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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
When will Blackberry stops discriminating against non-Blackberry users by releasing their mobile OS to other manufacturers?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reminds me of how NAMBLA used to try to slip into gay pride parades.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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?
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?