BlackBerry 10 Review: Good, But Too Late? 184
An anonymous reader writes "Ars has an extensive review of the newly-released BlackBerry 10 operating system. Since it's such a late entry into the market, the tech community has been eyeballing the new operating system with trepidation — would all that time go to waste with a poor offering, or would BlackBerry 10 be a reasonable alternative to iOS and Android? Well, it seems BlackBerry (the company formerly known as RIM) actually put the time to good use. The review finds most of the UI innovations to actually be.. innovative. "BlackBerry took a lot of time to see what the competition is doing, and then it worked to refine its operating system. It essentially had an excellent cheat sheet, filled with everything that has worked wonderfully and all the things that have bombed. That said, BlackBerry still has to mold its product for its two huge core audiences: the business-oriented multi-tasker and the developing smartphone markets. To that end, it has included all of the essential features and apps to appeal to both of those parties. The corporate user has his or her share of content to watch on the train ride to work, games and apps to help keep busy when not entrenched in a meeting, and the perfect Hub for messaging (not to mention the literal split between work and personal environments)." However, the review also notes that the system is not really designed to make people drop their Android or iOS devices, so uptake is going to be slow at best. The question for the platform's success (and the company's) is no longer 'Is it any good? but 'Is it too late?'"
There's also a review of the z10 smartphone itself.
Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:4, Interesting)
BB appears to think is is an OS company. It even seems to be describing a backup plan that involves selling BB10 into embedded markets.
Surely, this is a mistake. They have/had great smartphone features, particularly around messaging, and they have server software running in most corporations around the world. But they have let these advantages slip away as they pursued the perfect OS.
Instead, they could have done as Amazon did, and skin Android to their liking. This would have got them to market at least a year sooner with a product that could easily still have been uniquely BB on the surface - and the surface is the only thing the smartphone user sees.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:4, Informative)
After all, nothing beats a monopoly!
Re:It's Never Too Late - for the Future (Score:5, Insightful)
I recall the exact same BS coming from Linux zealots a 10 years ago - buy a Zaurus it runs Linux!!! Yes it did and the device was still an expensive, battery sucking, heap of shit compared to a Palm or even a Windows Mobile devices of the same vintage. Palm devices especially were popular not for the prowess of the kernel but because they actually did what they were built for.
Re: (Score:2)
QNX offers a RTOS. Linux, WinNT kernel and Xenu are all fundamentally server kernels. For smartphones, and for that matter desktop/laptop the extra responsiveness are likely worth lower throughput. It is an edge. I don't know if it is a huge edge but the functionality isn't quite analogous.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The issue isn't performance it is responsiveness. And kernels aren't irrelevant to end users. If you are on windows try loading Enterprise Server if on linux take your desktop kernel and tune the config file setting it like you would configure the prioritizer as if were a database server with several thousand clients. You'll see the difference rather instantly.
Most of the cool things in BB10 have nothing to do with QNX. But QNX is a rather unique advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant XNU, which is more properly referred to as Darwin. It's definitely not "Xenu". That's the big bad guy in Scientology
LOL. I did, and I think you are right about what I mixed up :) That's funny.
Whether it's an RTOS is essentially irrelevant. RTOSes are about providing guaranteed scheduling or IO response latency. A hard RTOS can provide an absolute, will-never-exceed delay, a soft RTOS will do it most of the time with rare exceptions. Either kind usually requires a fair degree of design
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, your sarcastic statement may be more true than you suspect.
Merely skinning another phone company's Android wouldn't do much for Blackberry, or any other phone company. But, if all the stupid shit that has been added on by the phone companies were dropped, and Android were recompiled and built FOR SECURITY - then it just might have been a better Blackberry OS.
You will note, please, that I'm not stating that as a certainty. I'm merely pointing out that Android has been mismanaged by almost everyone, for their own profit. Linux is always a good starting point for a good operating system. But, any idiot with root can destroy the best of operating systems.
Re: (Score:2)
You joke, but why not? It's open, it's popular, a large part of the world's population already knows how to use it... Promise frequent updates and add BBM and all that other crap, and not only will the loyal Blackberry customers use it, but also Android users looking for decent hardware (like the Q10 with that luscious hardware keyboard)...
Re: (Score:2)
Android may not be the only mobile OS or the best mobile OS, but it's the only FREE mobile OS. And one which now has a huge app store. If you think any CE company would want to pay for their OS over a free one with great app support, you have probably already hit yourself too many times.
For chrissakes, Windows phone outsold Blackberry last quarter. Unless that's what you are talking about in terms of other mobile solutions, your sarcasm is badly misplaced...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It offered sarcasm. That's a response, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The "things that made blackberry what they are" are frankly obsolete.
The BES->Blackberry network->Carrier->Device scheme which was the foundation of what RIM built their empire on is now functionally, completely obsolete.
It worked wonderfully when cell phones were dumb with tiny cpus, low res BW screens, little-to-no memory and very little bandwith. Their network and carrier relationships were a backbone and glue that made everything work well.
Now everyone has a smartphone with more processing powe
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:4, Insightful)
There is this company called Amazon - I guess you haven't heard of them...
"If it was so easy to rework Android the way you suggest company's would be doing it."
Built their own app store, notification system, browser, payment services, user interface, all on top of Android. You should check it out.
" BlackBerry is positioning themselves for the future....not for the now. "
Yeah, unfortunately, companies that don't worry about the 'now' end up not having much of a future. While you are learning about Amazon, you might want to check BB's stock price...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> There is this company called Amazon - I guess you haven't heard of them...
Oh, you mean that company lost $274 million in Q3, had earnings collapse by 45% in Q4, and is anticipating a big loss in Q1 2013? Not sure that is a model to follow.
Amazon sold lots of Kindles because of the low price that's it. They're bleeding money on that venture hoping to make it up in content sales. That doesn't work for Blackberry.
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:5, Informative)
While you are learning about Amazon, you might want to check BB's stock price...
BBRY [yahoo.com] up 100% in 6 months. I think I missed your point?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe he meant how it's down almost 90% from 5 years ago [yahoo.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I see your cherry picked chart and raise you a much more relevant one [yahoo.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Peak of the market? Bull (no pun intended). Look it up, don't make up "facts". Peak of RIMM's stock value, maybe, but that was the POINT OF THE DISCUSSION. Peak of the NASDAQ was in 2000, and the CURRENT market is the highest it's been since then. Their performance more than 5 years ago is irrelevant, and 5 years is as good a window as any since it was about the time the iPhone came out and RIMM started to tank.
Besides, this was all stemming from a comparison of RIMM and Amazon. Here's an even more re [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"You don't deserve a response with substance. To be honest you don't even deserve this retort..."
You have made yourself clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and if were a 'devices' company they would have to charge more, perhaps work with carriers etc., but the part about skinning Android - and putting their effort into that skin, and into getting to market fast - could have been the same.
Amazon has their own appstore, their own push notification service, their own browser, their own payment service, etc. For most of the stuff that matters they made it their own.
Would it have made sense for them to spend an extra year on the stuff their customers will never see?
And in the end, this much touted QNX, which cost RIM so much, doesn't actually sound so great. For example, the battery life is apparently terrible. If I'm not careful to keep my Playbook charged then it is toast (this has happened to several friends). I'm not saying QNX is bad, but it wasn't worth the delay.
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:5, Interesting)
What you're describing is a chicken and an egg problem.
"They have/had great smartphone features, particularly around messaging, and they have server software running in most corporations around the world." -- They had to build an OS from the ground up BECAUSE they value these things. Android is great for what it does, but security is not one of it's strong points. Blackberry's name is built on security for those messages.
You can't just throw that out and still have a Blackberry. If they were shooting for another consumer reskin, then they could have waded into the bloody waters of the Android market and sold themselves to the highest bidder. Instead they took the hard road, bought a rock solid kernel and built a new OS from the ground up with messaging, security and the future in mind.
iOS and Android are great, but they're starting to get long in the tooth. They ride the cutting edge, but eventually that will show it's age. Blackberry started over the beginning to build an OS for the next 10 years. If they can launch Mobile Computing, it's a bright future.
That, however, is a BIG if.
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:5, Insightful)
The biggest security issues with Android are
#1. manufacturers who don't provide updates (there was a good article from the ACLU in the last few days).
#2. it is simply not a priority for most of its users and the manufacturers, so not much emphasis is put into it.
#3. the open appstore - in my opinion much less of an issue then #1, and #2.
RIM could easily resolve all of these issues. #3 is the hardest because it means creating their own appstore, but that's what we are talking about anyway.
Getting QNX ready took 2 years. How long would it take RIM to create a distribution of Android that addressed these issues.
One reason I'm bummed about the route RIM took is because I would have loved to have seen what RIM could do with Android. Now, instead, we are questioning whether they even have a future.
Finally, you are talking about QNX as some kind'of salvation. I"m hearing a lot of that these days, but when I read the reviews of BB10 I see nothing to suggest that QNX itself will save RIM. The good stuff is the Hub and Blackberry Balance - both of these have nothing to do with QNX. Yeah, it's nice and slick and responsive, but iOS and Android (as of 4.1) are now too.
The only thing I see in the reviews that is really about the core OS is the complaints that the battery life is horrible.
Re: (Score:3)
There, FTFY:
The biggest security issues with Android are:
#1. manufacturers who don't provide updates, and are insane enough to think that if they frustrate customers into buying a new phone before their 2-year contract is up, the new phone they buy WON'T be from just about any manufacturer EXCEPT them.
#2. Locked bootloaders that cause #1 to be a problem that end users can't politely laugh at and do an end-run around anyway.
#3. Non-opensource loadable kernel modules that get broken by every new version of An
Android has far bigger issues (Score:2)
Your list are things that are kind of issues, but I see three bigger ones:
1) User aspect of the security model is not good. By asking for all permissions upfront, you are really just begging for everyone to not pay attention to any of them. There is no context around what you are agreeing to.
2) Many, many Android devices are rooted and it's very easy to root systems, which weakens the internal security model. Add to taht that most technical users (read: company workers) will also allow app installation f
Re: (Score:2)
iOS and Android are great, but they're starting to get long in the tooth. They ride the cutting edge, but eventually that will show it's age. Blackberry started over the beginning to build an OS for the next 10 years.
Huh? Android, their version spread issues not withstanding, has had continued innovation. With everything from "under the hood" improvements to UI updates. iOS has been doing the same but with more an eye on keeping their experience very unified and the learning curve when they do update things low.
Windows Mobile was in dire need of an update and it remains to be seen if they can leverage Win8 along with their new tablets to take some of the market away from iOS and Android. And then in dead last is BB1
So tell me about all the Nook vulnerabilities. (Score:5, Informative)
At the core, QNX and Android are based on kernels providing POSIX services. The kernel system calls/API do not translate into a strong phone or a weak phone.
The userland is wildly different between these devices. Android relies on the Dalvik JVM to translate a synthetic bytecode, while the QNX phone focus is Javascript among others.
In theory, either kernel could be used to run either userland. For the QNX phone, this is also practice, as it runs Android apps.
Android runs on Linux. Do we argue that Linux is inherently insecure?
There are lots of other kernels that provide POSIX. Building a phone out of the SCO Openserver kernel would not in itself make an insecure phone. Flaws in phone security flow from userland design, not the kernel.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By default, large enterprise-level organizations end up not setting up their own encryption key on BBMs, because if they did, their messages couldn't be read outside of their organization. Unfortunately, their BES system is not smart enough to specially encrypt only some messages, and not encrypt others.
Actually, BBM messages are not sent via the BES, BBM is independent and works without a BES.
Further, did you ever read RIM's documentation about BBM? BBM is encrypted with 3des, and 3des is easily brute-forc
Re: (Score:2)
-1 troll. I guess I deserved that. I didn't cite any of my sources.
By comparison, BES email is encrypted by default wit AES. Good luck brute-forcing that.
If you're the US government, you can just ask for the key. You wouldn't need to brute-force anything.
"If you’re a BES user, your IT department has the option of encrypting the body — not the the PIN — of your PIN-to-PIN BBM messages with a key unique to the company. By default, however, BBM messages are not encrypted because it restricts PIN-to-PIN BBM communication to only employees of the company, instead, they are scramb
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an Anglo residing in one of those countries. Should I be concerned about BigBrother-over-BlackBerry? O
Re: (Score:2)
And it's no wonder that several European countries believe that RIM (now Blackberry) is just a front for the US/UK/Canadian/Australian Echelon program.
You lost me at this point. Tinfoil hat and stating that RIM is now Blackberry(RIM makes Blackberry phones, that's like saying Apple is now Mac/iPhone).
RIM announced their name change to Blackberry during the official launch. [rim.com]
If you had a greater understanding of this subject, you would not have made such an egregious insinuation.
Just because you use slightly fancier words doesn't mean you actually know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
stating that RIM is now Blackberry(RIM makes Blackberry phones, that's like saying Apple is now Mac/iPhone).
Please see sentence 3 of TFA: Well, it seems BlackBerry (the company formerly known as RIM). Heck it was all over the news [wsj.com] in nearly all tech forums...
If you had a greater understanding of this subject, you would not have made such an egregious insinuation.
Good advice. You should heed it yourself...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
QNX is far better than Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Regarding the 'too late' part of the equation (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
GP was very harsh, but he has a point.
I'm also a former OS/2 user, and I lost big money (and time) with IBM while they're playing Plug, I mean, Pin the Tail with Microsoft. On the aftermath, the tail being plugged was mine. :-(
QNX is already rock solid for decades, but I still using Linux (even by paying for support) to adopt QNX on any mission critical of mine. It's cheaper to patch a flaw now and then than to replace all my infra, as it happened with OS/2.
(Man, that was a nightmare!)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No keyboard no way. Without the keyboard they got nothing I can't get from other sources cheaper.
You are wrong (Score:3)
No keyboard no way. Without the keyboard they got nothing I can't get from other sources cheaper.
They keyboard is if anything BB10's strongest point. Yes it is virtual but they really, really thought through how to make it as usable as the old-school Blackberry keyboard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, they could have done as Amazon did, and skin Android to their liking.
skinning android puts them in competition with sony, samsung, amazon, asus, acer, HTC, and every other android device maker out there. that means they are now competing on price / latest whiz-bang feature only, a market in which they have absolutely no chance.
every mobile device manufacturer wants to be apple. apple doesn't compete on price or even features. they compete on advertising. they charge more and offer less. this is where blackberry wants to be. honestly, it's the best shot they have. try to be t
Re: (Score:2)
Wasn't that what Nokia said? They threw away two years waiting on WP, and then found out that they're *still* competing with Sony, Samsung, Amazon, Asus, Acer, HTC and all the rest.
QNX is better (Score:2)
Android's just another layer on that layer cake called Linux.
Where as QNX is a fair dinkum realtime OS & the favourite OS of nuclear reactors & machines that go beep in hospitals
Re: (Score:2)
YES, this. If the Q10 ran Android, I'd be buying it in a heartbeat. Sufficiently high-res screen, good keyboard, pocket-friendly form factor... Here's to hoping for CyanogenMod on the Q10.
But nooooooo, they had to leave us stuck with touchscreen-only devices (because the only usable Android devices right now are the Nexus line)...
Re: (Score:3)
BB appears to think is is an OS company. It even seems to be describing a backup plan that involves selling BB10 into embedded markets.
They bought QNX, which still sells embedded software [qnx.com]. And does a fine job of it, if you ask me, it's a nice system.
BB IS (in part) an OS company... (Score:2)
because it bought an existing OS business (QNX). That they decided to use QNX for phones does not nullify that other existing revenue stream, or any decision to double down on it for telematics etc.
Re: (Score:2)
With all your mail marked as unread. Yep I can do that too. State does not get picked up by Blackberry email client so no way to tell if a message was already read or responded. Sure it supports IMAP but as I said terribly.
Good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, can the Z10 run arbitrary software, written by anyone, and obtained by downloading a file directly from somebody's website, without having to get permission from anybody besides the owner of the phone? If not, it's going to flop even harder than Windows Phone. If RIM imposes even the slightest barrier to entry (especially one that costs money or requires RIM/carrier approval), developers won't bother with it. If it's good AND as open to uncensored apps as Android, it just might make things interesting.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
can the Z10 run arbitrary software, written by anyone, and obtained by downloading a file directly from somebody's website, without having to get permission from anybody besides the owner of the phone?
Yes. Of course you could always do that with your BlackBerry unless it was connected to BES with a policy set against such a thing. With BB Balance in BES 10 that is no longer a problem since you can install your rogue app on your personal space.
Re: (Score:2)
BB has two modes.
Home mode which is open. Inside the home mode the end user can download what they want.
Work mode which is secure. Inside the work mode the end user is restricted. Data cannot be copied from inside workmode apps to home mode apps.
Too Late? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know people who have literally hundreds of dollars worth of apps on their phones/tablets, I can't imagine them wanting to jump
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Around the time Vista was released there was a lot of interest in Linux for the desktop. It ran faster, with a custom theme it even felt more familiar. It was a whole lot cheaper. But it mostly fizzled out because of platform specific software. Platform specific software certainly can prevent people from changing platforms.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but the sort of programmes you need on a desktop are often more unique and/or business critical than anything on a phone. If you can't get Quickbooks or AutoCAD on your new desktop and they're things that you need, the new desktop isn't fit for purpose. If you're a gamer and none of the AAA new games will run on your new gaming rig, then the gaming rig isn't fit for purpose.
Apps on my phone which I've paid for are mostly either utilities (file managers, unzip tools, etc.), cheap and/or indy g
Re: (Score:2)
Also, Linux has huge quality and documentation issues. I tried out Ubuntu on 3 very vanilla PCs around Vista time, one never got past grub2; one wouldn't play video nicely (yes, I tried the proprietary drivers too); and on the one that made it thorough the install and drivers, I never could figure out Upstart nor RDP remoting (VNC is slooooow and ugly) nor tweak my dual screen layout the way I want it (menu bar on the right of the rightmost screen; different resolutions).
Chrome OS and Android are succeeding
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody should make a vertical business eg hardware, software, app around Linux. It worked for Apple. It works for consoles. Why not for Linux? Seems like all the hardware out there is "not quite right" and certainly there's nothing built specifically to run it. There are systems with it pre installed and pseudo verified to run properly from big makers but that's not the same as built to run Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Android ? Chrome OS ?
Re: (Score:2)
Those friends of yours are in the minority. No one I know has more than 1 or 2 paid apps installed on their Android or iOS phones. Get the software and people will switch. I don't believe that the casual user has the least bit of brand loyalty to their mobile phone maker.
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience, smartphone users fall into roughly two categories. 1) There are people like me who haven't spent $100's on apps, and so wouldn't mind moving (I've got maybe $20 of apps that I use regularly; no great hardship). 2) There are people who spend money like there's no tomorrow, have $100's of apps, but also wouldn't think twice about spending it again. People who just pay for everything, because they must have the shiniest and newest things; these people will happily spend the money again, if th
Re: (Score:2)
Even for iOS users hundreds of dollars in apps is very very rare. iOS users spend 25-70x as much on apps per user as Android users. Moreover BB10 offers an Android emulator.
BES? (Score:4, Insightful)
Does it still need a BES server to interact with the corporate environment? Is it still a mess of expensive licensing and support? The first person who walks into my office to show me their shiny new BB10 and wants to get his company e-mail on it is going to be sorely disappointed when he finds out that he just blew $300 and a two year contract on a phone that won't work with our network because there isn't a chance in Hell that I'm spinning up another BES. Not now, not ever again. It was Good Riddance when I finally kicked that crap to the curb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't decide if that sounds slightly better or tremendously worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it still need a BES server to interact with the corporate environment?
Newsflash: Any device using ActiveSync still needs 3rd party software to properly lock it down. AS is a joke. It is sad that Microsoft, Apple and Google are throwing these devices out there for the public to use without any means of managing them in a corporate environment. So now instead of using BES you have to go to Zenprise, Good, Dell KACE, etc. to properly manage ActiveSync profiles and protect company data.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if you're not a total moron, you'll just run BlackBerry Mobile Fusion which can manage other platforms in addition to BlackBerry.
Good, Zenprise, etc. aren't even in the same league as BlackBerry when it comes to MDM. It's pitiful, really.
Cue the "Well, I don't need all those great features, so Good is good enough for my tiny needs. I don't like BB so it's okay to go with a half-baked solution!"
Yes. I didn't mention the new BES 10 that incorporates the traditional BES and Mobile Fusion in one software package. I was taking issue with the whole "BB needs a management server" bull shit. The reality is that you need a management server regardless of whatever platform you run.
Complex and difficult for you? (Score:2)
It was Good Riddance when I finally kicked that crap to the curb.
I don't doubt that a system with the number of security/maintenance/update options as BES is a challenge to get your head around, and that is has some very strange quirks indeed, but I worry that you are more concerned about how easy your life is than about the security of your company's data.
BES is difficult/complex in order to enable the granularity of its offerings so that the company has secure content and up-to-date apps, and that this is virtually invisible to the many phone users. Undoubtedly it co
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say it was complex and difficult for me. I said the software licensing and support were an expensive mess. I don't know where you got any of what you're accusing me of.
I think BES is the key obstacle to adoption here . (Score:2)
Although I guess they're technically doing away with the traditional BES for BB10 devices, they still have some type of server product you have to install that serves a similar function. This is both a key to the power of BB10 and a real roadblock to adoption -- especially if the software is going to cost money!
The BB users don't really see or care much about the server side of things, but corporate I.T. sure does. Traditionally, small businesses were in for a pretty serious expense if they wanted to add B
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the dual profile feature sounds really nice. I wish more phones did that. It'll be interesting to see how well that works out and what kind of security holes will appear.
Good but 'Good Luck' When 6 years late (Score:3)
Any company that lets a 'new guy on the block' run with your ball for 6 years before you challenge him has been smoking way to much weed.
No buttons! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They better (Score:5, Funny)
Privacy, Finally! (Score:2)
I don't care if it doesn't have hundreds of thousands of apps. From what I've read, BlackBerry 10 appears to be the answer to the horrific privacy problems known as iOS and Android. User-selectable application permissions so I can put a leash on those apps that want more of my data than they should. File encryption so a lost/stolen phone is a little less risky. Built-in CalDAV and CardDAV so I can sync my calendar and contacts with the server of my choice instead of handing all that information to Google. Y
Re: (Score:2)
The build-in CalDAV and CardDAV are broken. It is Google pushing those standards - RIM and MS are pushing back. Hopefully RIM fixes their support.
User-selectable permissions sounds great. I didn't realize it had that.
Re: (Score:2)
Which Droid phones would those be? A Motorola Droid? An HTC Droid? No need to answer; that's a rhetorical question. None of the Android phones I've used support full encryption. BlackBerry 10 has it built-in, so all the phones that run it will most likely have it. That is a distinct advantage over Android.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's part of the problem, but it's hard to tell how few people are interested in it when they're forced to choose between a product that offers security/privacy and a product that they find convenient/useful. It looks like BlackBerry is attempting to deliver both, or at least come closer than I've seen in the smart phone market so far. If they're even moderately successful, consumers will benefit.
"Too late"? Who knows? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still looking for Answers (Score:2)
I'm looking at the new Blackberrys to replace my Google phone not because I want or need BIS, but because I find the Nexus just
Re: (Score:2)
In terms of regular settings... BlackBerry provides OS updates for their own phones. This is totally unlike Android and more like Apple. BlackBerry has a good reputation but they can do whatever they want.
As far as configuration and what you can turn off... I'm not sure what you mean at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm tired of the Blackberry death watch (Score:2)
They've got their critics and the best thing anyone can say is their revenue looks to be trending downward. Call me when they've declared bankruptcy. They have a neat looking phone on the market and all I hear about it is "well they can't possibly compete with Apple or Androids."
Re: (Score:2)
It may be a mix of iOS and Android. It may be very late. But how is it the wrong product? What else could they have done? What should it have been?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it like iOS and Android?
let me turn that around. how isn't it like android? if you showed me those screenshots and said BB had skinned android, i wouldn't have argued.
really, i'm curious what you are thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
If you showed me iOS and said it was an Android skin, it would be plausible. If you showed me Windows Phone 8 and told me it was an Android skin, it would be plausible (you swipe to get between two views? shocker!). On the surface, all touchscreen OSs work in a pretty similar way. Unless you care about kernels and SDKs, the rest is just rearranging the furniture.
BB10 has a few distinguishing features that I can tell. The sandboxing thing sounds like a very novel feature. The security is still promised to be
Re: (Score:2)
No, I consider that a full-blown bug, even at best.
If the device is simply not telling you what it knows about the battery charge, then you'll leave it on your outlet too long and raise your energy bill. That's a minor bug, but still a bug and one conquered long ago on other devices (where their current worry is which sleek patented brittle
Re: (Score:3)
The playbook was released as an unfinished product, and they pretty much gave up trying to fix it.
It's getting BB10 though, which by the way is a whole new OS. I'm not sure your experiences are applicable to BB10, though they do show a disappointing disregard for customers. With RIM in such dire straits, I've got a mind to give them a pass on that one though. MS has done pretty much the same crap (my HD2 *couldn't* synch with Win7, and both were the current MS OSes at the time...), and MS never had any excu
Re: (Score:2)
My Playbook does VOIP and video calling. The app was free, too.
BBM is through a tethered connection to my phone, though my Playbook has an option for its own cellular data connection. I've no idea if that would make it BBM capable, I'm not going to pay for a second connection to find out when the Bluetooth link reaches throughout my home and my office.
You can load Android apps on it if you wish, though you do need a bit of knowledge or just some Google-Fu to find the instructions on how to do it.
Re: (Score:2)