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.
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?
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.
become the CEO of Blackberry?
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.