Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

BlackBerry CEO Says U.S. Government Should Force Apple to Expand iMessage to Other Platforms

fallenjt said:
This can tell that you don't know anything about iMessage. It's an automated process that with iMessage enabled, your idevice will detect and automatically switch to iMessage (blue bubbles) for iDevices instead of carrier SMS (green bubbles). So, tell me why on earth one needs to disable iMessage since it's secured, seamless, and free.
Click to expand...

If it seamlessly switches to SMS, why should I care about iMessage support in the first place?
 
vladi said:
]First of all BBM did exist outside of BBOS. I used BIS and BBM on Sony Ericsson UIQ OS back in 2008.[/B] So now that we got that out of the way this is actually a serious issue here.
Click to expand...

No you're wrong; that is partial truth.

BES existed on UIQ and on S60 for 2 devices each Nokia Communicator (2nd gen and on the 9300i), and on SonyEricsson (SE) p900 and P990i (not an official support from BlackBerry).

=
This allowed you to SEND/RECEIVE Emails, Sync CONTACTS/CALENDAR/NOTES/TASKS.

This allowed you on the 2nd iteration:
RECEIVE PIN messages ... NOT BBM Chats.
you could NOT SEND PIN messages.

BBM NEVER EVER EXISTED on ANY OTHER PLATFORM!
- and with blackberry.com/btsc public tech docs I can PROVE you wrong!

Their relevant ONLY in Security, Mobile Networking, and in IoT (in it's infantile stage).

I love BlackBerry BES and what they provided for me as an income structure in the past ... but I make NO EXCUSES ANY LONGER for BlackBerry! (check my previous posts across the boards fighting the wrong fight)

Mic dropped ... kicked ... walked off stage!
 
"Netflix is discriminating against Blackberry" xDDDDDDDDDDDDDD oh my god there is no way he just said that.
 
Supa_Fly said:
No you're wrong; that is partial truth.

BES existed on UIQ and on S60 for 2 devices each Nokia Communicator (2nd gen and on the 9300i), and on SonyEricsson (SE) p900 and P990i (not an official support from BlackBerry).

=
This allowed you to SEND/RECEIVE Emails, Sync CONTACTS/CALENDAR/NOTES/TASKS.

This allowed you on the 2nd iteration:
RECEIVE PIN messages ... NOT BBM Chats.
you could NOT SEND PIN messages.

BBM NEVER EVER EXISTED on ANY OTHER PLATFORM!
- and with blackberry.com/btsc public tech docs I can PROVE you wrong!

Their relevant ONLY in Security, Mobile Networking, and in IoT (in it's infantile stage).

I love BlackBerry BES and what they provided for me as an income structure in the past ... but I make NO EXCUSES ANY LONGER for BlackBerry! (check my previous posts across the boards fighting the wrong fight)

Mic dropped ... kicked ... walked off stage!
Click to expand...

Im sure I used it on my SE G900. Im holding it in my hand right now.
 
Drexus said:
As a Canadian living near the BB buildings, I would like to remind everyone that BB does not represent the composite intellectual might of Canadians. We do not endorse the comments of BB, and do not subscribe to the "speak first learn later" PR methodology.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

And also bear in mind the CEO is not Canadian. He was born in Hong Kong and educated and worked in the United States (presumably an American citizen.)
 
SolarShane said:
Which makes no sense whatsoever. Oh, it does if your a fanboy.
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. It's the only way they can get people to use BBM, which is important to whatever Blackberry users remain who are still using BBM so they can communicate with others.

----------
MacRumors said:
In Chen's view, all apps and content should be available on all platforms
Click to expand...

Something he'd want because nobody makes software for his platform. He sounds like a classic sore loser. I can't believe the CEO is saying these things.
 
Yvan256 said:
But Steve Jobs himself said that Apple was going to open-source Facetime:

"We're going to the standards bodies, starting tomorrow, and we're going to make FaceTime an open industry standard."

... but it never happened.
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, Apple got sued for technology in FaceTime which killed those plans at least for now.
 
Blackberry is for protocol neutrality because Blackberry currently has nothing anyone wants to use so they NEED to integrate competitor's successful products. Why should Apple or anyone reveal what they do (e.g. open the protocol) since they spent money developing it?
 
Windlasher said:
They don't need to. Its all NFC. The only difference is the backend processing. Why the heck would Apple open their back end to Android which is chockablock with malware and trojans?

Edit: and ANYONE can buy an Apple Watch, iPhone or not. YOU just done get ALL of the features.
Click to expand...

Well you just contradicted yourself. The NFC chip in your iphone 6 means NOTHING without apple pay. You need to use Apple Pay in order to use the nfc chip.

And you just proved that you need to have an iphone in order to take advantage of all features in the apple watch. You essentially need to buy 2 different products just so one of them can fully function. Fail.

----------
milo said:
If it seamlessly switches to SMS, why should I care about iMessage support in the first place?
Click to expand...

All the people who switched from ios to android and didn't disable iMessage were not getting text messages from their friends with iphones because apple servers still thinks that your phone is connected to iMessage when it is actually not.

The way apple does iMessage is stupid. There was a class action lawsuit with iMessage.
 
Old valley rule: Technology old dogs go to Washington to stay alive.

My guess is this came about after Apple told RIM to shove off since they don't offer anything to the Apple ecosystem.

IBM was full of more lobbyists than engineers before the stock market saw Emperor Watson wasn't wearing any clothes.
 
AlecZ said:
They did it because nobody uses it, and they're an irrelevant company.
Click to expand...

While everyone was hyping the iPhone vs Android wars, both came out as prizefights with thick purses at the end of the night.

The real roadkill were those that never made it to the final rounds. RIM and Palm were nearly devastated when both next generation mobile device platforms (iOS and Android) came out. Palm only exists as a marketing brand and RIM is legacy enterprise that's phasing out as every customer contract expires.

Then there is Windows Mobile. That is another thread.
 
This makes no sense. All platforms? Every linux distro? The number of platforms available are increasing by the day.
 
granted i get the irony of BB asking that Apple open up imessage after how they handled BBM but they might be right.

BB's missteps with BBM should be a warning to Apple that having a closed messaging system might not be the best thing.

there could be benefits for apple...opening imessage could potentially bring iOS more customers. much like what itunes did for the mac. Also it slow down the adoption and growth of other messaging apps.

if apple wanted to turn the messaging business on it's head it would release a whatsapp-like messaging client, compatible with imessage, to all the other platforms.

by the time bbm didn't it, it was too little too late.

I believe that messaging should be an open platform much like email. I like the idea of not having to worry about what platform i'm using to talk to people.
 
mkldev said:
Bad comparison. iMessage isn't anything like a drive shaft. A drive shaft serves a purpose in a particular vehicle, but there's no real advantage (other than replacement parts cost) to two cars having the same drive shaft. Cars don't couple to one another so that the drive shaft on one car drives both of them.

By contrast, iMessage does nothing in isolation. What makes it useful is its ability to take content that the user creates (text messages) and exchange those messages with other pieces of software running on other people's devices. Thus, mandating that the iMessage protocol be an open standard is much closer to mandating a common charging standard for electric vehicles (which the government has done).

Additionally, users of a drive shaft aren't locking their creative works into the sole custody of a drive shaft. With iMessage and FaceTime, users are creating a copyrighted work (yes, text messages and video chat sessions are protected by copyright) and using those technologies to send that work to another person. With closed standards, a single company has the ability to dictate what users can and can't do with content that they created. That's morally and ethically wrong.

IMO, all protocols and file formats should be open standards, by law, including iMessage, FaceTime, etc. I've spent way more time than I'd like reverse-engineering closed file formats so that I can extract my own creative works from the grips of companies that have dropped support for products and/or gone out of business. I really want to live in a world where nobody else ever has to go through that in the future.
Click to expand...


Okay, sure. It's still Apple's proprietary technology. They don't need to share it no matter how grumpy it makes you. Maybe if BB wanted to license thus tech from Apple I coukd understand. But otherwise, no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back