BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory • Hacker News Board

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#31

Post by deciplex » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 7:29 AM UTC

xnull2guest wrote: post #25

ekianjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they're getting at is that services should leverage open technologies so that nobody's platform gets shut out No one should force any company anything. It's a company's choice to do native apps, web apps, or whatever they like. They are probably missing some part of the market by not developing for some platforms or not having mobile versions of their apps - that's their problem, and it makes them ripe for com…

> No one should force any company anything. It's a company's choice to do native apps, web apps, or whatever they like. I disagree with this for a couple reasons. (The first sentence is easy to disagree with but I won't engage it as a strawman and will assume you mean it in a very narrow sense). The reason is that I don't believe that it's purely a company's choice to create native apps, web apps, or whatever they li…

>the Google+ saga reads almost exactly like this

Does it? IIRC a lot of people wanted to switch to G+ in summer 2011 or thereabouts, and it was getting a lot of buzz. But, by the time they got around to opening registration to people who didn't know someone who worked at Google, nobody gave a shit anymore, and Facebook had had enough time to address most of the stuff that was pissing everyone off anyway.

I always got the impression that Google+ nearly had it, but Google fumbled on the rollout - not that they were unable to overcome networking effects on Facebook.

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#32

Post by bdcravens » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 7:31 AM UTC

I admit - I really miss Word Mole and Brickbreaker from the Blackberry. They should definitely be forced to port those apps to iOS!

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#33

Post by andrewfong » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 7:43 AM UTC

dshankar wrote: post #30

andrewfong wrote: post #28

While forcing people to make apps for BlackBerry is a terrible, terrible idea, there's something to be said for restricting content and service providers from creating artificial OS-specific restrictions. The example BlackBerry uses is Apple prohibiting the development of an iMessage client on any platform except iOS. While it's unreasonable to expect Apple to write an iMessage client for BlackBerry, it's also sort o…

Your example of a law that would force Apple to allow Blackberry to write its own iMessage client would open two major problems: - companies like Twitter would be forced to allow 3rd-parties to write clients, and could kill Twitter's sources of revenue - Blackberry could write an insecure client & harm Apple customers In general, open APIs and third-party development is a great thing. But to require it? That's extrem…

Which is why I added "not saying I agree with them".

But requiring an open API (or at least not placing restrictions on an existing API) isn't conceptually all that different from requiring Microsoft to allow browsers other than IE on Windows, and apparently a lot of people think that's a good idea.

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#34

Post by mozey » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 7:48 AM UTC

Interesting that no-one has mentioned HTML5 yet. If everyone programmed web apps for this platform then "app neutrality" would not be an issue. Assuming the devices all implemented the spec consistently.

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#35

Post by walterbell » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 8:00 AM UTC

Canada wrote: post #22

I've done it, and hearing that makes me want to delete it. BB developer tools are horrible. BB ignores developer questions on their own forums, even though they appear to have about as much traffic as my blog: Almost none. Also, the 90s called. It wants it's developer portal back. It actually asks if you want to restrict your app to certain carriers, (please, tell me more about neutrality!) and for export license num…

An "API neutrality" proposal would make more sense. E.g. Apple wouldn't need to develop iMessage clients for non-Apple platforms, but they would not be able to block non-Apple platform client apps (developed by anyone) from connecting to the API. See HTTP, IMAP, Exchange, NFS, Windows SMB, etc.

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#36

Post by cheald » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 8:02 AM UTC

mozey wrote: post #34

Interesting that no-one has mentioned HTML5 yet. If everyone programmed web apps for this platform then "app neutrality" would not be an issue. Assuming the devices all implemented the spec consistently.

> Assuming the devices all implemented the spec consistently.

That's an assumption big enough to drive a truck through. In my experience, every platform needs custom support or hacks to fix little annoyances, problems and incompatibilities. You end up with de facto per-platform support even though you're using common tech.

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#37

Post by cheald » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 8:07 AM UTC

shard972 wrote: post #12

duncan_bayne wrote: post #4

Well, he's right in one sense: legislatively mandated net neutrality is actually no less rights-violating than forcing app developers to support Blackberry.

Your wrong, net neutrality is about HUMAN RIGHTS. All packet should be EQUAL, it's about EQUALITY. You should watch out, you are on the wrong side of history.

Come on, what a silly stance. Packets from a botnet engaged in a DDOS should be routed at the same priority as all other packets because packet routing is a human right on par with "the right to not be enslaved" and "the right to potable water"?

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#38

Post by EGreg » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 8:31 AM UTC

xnull2guest wrote: post #25

ekianjo wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What they're getting at is that services should leverage open technologies so that nobody's platform gets shut out No one should force any company anything. It's a company's choice to do native apps, web apps, or whatever they like. They are probably missing some part of the market by not developing for some platforms or not having mobile versions of their apps - that's their problem, and it makes them ripe for com…

> No one should force any company anything. It's a company's choice to do native apps, web apps, or whatever they like. I disagree with this for a couple reasons. (The first sentence is easy to disagree with but I won't engage it as a strawman and will assume you mean it in a very narrow sense). The reason is that I don't believe that it's purely a company's choice to create native apps, web apps, or whatever they li…

As soon as someone decentralizes social networking the way bitcoin decentralized money, all those proprietary silos will be disrupted.

And we have built the system to do it. http://platform.qbix.com

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#39

Post by EGreg » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 8:42 AM UTC

The distributist in me would say that Platforms Should Be Free, as it's the public's collective interest since more wealth is created that way.

Re: BlackBerry CEO Wants FCC to Make Developing BlackBerry Apps Mandatory

#40

Post by xnull2guest » Thu, Jan 22, 2015, 8:45 AM UTC

deciplex wrote: post #31

xnull2guest wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one should force any company anything. It's a company's choice to do native apps, web apps, or whatever they like. I disagree with this for a couple reasons. (The first sentence is easy to disagree with but I won't engage it as a strawman and will assume you mean it in a very narrow sense). The reason is that I don't believe that it's purely a company's choice to create native apps, web apps, or whatever they li…

>the Google+ saga reads almost exactly like this Does it? IIRC a lot of people wanted to switch to G+ in summer 2011 or thereabouts, and it was getting a lot of buzz. But, by the time they got around to opening registration to people who didn't know someone who worked at Google, nobody gave a shit anymore, and Facebook had had enough time to address most of the stuff that was pissing everyone off anyway. I always got…

I think there are instances in time during which a 'violent' change of adoption can take place, where suddenly everyone stops using a service and replaces it with another. Facebook did replace of Myspace. Facebook has been replaced in countries where it has been blocked. If Facebook were to break (extended downtime), face too large a scandal, be obviated by a social network on the 'post-Web' platform Facebook was too late to get onto, or whatever else there could be a sudden shift in the monopoly holder. There may have been an instant where Google+ could have, under the right alignment of stars, inherited this monopoly.

Larger point being made above is that it's successors of monopolies, like a kingship, not proper market competition with multiple simultaneous informed-consumer choice.