone or Netflix be mandated by law to write code to support any 'device' that the content could work on is bizarre, stupid & just a desperate plea for help.
Reminds me of how NAMBLA used to try to slip into gay pride parades.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
i.e., you use iMessage - if you are sending to someone that isn't on iMessage, it just sends a plain old SMS message?
No, net neutrality shouldn't mean that app developers are forced to go cross-platform. Everyone's writing software for Android and iOS because that's where the people are. People ditched Blackberry because they did nothing but sit on their initial success, letting Google, Apple, and even Microsoft completely overtake what they had. And now BB is crying foul because their competitors don't want to play nice with them? There's nothing that says or mandates interoperability between competitors in the marketplace. All this is, is Blackberry crying over the milk they spilled and begging for third-parties to try and make them somehow relevant again. If the tables were turned, I highly doubt that they'd want anyone to start attacking their precious crystal palace.
The Amarri pray for god, the Caldari pray for profit. the Gallente pray for peace, but the Minmatar pray their ships hol
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's not net neutrality... that just forcing work on people who don't want to do that work. What if there was 200 OS out there, you'd have to code your app for all 200 of them? Stop dreaming Blackberry.
I demand all car makers start supporting buggy whip makers also! It's only fair!!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yea, Blackberry needs to make BBM available for all devices.... wait, who would want that?
BBM was made for Blackberry only and served precisely to keep people locked into the platform by not allowing other platforms to access the service. It wasn't until they had lost their user base that they cared about such things. It was as wrong when they did it, as when Apple does it now.
because the consumer often has no choice of ISP--that's why the enhanced regulation is justified.
You have plenty of choice in smartphone applications and operating systems.
this story is verification that despite making the right technical decisions over the last few years, RIM/Blackberry remain doomed due to utterly inept and clueless upper management.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
FTFS:
"Netflix, which has forcefully advocated carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. ... Neutrality must be mandated at the application and content layer if we truly want a free, open and non-discriminatory internet. All wireless broadband customers must have the ability to access any lawful applications and content they choose, and applications/content providers must be prohibited from discriminating based on the customer’s mobile operating system."
Neutrality, to the best of my understanding, is handled at the service provider level.
Service providers don't have any responsibility for the apps that developers create, and it would be impossible to regulate such a thing. Not figuratively impossible. LITERALLY impossible.
Blackberry's a dying brand, and with a CEO whose believes the mountain should come to Mohammed, it's no wonder.
Some people don't believe in fairies. I don't believe in The Patriarchy.
I'll get right on it. Oh wait, I remember now, every time I've used a Blackberry I've hated the experience. If I developed apps for your devices then I'd have to use them. No thanks.
"Specific performance" is a *remedy* for a *breach of contract*. It has no application whatsoever to the issue here unless Blackberry is contending that: (i) it entered into a contract with Apple, Netflix, etc. to have a Blackberry app created, (ii) Apple/Netflix/etc. decided later that they didn't want to make the app and breached the contract, (iii) Blackberry can show that there are particular circumstances about the nature of the contract that make it unfair to simply refund whatever Blackberry paid to Apple/Netflix/etc. (which would be Blackberry's normal remedy), and (iv) that unfairness can only be avoided by *forcing* Apple/Netflix/etc. to do what they contractually promised to do. Obviously, that's not what's going on here.
Just like programmers bristle when non-programmers use programming lingo incorrectly, using legal terms that you don't understand often leads to you using them incorrectly and sounding dumb to someone who *does* understand the term.
I cooked up a homebrew 8bit OS on my ATMega chip. I now demand that Netflix port their system over to my OS. Plus I still have a C64 in the closet so that needs netflix pronto. Then the computer in my car I believe is running that Vx stuff for combustion so it should get netflix as that is probably a more common OS than android. Then on top of all that I completely demand that my TI-89 gets netflix.
And that is just netflix. I have been waiting for a TI-89 version of Halo for way too long. Who do I sue? I want to sue someone for that omission!!! And I believe that someone released a doom for TI-89 so it clearly can be done.
Blackberry has singlehandedly killed the case for Net Neutrality. Now NO ONE will want it.
The market for watching movies on blackberry phones is vanishingly thin.
Also, net neutrality has nothing to do with apps or os's, it involves ISP not disciminating data packets. No, it does not meant to force everyone to support blackberry or force netflix to develop for a specific platform. If it was anyone else, I'd think they were trying to stop net neutrality, but with Blackberry, their lack on innovation has dramatically reduced their market share.
Come on Slashdot, you can be better than this.
The key elements of Apple's monopoly power are there though: they can effectively set prices in the market, they have the ability to raise or lower production to affect prices and availability of the good, they can suppress or increase the market by withholding or releasing products. This last one is important.
I'm not sure I buy this. Apple's control extends only to their own product. There's a active market below Apple's pricepoint (though there's not much profit there, I'll grant you). When Apple's prices change (actually, has that happened in the last few years? I think the price has been steady for a while) the market doesn't reconfigure around that price. Apple certainly has a monopoly on Apple phones, but I'm not sure that's particularly insightful.
In theory, someone could also release a product that's priced ABOVE the iPhone (perhaps as a Veblen good) as long as they can make a sufficient appeal to the wealthy that their product is superior. (I know about Vertu, but I haven't seen anything that makes me think that anyone thinks their phones are better than even ordinary Android phones.)
If Apple disappeared tomorrow, the world would still have smartphone manufacturers. The only way this monopoly argument could hold water is if we decide that Android and the handsets it runs on should be considered a completely different category of product.
the lack of iMessage is not holding Blackberry back. the lack of interest in their devices, and poor sales, is what's holding them back. geez what a goofball.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Agreed. However, this not a bad thing in and of itself. By stripping you of the right to arbitrarily murder me, they give me the right to not be arbitrarily murdered. And vice-versa. I call that a complete win.
In the case of what many like to stuff in the same bag as "entitlements", the rights being stripped are fractional portions of income, and the rights being enabled are, quite often, the difference between life and death or suffering and no suffering, or disease transmission and no disease transmission. I tend to regard those entitlements as entirely worth my loss of right to my income. Others do not share my interest in the general well-being of the public. Debate ensues.
It is not always clear that such rights-trading by force as government fiat is inherently bad. Some rights-trading is no doubt bad.
For instance, part of my right to my income is being traded for bombing and otherwise harming foreigners for the sole purpose of subsidizing the MIC (extend their right to a cushy income), and I am dubious that an adequate defense could be made for this kind of thing.
When an operation - electricity, communications, water supply, networks - consumes some portion of an inherently limited domain, and that operation is critical to the good fortunes of the public, then we may need to regulate what those given the opportunity to provide services in said limited spaces can do.
The FCC regulates how wide and splattery a transmitted signal can be. This is an appropriate act of guarding the use of a privileged, limited resource for the benefit of the public, though it inherently limits the rights of the transmitting party. The PUC regulates prices charged for fuel. This is an appropriate act of guarding a limited, privileged resource for the benefit of the public, though is inherently limits the rights of the fuel provider. And so on.
This is what makes the debate legitimate, and the potential application of limits / restrictions legitimate. Bandwidth providers are players in such a limited space. If they want to do something where they are not critical to the public good, and therefore responsible for the public good, and therefore held to limits designed to address the public good, then they should be in another business.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...by comparing this situation to Net Neutrality. Like gay marriage--where advocates INSIST your church won't be forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies, marriage to animals isn't next, etc.--Net Neutrality means something VERY SPECIFIC. Furthermore, TCP/IP and Internet technology in general has been an internationally government-funded effort, and ISPs often need public right-of-way to do business; not so for the specific data structures, etc. that run hook up chat apps, foursquare, instagram, Snapchat, etc.
For this CEO to demand that developers go out of their way, spending time and resources (and ultimately money) to help bail his flagging platform out, and then connecting all that to the concept of net neutrality--it's kind of like those obnoxious FURRY/bestiality people who try to latch onto (consenting adult) gay rights because their own cause isn't really worthy on its own...
Where's Netflix for my Commodore 64?
Try it! Library of Babel
Since he thinks developers should be required to support his platform, he also means that he should be required to accept those apps.
That means he's going to be getting the Fart Apps that don't add any value as well.
Exactly, this is not about forcing app developers to rewrite apps for different platforms, but rather setting a standard, neutral, non-OS-discriminatory interface between apps and the OS. The app developer writes his app once to this neutral interface and it automagically runs on all OSes (famous or obscure) without further changes.
If you ask me the "Crackberry" fad has entered winter.
This seems pretty optimistic... the cyclical nature of the seasons implies there will be a spring coming for Blackberry.
Code once (HTML5)for many devices (iOS, Android, BB, Windows, etc). Problem solved. Most mobile apps pull information from the web anyway. Save on developer costs too.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
What a fucking moron. Yeah, lets create a fucking nightmare by supporting windows and os x applications on the hundreds of Linux distro's out there. Well, unless all applications are ported over to a Java or .Net then we will have an easy cross platform. But as usual ppl still use c programming language which is tedious and people prone to making errors and c++ with features that just don't work right out of the box.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with software but preventing companies from throttling down(losing packets on purpose) your internet connection to a service like netflix, hulu, and youtube unless these services pay $$$ up to the ISP.
When my vintage Black MacBook (2006) died last year after eight years of faithful service, I exported my data into neutral file formats
Not all programs can export without substantial loss of data. For example, can Garage Band export a multitrack project in a neutral file format that a multitrack audio editor for a non-Apple operating system will recognize? Can Photoshop export a file with all layers and all adjustment layers that Krita or GIMP can open?
You're saying all programs have to come out for PC and Mac or someone can't make a program for either? This is shit.
BB should just come out with an android distro and stop pissing all over everyone else. They can customize it so it looks the way they want it to look. But if it is android based then they get compatibility. They can even rewrite the drivers etc so it is more secure. Make a cheaper Blackphone. You'll make lots of money.
this is what I don't get about these big companies. It is so easy for them to fix everything and get customers. I took me about 1 minute of brainstorming to figure out how BB could get back into the market and be relevant. A minute.
These mother fuckers have years and they can't figure it out.
The idea out of my ass was, make a cheaper version of the blackphone using a modified version of android and a custom UI.
BOOM. BB would KILL with that.
But will they do it? Nope. Because they're too busy getting blow jobs from call girls to actually do their jobs apparently.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
What would you have Google do, and why would they do it?
They used an open standard and campaigned for their peers to do the same. Their peers declined. What else would you have them do?
Define 'Application'. Technically the blackberry operating system is an application - so based upon his own statement, blackberry OS should be made to run on any other operating system. In the annals of dumb-assedness, this is one for the record books!
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
When you're in deep trouble, you decide that it's the government's absolute duty to use the law keep you in business.
All that "free market" talk is for the suckers. What capitalists want is government guaranteed profit; i.e. they want the same free ride that Wall Street gets.
Why is Snark Required?
Uh, the 2 ideas are different completely. I agree with net neutrality, but not app neutrality. Its about competition and innovation. They are out of there minds. Pretty much everyone pays for internet already, if they slow it down then that hurts everyone and adds complexity. If you force apps to be on a platform (all), then that slows down everything, increases cost and adds complexity.
Blackberry should throw all its weight behind supporting the Xamarin platform in particular, and mono in general. Want that app for your platform too? Well send the developer in question an easy solution to do that, in the form of Xamarin with the necessary libraries you might need to port, and you will find that developer rather excited to become more platform-agnostic.
I use Xamarin and I find it very user-friendly and cutting-edge. In the process I've been picking up C# and I'm quite happy with the improvements relative to C++ and Java that are included. And this is no less than a miracle, because I have been very very anti-Microsoft in general, and anti-Miguel de Icaza in particular, for over a decade.
Back then I felt those guys were trying to co-opt or destroy the FOSS movement, and I think they were definitely trying to do so, but they got their asses handed to them. Now, having quietly capitulated, the Xamarin guys are just focusing, it seems to me, on making good competitive products on a relatively open platform. That's fine for my corporate needs.
Hold on, the idiot missed the mark, but he does have a point. Vendor Lock-In is bad. As a user I would like the ability to have documented data formats such that I can export my data and use it elsewhere, or for interoperability (some copyright laws do/did allow for limited exceptions of cracking).
Now, the thing is: Blackberry should be able to run the iMessage binary just fine so long as its interfaces to the OS are documented. One can emulate one set of machine instructions on another via VM. I'm sure Apple would put DRM into iMessage to prevent it from running on non-apple hardware, just like they do their OS. That's copyright law that needs to change.
Fundamentally we have a problem in that we write code and compile it down to specific architectures. This is dumb for the same reason that writing code in ASM is dumb. We're writing code in hardware agnostic languages, we should be distributing them as compiled cross platform bytecode that will be compiled and linked into machine code on install. Then all applications could be cross platform as long as the APIs a program uses are public-domain (IE, Oracle looses on the APIs being copyrightable -- they lost then won on appeal, FUCK). The problem with startup times of programs running on VM languages (like Java) could be eliminated, and no more performance retarding "generic" binaries need be built since the OS would compile the code and take advantage of the features of that specific hardware -- An unchanged program could get faster by re-installing it with a better OS compiler version.
The foolish CEO does have a point, it's 2015 we should be able to run apps everywhere we want without vendor lockin. He's tilting at the wrong windmill, and using the wrong weapon to fight it, but the underlying motivation and message is valid: We need to do SOMETHING about vendor lock in.
That said, I think TFA is just further proof that "Net Neutrality" is no longer about what it set out to be. Now "Network Neutrality" is just a buzzword for whatever legislation the powers that be want to create. Seriously. Have you seen all the "lawful content" mentions in the proposed net neutrality legislation? Implying that "unlawful content" will be censored? You do know that "unlawful" does not mean "illegal" -- It means "not explicitly legalized". So, the FCC's current Net Neutrality legislation lays the groundwork to censor any custom data protocols or data transfer methodologies not explicitly recognized by the "Network Neutrality" legislation (like decentralized P2P, AKA bit torrent). Of course the average slashdotter is a moron and is simply all-in on things like Net Neutrality, no matter how fucked they've changed it into being, simply because the initial intent was good. Protip: The the world wide web would not have been possible if Net Neutrality was passed because HTTP would have been "unlawful"... but most of you idiots will just eat this "Net Neutrality" shit up because you've been told it's good for you, and you're too dumb to understand the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful".
The hoped advantage of XMPP was interoperability. If you have no "friends" using XMPP, the primary reason to use it doesn't exist. Then you're left with just the problems that XMPP brings.
"I don't *need* to have friends to enjoy the drag races. "
But you DO *need* friends in order to have interoperable communications. See the difference? If you called your friends to talk about going to the races and they didn't answer the phone, which you sit there for three years holding the phone to your ear? No, because in order to have a phone conversation, the other party has to participate. In order to have an XMPP conversation, the other network has to participate.
Tell you what, go try building something like Hangouts, but use XMPP. You'll discover why that doesn't work so well.
"Desperation is a stinky cologne John..."
You know you're failing when you're begging legislators to force developers to make content for your platform because you can't give them a legitimate reason to want to.
I think this guy has a point about the app neutrality: http://www.itbusinessedge.com/...
Chen is out of his mind... the iMessage example was pretty much mandating his competitor help him succeed....
On the other hand.... making an app available on which platform is entirely a developer's choice... If he makes a game for iPhone and not for BlackBerry... what are you gonna do to him? Sue?
"Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them." In what way have they done this, Mr. Chen? What is it you want them to do?
Can I not download the Netflix Android app on a BlackBerry device with the Android app compatibility? Is there some issue with the DRM that prevents the app from working?
Is there something in the Netflix app license terms that prevents BlackBerry customers from using the app? Is that different in some way than tying / tied-selling, which is restricted by law in many places?
Do you want Netflix to make a native port of their app for the BlackBerry OS? Do you figure that the increase in subscriptions will make it worth Netflix's while to do this port? If not, do you want to pay the cost of it, or do you want Netflix to bear it? Netflix (the company) is 14 years old. In 2001, when RIM was 14 years old, if it was busy on a compulsory project to port BBM to every mobile platform that wanted it, would that be better or worse?
Where does it stop? If I bring out a new device tomorrow and sell three devices do all Android and Apple programmers now have to certify that their code works on my device? That argument does not hold up. If I create a new device, I can make a compatibility layer for Android or IOS, but that's my responsibility.