BB - BlackBerry

[constructive]

http://m.eet.com/media/1179248/20130227pcembeddedsurvey841.jpg

 

http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1263083

 

QNX declined over the past year. Pretty tough to get momentum as the #14 player in the space.

[txlaw]

Now, this is a big deal:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-06/google-teams-with-gm-honda-and-audi-to-bring-android-to-cars

 

How will John Chen address the hardened Linux threat to its QNX Embedded biz?  They need to demonstrate that they've been working on developing that asset at CES.  And they need to start talking about how they will monetize that asset as well. 

 

we talked about this months ago on the thread when RTOS/QNX was discussed. I argued Android would win everywhere, and that QNX was basically a RTOS, most of which were free. You argued that QNX would win, and in fact, increase it's presence in numerous applications. Since then QNX has lost it's tiny position on phones, and is now under seize in it's stronghold.

 

That is completely false.  I argued that QNX would be the most suitable embedded system for "mission critical" systems (medical devices, heavy machinery, power generation, etc.), and that I believed that Linux would actually be the most widespread OS.  I did criticize Android Linux, in particular, for its security vulnerabilities.  Also, I have never predicted that QNX will be a lot more widespread than it is -- that can only happen if BBRY management works on the asset for mission critical applications and if the market accepts it. 

 

You shouldn't make stuff up to try to score points. 

 

--------

 

The fact of the matter is that we probably don't want Android's flavor of Linux running in mission critical hardware where reliability and security is paramount.  This is not to say that Android won't be all over the place, but that there is a need for OS's that are optimally designed for embedded solutions, like what QNX and Microsoft provide.

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/rim-research-in-motion/msg127218/#msg127218

 

I actually think that Linux will be more widespread than QNX (or, say, Midori) because it's open source.  And that's great for the majority of use cases.  But not all of them.

 

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/rim-research-in-motion/msg127247/#msg127247

 

[Guest wellmont]

you never contemplated that Android would be overlaid on a free open source RTOS, rendering QNX unnecessary? the RTOS is pure commodity here. It's free. The value in car computers will be in the Android application and services environment. QNX is a niche. It's self evident that Linux is more widespread. The best decision Harman ever made was selling QNX to ML for $200m.

 

 

Here is what you also said about QNX and autos.

 

The fact of the matter is that we can't have Android and iOS running everywhere because there are architectural differences that make them suboptimal for mission critical systems (e.g., car computers, medical devices, electrical grid equipment, war machines, etc.).  You can read up on microkernel architectures vs. monolithic architectures and on distributed operating systems (http://www.qnx.com/download/feature.html?programid=22908, http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_1078_1.html?lang=kr) to get a sense of why QNX is more reliable and secure than iOS or Android, and superior for M2M and IoT. 

 

This is why you have car manufacturers using QNX (or MSFT embedded solutions like Ford Sync) and not Linux.  The embedded OS has to be incredibly reliable and secure because it has access to (and controls) the car's various mechanical systems.  Even something like iOS for the Car is likely going to be overlaid on top of an embedded system like QNX (iOS for the car will be nothing more than Airplay-like functionality).

 

So QNX is a hugely important strategic asset for BBRY or anyone else who's interested in the mobile computing space.  And BBRY has been building and extending QNX since it acquired it -- they've even made it so that the next QNX Car systems will allow developers to put Android and HTML5 apps in the car in a way that is sandboxed from the mission critical functionality.  Amazing!"

 

 

[txlaw]

Here is what you also said about QNX and autos.

 

The fact of the matter is that we can't have Android and iOS running everywhere because there are architectural differences that make them suboptimal for mission critical systems (e.g., car computers, medical devices, electrical grid equipment, war machines, etc.).  You can read up on microkernel architectures vs. monolithic architectures and on distributed operating systems (http://www.qnx.com/download/feature.html?programid=22908, http://www.qnx.com/news/pr_1078_1.html?lang=kr) to get a sense of why QNX is more reliable and secure than iOS or Android, and superior for M2M and IoT. 

 

This is why you have car manufacturers using QNX (or MSFT embedded solutions like Ford Sync) and not Linux.  The embedded OS has to be incredibly reliable and secure because it has access to (and controls) the car's various mechanical systems.  Even something like iOS for the Car is likely going to be overlaid on top of an embedded system like QNX (iOS for the car will be nothing more than Airplay-like functionality).

 

So QNX is a hugely important strategic asset for BBRY or anyone else who's interested in the mobile computing space.  And BBRY has been building and extending QNX since it acquired it -- they've even made it so that the next QNX Car systems will allow developers to put Android and HTML5 apps in the car in a way that is sandboxed from the mission critical functionality.  Amazing!"

 

Correct, I did say that. I never said QNX would "win" though, did I?

 

Take a look at QNX's website, and you will see that Apple is actually a strategic partner in automotive.  How could this be?  Because iOS in the car runs on top of QNX. 

 

And there's no reason yet to believe that QNX won't be the base on top of which the Android platform is put in the car.  In this case, it is the Android ecosystem of apps and interface that could be layered over on top of the more secure and reliable QNX embedded system. 

 

However, GOOG and others may try to harden Linux to the point where these guys use it as the base layer in these mission critical systems.  That is a risk that BBRY needs to be aware of and try to counter.

[Guest wellmont]

Yes you said because of it's advantages QNX would Win in cars.

 

As for today....Android and cars. No mention of QNX. you argued that QNX would be tied to BB10 services at the application layer (where the value is, where the money is).  that vision has been annihilated today by the announcement of the "open automobile alliance".

 

cloudcar ties to google services

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/10/eyes-on-with-hyundai-in-car-tech-for-2014/

 

 

[txlaw]

you never contemplated that Android would be overlaid on a free open source RTOS, rendering QNX unnecessary? the RTOS is pure commodity here. It's free. The value in car computers will be in the Android application and services environment. QNX is a niche. It's self evident that Linux is more widespread. The best decision Harman ever made was selling QNX to ML for $200m.

 

Edited your post, I see.

 

The earlier post from me that you quote contemplates that Android and iOS will be overlaid on top of QNX and that BBRY should take advantage of this position to drive use of its own software and services.  Specifically, the secure data transmission services and MDM platform.  It's the whole M2M thing again, you see.  And providing those services are not mutually exclusive with both iOS and Android platforms being in the car. 

 

What makes you think I haven't contemplated hardened Linux making inroads?  I have actually argued that QNX ought to be made free to drive the use of BBRY's own software and services, and that if that happens, vendors ought to choose free QNX over free Linux for mission critical systems. 

[Guest wellmont]

again was QNX a part of this announcement today? Today was an "open alliance" announcement. Was QNX a part of it? QNX has diminishing value. the value is in IOS services and Google services. As cars get connected, QNX is losing it's value in autos. I assume that if bbry was a part of this in any way, their world class PR department would have let the universe know. QNX is losing massive ground in it's stronghold, the only place it gets any real revenue. Furthermore, with android and ios dominant in Phones and tablets, and making a massive push in cars, where does that leave QNX and BB10 in future embedded applications? it leaves them on the outside looking in.

[Guest wellmont]

what M2M Product is bbry going to sell when Android is the applications and services layer in cars? what product what service what revenue will bbry get when Android and IOS are the application and services layer in cars? Android will phone home to google servers. IOS will phone home to Apple servers. Who is going to phone home to bbry servers and why?

[txlaw]

Yes you said because of it's advantages QNX would Win in cars.

 

As for today....Android and cars. No mention of QNX. you argued that QNX would be tied to BB10 services at the application layer (where the value is, where the money is).  that vision has been annihilated today by the announcement of the "open automobile alliance".

 

cloudcar ties to google services

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/10/eyes-on-with-hyundai-in-car-tech-for-2014/

 

Again, you mischaracterize my posts.

 

First, I said that QNX is superior to Linux for mission critical embedded systems because of the way it is designed.  Second, my previous posts contemplated full-fledged mobile OS's running on top of QNX in the car, including Apple's OS's (see iOS in the Car), Android, and BB10 (though there is almost 0% probability that BB10 will be in the car at this time).

 

The QNX tied services I was talking about are not "BB10 services at the application layer" -- in fact, I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.  It is those M2M software and services I keep talking about.  BB10 is simply one instantiation of what you can build on top of QNX. 

[Guest wellmont]

Again, you mischaracterize my posts.

 

First, I said that QNX is superior to Linux for mission critical embedded systems because of the way it is designed.  Second, my previous posts contemplated full-fledged mobile OS's running on top of QNX in the car, including Apple's OS's (see iOS in the Car), Android, and BB10 (though there is almost 0% probability that BB10 will be in the car at this time).

 

The QNX tied services I was talking about are not "BB10 services at the application layer" -- in fact, I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.  It is those M2M software and services I keep talking about.  BB10 is simply one instantiation of what you can build on top of QNX.

 

here is what we know. we know that when ml bought qnx for $200m, revenue of about $40m was declining. we know that there was a big write off of goodwill. we know that most of qnx revenue comes from car manufacturers. and now we know that they are going in a different direction, away from qnx and toward android. we know that qnx on phones is failing and android is winning.

[txlaw]

again was QNX a part of this announcement today? Today was an "open alliance" announcement. Was QNX a part of it? QNX has diminishing value. the value is in IOS services and Google services. As cars get connected, QNX is losing it's value in autos. I assume that if bbry was a part of this in any way, their world class PR department would have let the universe know. QNX is losing massive ground in it's stronghold, the only place it gets any real revenue. Furthermore, with android and ios dominant in Phones and tablets, and making a massive push in cars, where does that leave QNX and BB10 in future embedded applications? it leaves them on the outside looking in.

 

You are assuming that the open alliance announcement means that these guys are talking about using Linux as the lower level OS in these cars. 

 

That's not necessarily the case.  This is the Android equivalent of the iOS in the Car announcements made by Apple.  If the Android and Apple ecosystems run on top of QNX in the car, then there is still room for BBRY to provide its secure data transmission services and MDM solutions in conjunction with the connected cars. 

[Guest wellmont]

except bbry was not part of the alliance. :) unfortunately it's looking grim for qnx in cars. but it's not looking grim for bbry shareholders judging by the price action!

[txlaw]

Again, you mischaracterize my posts.

 

First, I said that QNX is superior to Linux for mission critical embedded systems because of the way it is designed.  Second, my previous posts contemplated full-fledged mobile OS's running on top of QNX in the car, including Apple's OS's (see iOS in the Car), Android, and BB10 (though there is almost 0% probability that BB10 will be in the car at this time).

 

The QNX tied services I was talking about are not "BB10 services at the application layer" -- in fact, I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.  It is those M2M software and services I keep talking about.  BB10 is simply one instantiation of what you can build on top of QNX.

 

here is what we know. we know that when ml bought qnx for $200m, revenue of about $40m was declining. we know that there was a big write off of goodwill. we know that most of qnx revenue comes from car manufacturers. and now we know that they are going in a different direction, away from qnx and toward android. we know that qnx on phones is failing and android is winning.

 

Most of QNX's current revenue stream comes from licensing fees, which continue to go down.  But as I have argued time and time again, the OS layer is commoditizing, and the biz strategy should be to use the OS to drive the sale of software and services.

 

BBRY is attempting to generate revenue from software and services usage on both Android and iOS devices.  That's what secure workspace, BBM, and BES are all about.  They will likely be attempting the same thing in these cars as well, with QNX driving the use of the M2M portfolio.  John Chen has said as much.

[Guest wellmont]

btw if the OS layer is commoditizing (ios windows and android win), why did ML go out and buy one for $200m?

 

John Chen is at the helm of an interesting start up. :)

[rkbabang]

btw if the OS layer is commoditizing (ios windows and android win), why did ML go out and buy one for $200m?

 

John Chen is at the helm of an interesting start up. :)

 

That is my opinion exactly.  There is an awful lot of wishful thinking baked into that $4B market cap.

 

[Guest valueInv]

btw if the OS layer is commoditizing (ios windows and android win), why did ML go out and buy one for $200m?

 

John Chen is at the helm of an interesting start up. :)

 

;D ;D ;D

[Guest wellmont]

btw if the OS layer is commoditizing (ios windows and android win), why did ML go out and buy one for $200m?

 

John Chen is at the helm of an interesting start up. :)

 

That is my opinion exactly.  There is an awful lot of wishful thinking baked into that $4B market cap.

 

but in some sense it's more of an advantage for bbry to allow speculators to imagine a bright future. the numbers are awful. but the vision is absolutely "dreamy". and that's what is working these days on the stock market.

[txlaw]

btw if the OS layer is commoditizing, why did ML go out and buy one for $200m?

 

John Chen is at the helm of an interesting start up. :)

 

Don't know for sure, but I think he bought QNX precisely because he saw that the OS would be commoditizing and that Google's biz strategy with Android (selling software and services on top of a free OS) would be the right one for the long run.

 

Obviously, BBRY hasn't executed very well on dealing with disruption.  Probably because they were caught in the innovator's dilemma.  QNX was an asset that could have been worth a lot more today if they had implemented the right strategy in the first place.

 

Anyways, I mostly wanted to respond to your posts to correct your mischaracterizations of my previous posts, so I'll stop for now.

[brker_guy]

Don't know if you guys saw this news this morning:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-06/google-teams-with-gm-honda-and-audi-to-bring-android-to-cars#r=read

 

Early this morning, Google (GOOG) announced the Open Automotive Alliance. It’s a group of technology and automotive companies, including General Motors (GM), Honda Motor (HMC), Audi, Hyundai, and chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA), that want to customize Google’s popular mobile operating system for vehicles.

[Guest valueInv]

Again, you mischaracterize my posts.

 

First, I said that QNX is superior to Linux for mission critical embedded systems because of the way it is designed.  Second, my previous posts contemplated full-fledged mobile OS's running on top of QNX in the car, including Apple's OS's (see iOS in the Car), Android, and BB10 (though there is almost 0% probability that BB10 will be in the car at this time).

 

The QNX tied services I was talking about are not "BB10 services at the application layer" -- in fact, I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.  It is those M2M software and services I keep talking about.  BB10 is simply one instantiation of what you can build on top of QNX.

 

here is what we know. we know that when ml bought qnx for $200m, revenue of about $40m was declining. we know that there was a big write off of goodwill. we know that most of qnx revenue comes from car manufacturers. and now we know that they are going in a different direction, away from qnx and toward android. we know that qnx on phones is failing and android is winning.

 

Most of QNX's current revenue stream comes from licensing fees, which continue to go down.  But as I have argued time and time again, the OS layer is commoditizing, and the biz strategy should be to use the OS to drive the sale of software and services.

 

BBRY is attempting to generate revenue from software and services usage on both Android and iOS devices.  That's what secure workspace, BBM, and BES are all about.  They will likely be attempting the same thing in these cars as well, with QNX driving the use of the M2M portfolio.  John Chen has said as much.

 

No sign of BBRY in the services layer yet either:

 

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/06/att-wants-to-delve-deeper-into-the-connected-car-with-att-drive/

[Guest valueInv]

Yes you said because of it's advantages QNX would Win in cars.

 

As for today....Android and cars. No mention of QNX. you argued that QNX would be tied to BB10 services at the application layer (where the value is, where the money is).  that vision has been annihilated today by the announcement of the "open automobile alliance".

 

cloudcar ties to google services

 

http://www.engadget.com/2013/01/10/eyes-on-with-hyundai-in-car-tech-for-2014/

 

Again, you mischaracterize my posts.

 

First, I said that QNX is superior to Linux for mission critical embedded systems because of the way it is designed.  Second, my previous posts contemplated full-fledged mobile OS's running on top of QNX in the car, including Apple's OS's (see iOS in the Car), Android, and BB10 (though there is almost 0% probability that BB10 will be in the car at this time).

 

The QNX tied services I was talking about are not "BB10 services at the application layer" -- in fact, I'm not sure what you mean by that phrase.  It is those M2M software and services I keep talking about.  BB10 is simply one instantiation of what you can build on top of QNX.

 

Nice try:

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/06/audi-taps-att-for-its-4g-car-demos-its-future-connected-vehicle/

 

No BBRY in any layer.

 

[bmichaud]

Something more than hope must be going on right now for BBRY to be up nearly 50% in a month....

 

Wouldn't be surprised to hear Sanjeev took a stake at the very bottom  8)

[txlaw]

Don't know if you guys saw this news this morning:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-06/google-teams-with-gm-honda-and-audi-to-bring-android-to-cars#r=read

 

Early this morning, Google (GOOG) announced the Open Automotive Alliance. It’s a group of technology and automotive companies, including General Motors (GM), Honda Motor (HMC), Audi, Hyundai, and chipmaker Nvidia (NVDA), that want to customize Google’s popular mobile operating system for vehicles.

 

Yeah, I posted this article when it came out, which is why there has been a flurry of activity on this thread.

[txlaw]

QNX demonstrated at CES and announced a number of partnerships yesterday.  Related press releases are here:

http://www.qnx.com/news/release.html

 

The main takeaway is BBRY is indeed trying to make QNX the low level embedded OS on which you can run different application environments and platforms -- Android, iOS, Windows, etc.  And they are also allowing for the integration of other vendors' services -- navigation (Nokia HERE), speech recognition (Nuance), sensor data analytics (IBM), etc. -- into the layer that runs side by side (or even below) the "foreign" application environments and platforms. 

 

The QNX CAR Platform for Infotainment is based on QNX software technology proven in tens of millions of vehicles around the world. Designed for flexibility, the platform supports a rich choice of application environments (Android™, HTML5, OpenGL® ES, etc.), smartphone platforms (Android, iOS®, BlackBerry®, Windows®), and connectivity standards (Bluetooth®, DLNA®, MirrorLink™, MTP®, USB, Wi-Fi®, etc.). It also provides a comprehensive set of pre-integrated software components to help automotive companies rapidly build connected, custom-branded, media-rich infotainment systems.

 

The mobile device analogy is that QNX is trying to build a Google Play Services for cars.  Only, the services won't be tied to proprietary systems, as Google Play Services is.  The dirty little secret about Android is that there is a platform behind the platform called Google Play Services that favors Google's services (which is good for GOOG and actually makes the fragmentation argument much less powerful).  When you turn off Google Play Services, the best parts of "pure" (Google's) Android break.

 

Therefore, I suspect I was right in thinking that the Open Automotive Alliance is not necessarily a commitment by the car manufacturers to put embedded Linux -- and definitely not Android Linux -- into their systems just yet, though that is definitely a long term risk for QNX (GOOG implies that they are working on this in their press release).  Instead, it probably will initially be a pact to work with car manufacturers to better integrate Android devices and apps into their infotainment systems.  For example, the Miracast protocol will probably be used to project an auto-focused Android UI onto the car infotainment systems.  Or for manufacturers that opt to go with a more traditional infotainment system (designed in-house or by a third party), they will work to design those platforms so that you can install Android apps and buy from the Google Play store.

 

This would make sense because car manufacturers probably do not want to give all the keys to the kingdom to companies like GOOG and AAPL.  You want to allow a multitude of other vendors to provide their services through your system, on which you can extract a toll.  It's not good to have behemoths like GOOG and AAPL extracting all of the value from these connected car services.  Additionally, there are the security and reliability concerns associated with the kernels those platforms are built on.

 

Having said all of the above, BBRY has yet to explain how they are going to monetize this stuff other than continuing on with QNX licensing fees.  Which is really the most important question for anybody who thinks that QNX has economic value.

[Guest wellmont]

here's the problem for bbry and it's vaporware. this android alliance for cars is going to tie your android phone to the car computer that will run android. apple is going to do the same thing. msft is going to do the same thing. I can imagine a day when the car buyer can choose which system he wants in his car, ios, android, or windows. bbry is on the outside looking in under this scenario, since they don't sell any phones to tie to your car computer. I expect bbry to continue to lose market share, rapidly now, with qnx in automobiles. the only place it gets any significant revenue from qnx.

 

so now we know why the stock was running. because someone knew bbry was going to do a big PR splash at CES. and the news was sold today. I can't wait till bbry starts to actually introduce something other than press releases. But press releases seem to be working here.

 

This is the kicker though. HAR, when they owned QNX, did not have lots of competition in the small market they served. The car was not yet connected, and HAR had advantages with it's relationships with car manufacturers, and it's expertise in entertainment and sound. But things have shifted now that the car will be connected to the cloud. Suddenly, Google, Microsoft, and Apple are all keenly interested in putting their software and services in the car. These are the same companies that vanquished bbry in smartphones and tablets. So bbry is up against the same big three in a new market directly adjacent to mobile devices. I can't see how the result is going to be any different this time.