Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Blackberry Businesses

BlackBerry Officially Open To Sale 139

Posted by samzenpus
from the so-long-farewell dept.
Nerval's Lobster writes "BlackBerry is considering whether to sell itself off to the highest bidder. The company's Board of Directors has announced the founding of a Special Committee to explore so-called 'strategic alternatives to enhance value and increase scale,' which apparently includes 'possible joint ventures, strategic partnerships or alliances, a sale of the Company or other possible transactions.' BlackBerry CEO Thorsten Heins added that, while the committee did its work, the company would continue to its recent overhead-reduction strategy. Prem Watsa, chairman and CEO of Fairfax Financial—BlackBerry's largest shareholder—announced that he would resign from the company's board in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest. News that BlackBerry is considering a potential sale should surprise nobody. Faced with fierce competition from Google and Apple, the company's market-share has tumbled over the past several quarters. In a desperate bid to regain its former prominence in the mobile-device industry, BlackBerry developed and released BlackBerry 10, a next-generation operating system meant to compete toe-to-toe against Google Android and Apple iOS—despite a massive ad campaign, however, early sales of BlackBerry 10 devices have proven somewhat underwhelming."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

BlackBerry Officially Open To Sale

Comments Filter:
  • by ducomputergeek (595742) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:28AM (#44541449)

    It was over for blackberry. Mr. CEO could now check his email on the exchange server, sync his calendars, and the rest without the purchase and maintenance of an extra (and rather expensive) Blackberry Enterprise Server. Once that happened, it was game over for Blackberry.

    Once Android licensed Exchange it was much the same way.

    • by dintech (998802) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:31AM (#44541487)
      It might still make sense for Microsoft to buy them given that they are so successful integrated with microsoft exchange and the brand is strong. In blue-chip companies, Blackberry is still king.
      • by alen (225700) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:38AM (#44541569)

        blue chip companies are in the process of rolling out iOS and android and dumping blackberry

        • by Anonymous Coward

          blue chip companies are in the process of rolling out iOS and android and dumping blackberry

          Which in some situations is a bad thing, given that Blackberrys (and BES) have pretty good security certifications:

          http://us.blackberry.com/business/topics/security/certifications.html

          Not important for regular folks, but if you're dealing with health data or financials, something that should be heavily considered IMHO.

      • by jbolden (176878)

        Not really. In some blue chips Blackberry is still in use. But they've lost huge share even in large enterprise and government.

      • by psergiu (67614)

        It might still make sense for Microsoft to buy them, close shop, sell their assets and return the money the the shareholders. MS does not want any alternative to Exchange and Windows Phone.

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        and the brand is strong

        Is it? They've been losing market share steadily over the last few years, some of their newer products aren't selling as well as they'd hoped, and people are proportionally buying more devices of anything but BlackBerry.

        Their PlayBook was a bit of a flop, and they've stopped providing updates for it.

        Except for entrenched people who are still using it, my perception of BlackBerry isn't a brand which is still strong -- it's a brand in decline desperate to stay relevant as the smartphon

      • by captaindomon (870655) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:43AM (#44541629)

        In blue-chip companies, Blackberry is still king.

        No, they are not. I've worked for three Fortune-30's in the last few years, and all three of them have moved to iOS / Android as their preferred platform.

    • It was over for blackberry. Mr. CEO could now check his email on the exchange server, sync his calendars, and the rest without the purchase and maintenance of an extra (and rather expensive) Blackberry Enterprise Server. Once that happened, it was game over for Blackberry.

      Once Android licensed Exchange it was much the same way.

      Arguably, it was a two-stage kill: Microsoft's late-and-largely-unlamented PocketPC/Windows Mobile (pre 7) implemented "activesync" ages ago to compete with RIM (indeed, after a brief period of attempting to eat Palm's lunch, attempting to eat RIM's lunch became their chief purpose in life); but that didn't help all that much because WinMo devices made Blackberries look like elegant triumphs of engineering and UI design.

      Once a device that consumers loved, and an increasingly bearable and very cheap OS licen

    • by accessbob (962147) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:47AM (#44541679)
      If you're managing large numbers of mobile devices then you also want to manage app versions, manage upgrades, and as far as possible protect you business info from user installed apps.

      For all of it's faults, BlackBerry does all of that very well.

      Is it enough? Only time will tell, but I wouldn't write them off yet.

      • And you can't do that with iOS and Android devices? With side loading it is harder to control but I think the enterprise license from Apple allows you to do all of that. At $1000/yr with unlimited devices it is a reasonable cost.
      • by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Monday August 12, 2013 @12:21PM (#44542741) Homepage

        If you're managing large numbers of mobile devices then you also want to manage app versions, manage upgrades... BlackBerry does all of that very well....Is it enough?

        Unfortunately, no, it is not enough.

        What you are talking about is mostly something only large businesses are interested in doing. For the vast percentage of companies - the small and medium enterprises (SME) - the above is not a priority for them (arguably, it /should/ be). They want to minimize IT spending, which usually means letting employees use their own devices (again, arguably a more central control might reduce the overall IT cost but it requires a larger outlay up front, which SMEs want to avoid).

        When Blackberry was king, these added features - app management, etc. - were nice bonuses to Blackberry's central advantage: email everywhere. But its not why most people used the phones. Now that other smartphones have (mostly) matched Blackberry in its central strength -email - , SMEs are debating whether those extra features are worth the cost. Increasingly, they are deciding it is not, especially since they require IT cost to maintain BES server to take advantage of those features. Better to just let the employees bring their own cheap devices and let them connect via Exchange. There's no need to provide the hardware (either by directly providing the employee with the phone, or indirectly by making the employee get his own Blackberry but balancing that out with better pay) or worry about support costs.

        For large enterprises, the additional features of the Blackberry bring worthwhile benefits, and the extra cost is practically unnoticeable to them, so they will likely keep to Blackberry as long as they can. More, large enterprises already have large IT teams so BES is just another assignment for that division. But large enterprises comprise only a few percent of total businesses. SMEs are 95% of all businesses in the US and 75% of the workforce. Its a significant loss.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Except that with the recent Snowden revelations, the security of the Blackberry is looking better and better especially with Microsoft and Apple being in bed with the NSA.

      • by danomac (1032160)

        Uh, Blackberry has already allowed India to spy on encrypted messages, what makes you think the NSA isn't already monitoring that traffic?

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          what makes you think the NSA isn't already monitoring that traffic?

          Or that BB hasn't done the exact same thing for the NSA -- once they've done it for one government, there is zero reason to believe they wouldn't for another.

          • by danomac (1032160)

            Yes, that's what I meant - poor choice of words on my part. The NSA is likely already monitoring all Blackberry encrypted traffic. Posting half-awake doesn't really help either...

            • As a bonus, RIM's servers are in Canada, so that pesky "constitution" thing does not apply at all to the data.

        • by jbolden (176878) on Monday August 12, 2013 @11:28AM (#44542099) Homepage

          In all fairness, BlackBerry made damn sure everyone knew that they had handed the keys over and created plenty of lead time so people in India could have alternative solutions. They handled this as responsible as they could have. That's not remotely similar to the USA situation with the telcos of secretly handing customer data over.

        • by accessbob (962147) on Monday August 12, 2013 @11:44AM (#44542321)
          All phone manufacturers and ISPs have to follow the laws of their host country. For that reason BlackBerry was required to hand over access to BIS encrypted traffic.

          However, BlackBerry's BES (business) security was not affected. Each enterprise keeps its own keys, not BlackBerry. There was nothing to hand over to the government. The government would have to go to each business individually and demand the keys.

    • BYOD is already starting to see push back from IT in a serious way because companies are starting to realize that at the very least they need some sort of "enterprise Android" they can control. You want to bring some crappy $100 Android phone that'll never get updated into a big company? That's the height of stupidity. That's about as smart as letting your employees bring their virus-laden Windows boxes and probably barely ever patched Macs (most Mac users I know don't even know what version of OS X they're

      • (most Mac users I know don't even know what version of OS X they're using!)

        You say that as if Mac users are more ignorant or something. Most *Windows* users (a far larger sample) don't know what version they're using. That's a far worse showing since there's only been 4 major choices for consumers in the last 10 years (XP, Vista, 7, 8) compared to OSX's 8 major versions.

        For Mac, Windows and Android, the average person's (correct) answer as to what major OS version they're using is "whatever it came with when I bought it." (iOS on the other hand has an extremely high adoption rate

    • by sl4shd0rk (755837)

      It was over for blackberry.

      If that were true, Windows phone would have hammered the market however a sickening thud was all that was heard.

      Android and Apple got to the market first while Blackberry was still sporting it's banal interface and relying on entrenched government contracts for it's bread-and-butter. That was a ridiculous short-sighted and lazy gamble by BB. They are now trying to change directions in mid-stream but everyone has already moved on and they are arriving at the party with an empty keg. BB should have gotten

      • by schnell (163007)

        Android and Apple got to the market first while Blackberry was still sporting it's banal interface and relying on entrenched government contracts for it's bread-and-butter. That was a ridiculous short-sighted and lazy gamble by BB.

        It may have been short-sighted but it wasn't lazy. The problem was that RIM saw what Android and iPhone did, and honestly thought that nobody would want it. I recall reading an interview with a RIM engineer at the time saying they laughed when they saw the iPhone because all the feedback they had ever got from customers (who were all corporations) was that users wanted long battery life, a good keyboard and strong enterprise management.

        They just totally missed that with the advent of the iPhone and later An

    • Well that and competitors to BlackBerry messenger.

      I remember hearing that BlackBerrys are pretty common in some poorer countries, mostly because of BlackBerry messenger helped avoid high SMS fees.

      Now, you have Line, WhatsApp, iMessage, and more and more competitors to that advantage. Then, as BlackBerry market shrinks, it gets less and less useful due to network effects. They're talking about releasing BBM clients to other OSes, which may have worked at some point - cannibalize some sales in order to keep s

    • by jimicus (737525)

      Thing is, Blackberry should have seen the writing on the wall the day ActiveSync was announced. It didn't take a great deal of imagination to see this as being Microsoft's way of muscling in on Blackberry's turf.

  • And build hardened Android phones for business. There, was that all that hard?
    • by jbolden (176878) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:41AM (#44541611) Homepage

      Yes that is hard. Many of BlackBerry's best features rely on BBOS or QNX. Android doesn't have them. It would be a massive porting effort. Android is often open source so once they finished porting they would have to share what they wrote with Samsung.

      Given that BB10 already has compatibility with Android application, what does Android do for them?

      • by evilviper (135110)

        Android is often open source so once they finished porting they would have to share what they wrote with Samsung.

        "Open Source" doesn't force you to share anything. The BSDs, X, Apache, etc., are all "open source".

        You may have meant Android is GPL'd / Copyleft / Free Software, but that's absolutely NOT true, as basically only the Linux kernel is GPL'd, while the rest of Android is under freer licenses. The preferred license is the Apache 2.0 license (similar to MIT/X).

        • by jbolden (176878)

          That line in context was about kernel level features in particular porting Balance. So yes, that would be against the Linux Kernel, so the GPL would apply.

          • by evilviper (135110)

            You might have MEANT that, but you sure didn't say so. Neither did the GP.

            Calling it open source when you meant GPL/free software, and also calling it "Android" when you apparently meant Linux specifically, only served to completely confuse any point you were trying to make.

      • The problem for Blackberry wasn't that they ported to QNX. It was they were so late in doing so. iPhone came out in 2007 but Blackberry responded by slapping touch on top of their existing OS. Many of us knew that the former OS just wasn't capable of being upgraded to compete with iOS or Android. It wasn't until 2010 that Blackberry bought QNX. Then rushed out the Playbook which didn't even have contacts, messaging, or native email. Some apologists still say that was intended but we knew that was BS.
        • by jbolden (176878)

          Yes it did make them look bad. They floundered a lot. In 2010 they were still king of the hill, dictated terms to others and exploring expanding into complex verticals. It took time for them to realize they could lose it all.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      And build hardened Android phones for business. There, was that all that hard?

      Yes.

      Because I spent a few hundred bucks on each and it'll cost me a few hundred bucks more to switch.

      And I have a budget.

      And needlessly spending money on technology is a waste of money when what I have works quite well.

      Lastly, following the "latest" and "greatest" is idiotic - it's falling into the marketing people's bullshit. At the time, Blackberry was the best thing out there.

    • by gl4ss (559668)

      it's pretty hard when they've invested all their time for past years for buying another os and doing crap..

      but you know what? what sucked about bb always was availability outside of carriers.

      how the fuck could I buy one or develope for one if I HAVE NEVER SEEN ONE ON SALE LOCALLY- and this is in Finland. RIM has always ignored large parts of global market, that is to say that they were never a truly global player.

      • by jbolden (176878)

        Excluding BB10, to have a BlackBerry function you either needed BIS or BES. If there was no fairly extensive carrier support nor was it being purchased for a corporate client with a BES the phone wouldn't work. Finland is Nokia country. I'm not shocked carriers didn't want to give RIM a complex feature set to do stuff that Nokia / Symbian mostly already did.

  • by swimboy (30943) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:34AM (#44541523)

    Maybe HP will buy them. It worked out so well for them last time.

    • Re:HP (Score:5, Funny)

      by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:55AM (#44541747) Journal

      Maybe HP will buy them. It worked out so well for them last time.

      Maybe they could have a bidding war with Yahoo... They've been moving aggressively into HP's "Where Technologies go to Die" turf lately, and a line of Yahoo! Mail branded blackberries would be perfect as a component of Yahoo's "Just think of us as a weighted average of Google and AOL" strategy.

  • Good luck (Score:1, Informative)

    by operagost (62405)
    The blackberry is the most counter-intuitive, unfriendly phone I've ever used. Its killer app is email, but being that it's a PHONE, functions like SMS/MMS, phone, and voice mail should be just as easy to use. No, instead the text messages disappear into a mess once you've read them, you have to dig through menus to access your voice mail number, and you accidentally dial people all the time because touching a phone entry, or pushing the nav button, or pushing the dial button all dial the phone. I have t
    • by Anonymous Coward

      I had someone in a bar complaining about the exact same problem. I don't know if this works for all providers, but for Verizon Blackberries, all you ever had to do was hold down 1 to quickdial voicemail.

  • always short of resistors...

  • by AdmV0rl0n (98366) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:40AM (#44541595) Homepage Journal

    BB remains the only handset/technical network that I can put users on a world wide tariff and provide a secure service at a reasonable cost. Period.
    Sadly, Blackberry seems to be run by idiots, who don't understand their own strength, or their own product.

    And yes, I can put my users on Iphones and on Android and I can cry my eyes out as soon as they leave the borders of the country they live in.

    Even *if* they remodelled the business in software, they could still leveage BB core work and sell a really workable product. Yes, not for everyone, and yes, aimed at corp, business and gov - but they seem lost in terms of what they are.

    Lying to the customer base is bad too and Thorsten Heinz needs to be fired. The Playbook isn't getting 10? Liar.

    CEO's that lie or get their baseline facts wrong are worthless. They are worthless to whom they work for and worse for their customer. He had his shot - he should resign.

  • Pride (Score:5, Insightful)

    by captaindomon (870655) on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:41AM (#44541603)
    Proverbs 16:18: Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. This was BlackBerry's issue - they thought they were the king, and that they didn't need to listen to the market. "You don't need a camera. That's crazy talk", "Nobody will accept a touch keyboard", "No other devices will gain corporate acceptance", "Employers will always make the choice for employees" etc etc. It's been one long "we know what you want better than you do" at BlackBerry.
    • This was only true at first. You have to hand it to them for a valiant effort at competing with android and ios, but they kind of did it in the same way as windows phone and failed in the same way as well. BB10 is a pretty decent OS, just like WP8, but no one cares. Why? Because they don't bring anything special to the table and without that, there's no competing with established ecosystems. They (and Microsoft) made an overpriced and mostly closed off device. Google did well against apple because they did
      • BlackBerry's downfall wasn't having lost a competition against Android or iOS. Their downfall was needlessly making it into a competition. BlackBerry had the opportunity to build and ship the first-ever Android phone. But they turned Google down. Google had to settle for a little known (and at the time not very good) manufacturer called HTC, maybe you've heard of it?

        Same exact thing happened over at Motorola. Same exact thing happened over at Nokia. Three companies at the top of the cellphone world, insi
    • by timeOday (582209)
      Notice how handset makers come and go, while the networks themselves, like AT&T, are set in stone? Do you really think this is because AT&T is so humble and innovative? Handsets are interchangeable and short-lived. A company is no better than its last product or two. Nobody has managed to be king of the hill as long as Blackberry did. And my guess is the days of windfall profits in the sector are numbered at this point anyways.
    • by Baron_Yam (643147)

      Actually, I think your analysis is off. Their real problem, in my opinion, is that they never got their systems working smoothly.

      Configuring a BB server is a bitch, and it all depends on connectivity to RIM, which is a dumbass move. Then they put out several generations of handset that failed during normal use due to design flaws, and then they rolled out BB10 which doesn't sync as well as the older system, and crippled their companion tablets in the process instead of providing the software upgrade they'

  • They don't listen to their customers. They have two main groups of customers -- corporate/government and consumers. The former just wants a piece of equipment that is secured and efficient for communication; the latter group wants a device to do everything apple could do. Instead of producing two lines of products, they combine them in a half as--s product that couldn't do neither well. They had their chance. Hint hint: Steve, please listen. Corporate customers do not want your Windows 8.
    • by jbolden (176878)

      Corporate customers aren't supposed to want Windows 8. They are mostly satisfied with Windows 7. What Windows 8 will do though is make them unsatisfied with Windows 7 style applications, forcing vertical applications to code for Metro prior to the time when Android is ready to act as a primary OS. They don't need to want it, they just need to accept it.

  • It's surprising to me that geeks have missed the golden opportunity to drive home one consistent message: Western tech companies need to grow up and invest in hardware and stop saying it's too hard and expensive. Qualcomm's CEO earned a Ph.D. in EECS from Cal-Berkeley, and Qualcomm has bought ATI's Mobile Graphics division and developed its own ARM SoC. Apple bought Palo Alto Semiconductor and developed their own ARM SoC. Samsung spends billions on up-to-date fabs, has their own ARM SoC, and their own L
    • by jbolden (176878)

      Huh? BlackBerry is in the hardware business. They don't just produce an OS and a software they do hardware as well.

  • by chinton (151403) <`chinton001-slashdot' `at' `gmail.com'> on Monday August 12, 2013 @10:58AM (#44541777) Journal
    2 year contract required. Price includes $50 mail-in rebate via gift card.
  • ..."enhances value" in what way?

    • by JoeyRox (2711699)
      By returning money to shareholders so that they can reinvest the money in more viable companies.
  • reliability (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Monday August 12, 2013 @11:12AM (#44541893) Journal

    Feel free to disagree, but I think what killed BB in the end was losing their reputation for reliability. They may not have been the newest shiny object, but dammit, when you made a call, it went through, no matter how you held the phone. Being tightly integrated with the company intranet was a huge plus, something that android and ios still don't have completely. I miss being able to tap on a meeting organizer name in calendar to message him I'll be a little late.

    I suspect that national outage awhile back started people thinking about single points of failure. I know that when BES went down for a week (not Blackberry's fault -- we outsourced our BB admins and that did not go well) most of us BB users had Android or IOS phones on order by the time it came back up. Blackberry ("Crackberry") got us hooked on instant gratification -- immediate access to office communication -- and when it went away, we were not prepared to take that cold turkey.

    • by jbolden (176878)

      I don't think it was one thing, but I agree that was a huge factor. It was the same thing that killed Danger (Sidekick) after the acquisition by Microsoft. Customers do not respond well to an extended outage. Blackberry can't run around claiming to be the best in IT while having an incident like this.

      • by narcc (412956)

        Blackberry can't run around claiming to be the best in IT while having an incident like this.

        Which is very odd. They're more reliable than, well, everyone else. Hell, they're more reliable than our electrical service!

        The only reason that Great Outage (which didn't even impact most customers, and most of those were affected for less than a day) was even newsworthy was because BlackBerry's services are so incredibly reliable!

        Compare that to Apple's month-long MobileMe outage, the uncountable outages afterward, the regular iCloud outages, and even their recent month-long developer center outage. Th

        • by jbolden (176878)

          Compare that to Apple's month-long MobileMe outage, the uncountable outages afterward, the regular iCloud outages, and even their recent month-long developer center outage. Those aren't even news. It's just par for the course. Yet Apple inexplicably maintains a reputation for reliability.

          In web services? Apple has a terrible reputation for web services. They have a great reputation for hardware reliability mainly because they are compared to bad desktops and Android phones. That being said, there is a

          • by narcc (412956)

            BlackBerries not on BES conversely needed BIZ. The outage was devastating.

            As I pointed out, the majority of their users were completely unaffected. Of those who were, most were out for less than a day. I should also point out, that many of those affected only experienced slowdowns.

            iPhone works fine without Apple servers

            The same was true for the Great BlackBerry Outage. The phone still functioned as a phone, as did apps. Messaging (Email and BBM) were really the only services significantly impacted, though every message was ultimately delivered. (The same can not be said for their competition.)

            The infamous BlackBer

    • by kevmatic (1133523)

      I have a company-supplied Bold, and it is easily the worst phone I've ever touched. Its not reliable at ALL. It only syncs when it feels like it, reception is poor, and the battery life is so bad its never charged anyway. And for some reason, if the battery starts to go low, it just turns off the cellular modem but doesn't turn it back on when its put back on charge. Basically, if you keep one eye on it, it'll just stop getting emails.

      The innovative ways that Blackberry devised to suck are impressive. The b

      • by roc97007 (608802)

        um, yeah, you should have sent it back. I've had a Bold and a Tour, (two different carriers) and haven't had any of the experiences you describe. The desk holder is head and shoulders the best ever created. There's no connector to press in, as with both of my Droids -- you just drop the phone in the general direction of the slot and it switches to desktop mode and starts charging. No problems with reception or battery life, although I did invest in the extra capacity battery as a job requirement.

        As you

    • by Y-Crate (540566)

      I'll respectfully disagree, as I think the shift had more to do with the fact for most users, everything changed at home.

      For years, most people had a cheap candy bar / flip phone, or at most, an expensive candy bar / flip phone. All phones were pretty dumb and very similar. Remember the RAZR? It was The Thing for a while, but looking back, it wasn't really that much different from everything else.

      The hardware was sexy, but the software was horrible. Nobody liked the OS, nobody thought the phones were respon

      • by roc97007 (608802)

        You have some good points there, especially about the Blackberry tablet, which could have been good but ended up being... a toy. Blackberry did blow it in many, many ways.

        My answer will take the form of a question. Isn't anyone else out there bored with a plethora of applications that consume idle time but don't actually enrich one's life? I'm finding that after a couple years playing with this neat little miniature touchscreen computer, I'm bored. I don't really use it, *really* use it, much except for

  • by skidisk (994551) on Monday August 12, 2013 @11:23AM (#44542013)

    I'm sure there is some value in the device, technology and related patents, but perhaps the greatest value is in the patents the own for ECC (Elliptical Curve Cryptography). Now that RSA's algorithm is on the way to being cracked, it's possible many will move to ECC -- and that means big money for Certicom, who is owned by...Blackberry. I know RSA will refute the patent claims and there is sure to be a war, but whoever owns Certicom has a big dog in the fight. The NSA has been pushing for ECC for almost a decade, so none of this is new news. However, it will be a factor in the level of interest for potential acquirers.

    • by jbolden (176878)

      RSA is not going to be cracked. And moreover if RSA could be fully cracked, i.e. prime factorization was a solved problem then ECC wouldn't hold up either. It is not difficult to map any ECC problem to a finite collection of factorizations on the integers.

      • So what's this [techtarget.com]all about then?

        Crypto experts speaking at the Black Hat USA 2013 conference yesterday said there's a real -- though perhaps not overwhelming -- possibility that much of the Internet's encryption will soon become completely unraveled. This grand unveiling of secrets, they contended, could arrive within a handful of years. To avoid what they jokingly called a "Cyber Pompei," they strongly encouraged a switch from algorithms based on the Diffie-Hellman and RSA systems to elliptical curve cryptography.

        • by ceoyoyo (59147)

          Hype. There's a VERY small chance that RSA could be cracked (that's in the article you linked). If RSA is cracked, the development in number theory is likely to have a LOT of repercussions. I suppose the recommended switching to ECC because it's the only other option.

        • by jbolden (176878)

          I'd like to here the original and not just a reporter's summary. But assuming this is accurate then In my read, dumb advice. If DLP is solved EC factoring is solved. The article has mistakes a perfect solution to DLP is a perfect solution to factoring. I could imagine that progress is made in DLP, something like a another million+ reduction in computation, which EC factoring is less susceptible to. But if the problem is solved and these papers aren't just about a speed up then game over.

    • It doesn't matter if RSA is cracked or not, the DH-RSA mode of TLS with perfect forward secrecy has a 300% setup performance penalty vs. non PFS modes, while the 64-bit optimized version of ECC TLS PFS only has a 15% penalty. The former is a hard sell to sysadmins - the latter, not so much.

      Somebody in the open source patent pool project (IBM, Google, Redhat, etc.) needs to come up with the cash or other incentives, perhaps as a group, for the future security of the Internet, which is a critical dependency

  • Even after years of failiures, RIM remains Canada's largest company that wasn't a national/regional bank or involved in sell off Canada's natural resources. Canada just doesn't have a business culture that allows for innovation or giving customers what they want.

    • by Virtucon (127420)

      Nobody remembers Nortel huh? There seems to be a model here for Canadian Tech companies. At one point a few years ago Nortel could do no wrong, the same could be said for RIM (or now Blackberry). RIM lost ground because they held onto their old beliefs in the consumer market, that their products could do no wrong and that people would always expect and pay the Blackberry tax. I think what eroded that were devices that were sexier and had a wider selection of apps. Sure, the Corporate markets were big m

  • There may be value in Blackberry's patents and cash on hand but otherwise the company isn't worth very much. And competitors don't buy dying companies - they just let them die and then buy whatever pieces they want in the resulting fire sale.
  • Blackberry was the premiere phone product before the iPhone family. But there are signs Apple is stalling out now. Its a very competative market.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Single most successful smartphone on the market with two other models in the top five. Earning more than 50% of the entire industry's profits. Nope. Apple is fine. The market is crowded and competitive but Apple has firmly grabbed a profitable portion of the market and, unlike RIM or Nokia, Apple isn't afraid to innovate and change direction when its necessary.

      • by narcc (412956)

        You could have said the same thing about RIM in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...

        Apple is actually doing significantly less than RIM did when they were on top. If the beliefs about RIM have any truth to them, we should see Apple fall hard over the next few years.

    • by ceoyoyo (59147)

      Apple makes more profit on iPhones than everyone else who makes smartphones put together. Not to mention Apple makes other things as well. They've got a ways to go before they "stall out."

  • RIM should package and sell their killer app: The integrated Email / Calender / Contacts system. IMO, it would change the face of productivity on android-based phones.

    The BEST feature of my old BB was the seamless nature of accepting meeting (calender) requests via email, using contact information on the phone. This was just using my normal email provider, not a BES setup. Worked like a charm!

    Then I added a BES email account, and that worked well also.

    in Gmail (on the android), I can receive and accept ca

    • by jittles (1613415)

      I've had my Samsung android phone for a year or two now, and despite trying a boatload of different (free and paid) email apps, I've never seen one that can manage calender requests

      What version of Android are you running? I haven't seen any issues like that with Android since 2.2. Granted the HTC mail client had issues with handling Exchange accounts properly through 2.3 (I dropped HTC and never made it to 4.0 with an HTC phone). Maybe the issue is Samsung's proprietary email client? Because I've been using the stock android mail client since 2.3 seamlessly with ActiveSync. The only downside I see is that you can only sync one calendar (the default calendar) but that is a limit of

  • Much like WebOS, which I loved by the way, BB is now a sinking ship. I've played around with the BB10 and it's actually a pretty cool phone. The problem for me was that it was so different from Android and iOS, in term of the gestures and just how it flowed. You'd have to basically relearn, and unlearn, the whole smartphone ecosystem and I'm not a big enough BB fan to do that.

    There just doesn't seem to be room for more than two big players in the smartphone arena. The only reason Microsoft is still in there

  • And I don't mean offshoring.

    While RIM/Blackberry have been victims of trends in the West, that's not been the case in India, from what I have read. While in the US, people have abandoned the Blackberry for iPhone & Galaxy, in India, such trends don't suddenly disappear, unless there is a disaster in the market itself. So since the Blackberry had a 'coolness' factor to it at one time, particularly in the offices, it's stilll popular in India, where offices still standardize on them, instead of going

  • I think we need to ask this question: Of the top 5 engineers you know, potentially including yourself, what would it take to get them to go to work for Blackberry? Discounting the top people you know who wouldn't want to leave their current employer, of the top 5 who have a willingness to move for the right offer, what would it take to get them to go to work for Blackberry?

    The fish rots from the head, and of the people matching this description who I know, it would take interesting work, the ability to ma

  • Sell BlackBerry branded phones with Android inside. Good profits if the purchase price was low enough. Maybe sell the technology for 30 million or so. Much like Palm.

I'd rather be led to hell than managed to heavan.

Working...