BB - BlackBerry

[txlaw]

except enterprises are getting rid of their bb phones and buying galaxies iphones and lumias. msft has a great messaging story and so does apple. so does google. I am afraid that all of this is too little too late. you can't fall behind if you are in the business of supplying technology. you can't miss a cycle. rimm missed two cycles. this is a sea change. enterprises at one time bought lots and lots of Razrs.

 

But this is my point.  In order to keep enterprises on the Blackberry platform, Blackberry is trying to show them why there is value in the platform, or at least in parts of the platform.  Blackberry Balance, BES, BBRY infrastructure and BBM together provide a value proposition that is quite different from what the other guys offer.  Only MSFT currently has what it takes to provide a similar proposition.

 

I believe this is demonstrative of how software and services is where the value will be in the future, not licensing OS'es.

[Guest valueInv]

In the age of BYOD, great incentive for people to buy BB10s ;):

 

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-232482/

 

You should probably be reaching the opposite conclusion on this one.  The whole point of Blackberry Balance (which now works on BB10, Android, and iOS) and BES 10.1 is to make it so that IT departments can allow BYOD and be comfortable with it.

 

Here's where we see the value in more than just Blackberry devices.

 

There is no balance if my company can block content is there? If my employer can block Facebook on a phone I bought, I'm not going to be happy

[Guest valueInv]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

[txlaw]

In the age of BYOD, great incentive for people to buy BB10s ;):

 

http://stream.wsj.com/story/latest-headlines/SS-2-63399/SS-2-232482/

 

You should probably be reaching the opposite conclusion on this one.  The whole point of Blackberry Balance (which now works on BB10, Android, and iOS) and BES 10.1 is to make it so that IT departments can allow BYOD and be comfortable with it.

 

Here's where we see the value in more than just Blackberry devices.

 

There is no balance if my company can block content is there? If my employer can block Facebook on a phone I bought, I'm not going to be happy

 

I believe they're talking about blocking personal content on the business side of a BB10 device.  Remember, Blackberry Balance essentially turns a BB10 device into two separate phones where there is a wall between the personal and the business.

[txlaw]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth. 

[Guest valueInv]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth.

 

RIM's edge in messaging security certainly is.

 

On the whole package:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/solution/security/samsung-knox

 

More secure than RIM.

[txlaw]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth.

 

RIM's edge in messaging security certainly is.

 

On the whole package:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/solution/security/samsung-knox

 

More secure than RIM.

 

I wouldn't say more secure than Blackberry. 

 

But your point about competitors is well taken.  Samsung Knox is definitely a threat.  I wonder if they are working on creating a NOC to compete with BBRY?  Samsung certainly has the wherewithal to do this.

[Guest wellmont]

NOC was valuable 10 years ago. The open internet has replaced the need for an NOC. why don't msft goog or apple build their own NOCs? because they don't need to. their network is the Internet, not some proprietary amorphous NOC.

[Guest wellmont]

except enterprises are getting rid of their bb phones and buying galaxies iphones and lumias. msft has a great messaging story and so does apple. so does google. I am afraid that all of this is too little too late. you can't fall behind if you are in the business of supplying technology. you can't miss a cycle. rimm missed two cycles. this is a sea change. enterprises at one time bought lots and lots of Razrs.

 

But this is my point.  In order to keep enterprises on the Blackberry platform, Blackberry is trying to show them why there is value in the platform, or at least in parts of the platform.  Blackberry Balance, BES, BBRY infrastructure and BBM together provide a value proposition that is quite different from what the other guys offer.  Only MSFT currently has what it takes to provide a similar proposition.

 

I believe this is demonstrative of how software and services is where the value will be in the future, not licensing OS'es.

 

there will be a small niche of core bb users who build on the bbry platform. probably Canadian. But msft apple goog are stealing those users. just look at what goog is offering users of Andriod. look at their announcements. look at the take up of android. look at the sheer scale of the investment in the platform. and apple and msft are on a similar trajectory.

[Guest valueInv]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth.

 

RIM's edge in messaging security certainly is.

 

On the whole package:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/solution/security/samsung-knox

 

More secure than RIM.

 

I wouldn't say more secure than Blackberry. 

 

But your point about competitors is well taken.  Samsung Knox is definitely a threat.  I wonder if they are working on creating a NOC to compete with BBRY?  Samsung certainly has the wherewithal to do this.

 

How do you know it's not more secure?

 

Why would Samsung need a NOC?

[compoundinglife]

WRT security and the value of having a NOC or central choke point...

 

Go back 10-15 years and most corporations would not give up their "private" WAN connections even though there was decent site to site VPN technology available that could utilize the Internet. Part of this is because their networks were very centralized and it was more complicated to maintain multiple firewall endpoints across their network. The idea was to choke all ingress/egress to one point making it easier to monitor and control. It was also a sales job by companies like MCI who did not want to loose lucrative contracts on their WAN networks. The reality is that the customer had no idea what the actual security of these connections was and was completely trusting the telco and its employees not snoop on their traffic or accidentally open their network up to an attacker.

 

Now using cheap internet and site to site VPN is common place because it is way cheaper and the products have advanced such that maintaining a large fleet of these devices is not as hard and its become easier to audit. The security of these communication channels is provided by using strong crypto which can traverse untrusted networks. I can assert that my network going over the internet is using the same crypto that the gov and banks require. If implemented properly secure communications should be able to traverse untrusted networks without fear, that is the purpose of it after all.

 

Rim claims the network is more "secure". When in reality their network more than likely uses the internet and also telco circuits where the security could be questionable. They do not own and control the entire network that connects and end user to their data center. So they employ crypto to secure the communication between the handset and their network. Not much different than using crypto over the Internet, in fact its the same thing.

 

Not saying there is no value to their network. I just don't believe that their "network" provides additional protection not available anywhere else. I see RIM selling their network security in the same way I saw telcos selling the benefit of private wans over site to site VPNS, its a sales job that plays on the customer's fear or misunderstanding of what actually makes something secure.

 

I was at the value conference in Toronto when RIM's CEO touted that their platform is the first "truly secure" mobile platform. That smells of marketing BS. It reminds me of Oracle's "unbreakable" campaign, which resulted in the security research community destroying oracle security wise. QNX is a OS like any other it will have security holes like all other software.

 

</rant>

[txlaw]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth.

 

RIM's edge in messaging security certainly is.

 

On the whole package:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/solution/security/samsung-knox

 

More secure than RIM.

 

I wouldn't say more secure than Blackberry. 

 

But your point about competitors is well taken.  Samsung Knox is definitely a threat.  I wonder if they are working on creating a NOC to compete with BBRY?  Samsung certainly has the wherewithal to do this.

 

How do you know it's not more secure?

 

Why would Samsung need a NOC?

 

Yes, Samsung is definitely a threat, as I acknowledged.  Wouldn't say Knox is better, though.  It's supposed to be pretty much like what BBRY offers, except that Samsung doesn't provide all of the  pieces on its own.  Right now, the MDM part of the equation is provided by other vendors.  (I think it's very smart of Samsung to allow popular MDM solutions to link into Knox.)

 

See the following articles:

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/smart-phones/blackberry-can-set-emm-standard-with-bes/240149981?pgno=2

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/mobile-applications/samsung-knox-raises-android-security-gam/240150413

http://mobilesyrup.com/2013/02/25/samsung-launches-knox-with-full-containerization-for-the-byod-user/

 

The main drawback with Knox is that it really only works on Samsung phones for now, unless this becomes a standardized thing among Android handset manufacturers.  As we just saw, Blackberry announced that they are trying to extend Balance to be on Android and iOS.  Although Balance won't work exactly the same on Android and iOS as on BB10/QNX because of the way those OS's are designed.

 

So Knox is not better.  But it's a big threat, for sure.  I have a lot of respect for Samsung -- it's amazing how innovative they are.  And they're conventionally thought of as just a hardware manufacturer!  If the hardware becomes a commodity, then the value is in the software and services, so it makes sense that Samsung and Blackberry would be battling it out in this respect.

 

As for the NOC -- I am no security expert, but I suspect any security advantage associated with the NOC has less to do with encryption and interception than with being able to centrally monitor and control all corporate communications in real time (benefit to both corporations and governments).  That is probably the main architectural benefit to having a centralized choke point for communications, but again, I'm not a secure communications expert.  So I would consider it up for debate, but in any case, the NOC is not the end all be all when it comes to Blackberry being more "secure" than other solutions.

 

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

[compoundinglife]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

[txlaw]

Incidentally, regarding my respect for Samsung, see the following article on the company from BusinessWeek:

 

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-28/how-samsung-became-the-worlds-no-dot-1-smartphone-maker

[Guest valueInv]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth.

 

RIM's edge in messaging security certainly is.

 

On the whole package:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/solution/security/samsung-knox

 

More secure than RIM.

 

I wouldn't say more secure than Blackberry. 

 

But your point about competitors is well taken.  Samsung Knox is definitely a threat.  I wonder if they are working on creating a NOC to compete with BBRY?  Samsung certainly has the wherewithal to do this.

 

How do you know it's not more secure?

 

Why would Samsung need a NOC?

 

Yes, Samsung is definitely a threat, as I acknowledged.  Wouldn't say Knox is better, though.  It's supposed to be pretty much like what BBRY offers, except that Samsung doesn't provide all of the  pieces on its own.  Right now, the MDM part of the equation is provided by other vendors.  (I think it's very smart of Samsung to allow popular MDM solutions to link into Knox.)

 

See the following articles:

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/smart-phones/blackberry-can-set-emm-standard-with-bes/240149981?pgno=2

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/mobile-applications/samsung-knox-raises-android-security-gam/240150413

http://mobilesyrup.com/2013/02/25/samsung-launches-knox-with-full-containerization-for-the-byod-user/

 

The main drawback with Knox is that it really only works on Samsung phones for now, unless this becomes a standardized thing among Android handset manufacturers.  As we just saw, Blackberry announced that they are trying to extend Balance to be on Android and iOS.  Although Balance won't work exactly the same on Android and iOS as on BB10/QNX because of the way those OS's are designed.

 

So Knox is not better.  But it's a big threat, for sure.  I have a lot of respect for Samsung -- it's amazing how innovative they are.  And they're conventionally thought of as just a hardware manufacturer!  If the hardware becomes a commodity, then the value is in the software and services, so it makes sense that Samsung and Blackberry would be battling it out in this respect.

 

As for the NOC -- I am no security expert, but I suspect any security advantage associated with the NOC has less to do with encryption and interception than with being able to centrally monitor and control all corporate communications in real time (benefit to both corporations and governments).  That is probably the main architectural benefit to having a centralized choke point for communications, but again, I'm not a secure communications expert.  So I would consider it up for debate, but in any case, the NOC is not the end all be all when it comes to Blackberry being more "secure" than other solutions.

 

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

So you changed your tone form "more secure" to "better". If we connect the two,  you're saying  Knox is less secure because it is available on Samsung devices only.

 

Distract and reframe again, huh?  ;) ;)

[Guest valueInv]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

 

Companies exaggerate all the time, but when you see them make up things out of thin air, its a big red flag.

[compoundinglife]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

 

Companies exaggerate all the time, but when you see them make up things out of thin air, its a big red flag.

 

When I heard Thorsten Heins say the "First truly secure mobile platform" I vomited in my mouth a little.

[Guest valueInv]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

 

Companies exaggerate all the time, but when you see them make up things out of thin air, its a big red flag.

 

When I heard Thorsten Heins say the "First truly secure mobile platform" I vomited in my mouth a little.

 

It's not only the security stuff, it's all this M2M stuff also.

[txlaw]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

 

I am long BBRY -- although  I wouldn't call myself a "bull."  I view using the terms "bulls" and "bears" as almost nonsensical in the context of "value investing."  It seems when people don't like or disagree with what someone else is saying, they will derisively label others "bulls" or "bears" -- I don't think that's very constructive.

 

In any case, I never considered BBRY's security advantage (which I think is real, as opposed to a mirage) as a moat that made me want to buy into the company when it was trading at a lot higher price than now.  Indeed, I completely foresaw that BBRY market share would collapse because of GOOG and AAPL, and I think I made such a remark on this board at one point.  I was not big fan of BBRY until the price collapsed and HWIC went onto the board. 

 

So it's not at all true that the "bulls" considered the security aspect a "strong moat."  But to discuss the security aspect a bit more, I think the only reason Blackberry still exists and isn't completely dead is because of their security shtick, whether or not you believe it is real.

 

I just happen to believe there is something to the notion that they do have an advantage with respect to security.  Albeit one that could easily disappear fairly soon.

[Guest valueInv]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

 

I am long BBRY -- although  I wouldn't call myself a "bull."  I view using the terms "bulls" and "bears" as almost nonsensical in the context of "value investing."  It seems when people don't like or disagree with what someone else is saying, they will derisively label others "bulls" or "bears" -- I don't think that's very constructive.

 

In any case, I never considered BBRY's security advantage (which I think is real, as opposed to a mirage) as a moat that made me want to buy into the company when it was trading at a lot higher price than now.  Indeed, I completely foresaw that BBRY market share would collapse because of GOOG and AAPL, and I think I made such a remark on this board at one point.  I was not big fan of BBRY until the price collapsed and HWIC went onto the board. 

 

So it's not at all true that the "bulls" considered the security aspect a "strong moat."  But to discuss the security aspect a bit more, I think the only reason Blackberry still exists and isn't completely dead is because of their security shtick, whether or not you believe it is real.

 

I just happen to believe there is something to the notion that they do have an advantage with respect to security.  Albeit one that could easily disappear fairly soon.

 

You keep repeating that they have a security advantage but are unable to articulate it while also admitting that you're no security expert.

 

Hmmmmmmmm ???

[txlaw]

it's too late. there are many other cross platform apps  that are better or do the same thing which are already entrenched. but it's really a recognition that users are fleeing the bbry platform. this was something bbry management had to do, not wanted to do. and besides it's not a revenue producer anyway. lets see what google comes up with this week that widens it's lead over bbry even more.

 

It might be too late if we're talking about consumers, but I'm not so sure with enterprise customers.  The value added proposition of BBM versus iMessage or alternatives is that it is more secure and can be embedded into other devices (via QNX/BB10).  Basically, you can put all of your employees on BBM for instant messaging in a way that is more secure, particularly when you deploy BES 10.1.

 

It's the enterprise messaging aspect of BBM that is intriguing.  Makes sense given the shift to BYOD, and it's a way to make BES and RIM infrastructure even more valuable.

 

I like this development.

 

The security argument is complete BS. Did you read that on the Crackberry forums?

 

If people want security, they can use SMS or iMessage:

 

http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/04/apples-imessage-encryption-impossible-to-intercept-for-surveillance-purposes-claims-dea-report/

 

No, I didn't.  ::)

 

It's the total package (not just BBM) that makes messaging more secure on the Blackberry platform.  Just take a look at Blackberry Balance, BES, BBM, and the RIM infrastructure and how they work together.

 

This is not to say that Apple and Google won't offer competing solutions.  But I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Blackberry's edge in security is a myth.

 

RIM's edge in messaging security certainly is.

 

On the whole package:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/solution/security/samsung-knox

 

More secure than RIM.

 

I wouldn't say more secure than Blackberry. 

 

But your point about competitors is well taken.  Samsung Knox is definitely a threat.  I wonder if they are working on creating a NOC to compete with BBRY?  Samsung certainly has the wherewithal to do this.

 

How do you know it's not more secure?

 

Why would Samsung need a NOC?

 

Yes, Samsung is definitely a threat, as I acknowledged.  Wouldn't say Knox is better, though.  It's supposed to be pretty much like what BBRY offers, except that Samsung doesn't provide all of the  pieces on its own.  Right now, the MDM part of the equation is provided by other vendors.  (I think it's very smart of Samsung to allow popular MDM solutions to link into Knox.)

 

See the following articles:

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/smart-phones/blackberry-can-set-emm-standard-with-bes/240149981?pgno=2

http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/mobile-applications/samsung-knox-raises-android-security-gam/240150413

http://mobilesyrup.com/2013/02/25/samsung-launches-knox-with-full-containerization-for-the-byod-user/

 

The main drawback with Knox is that it really only works on Samsung phones for now, unless this becomes a standardized thing among Android handset manufacturers.  As we just saw, Blackberry announced that they are trying to extend Balance to be on Android and iOS.  Although Balance won't work exactly the same on Android and iOS as on BB10/QNX because of the way those OS's are designed.

 

So Knox is not better.  But it's a big threat, for sure.  I have a lot of respect for Samsung -- it's amazing how innovative they are.  And they're conventionally thought of as just a hardware manufacturer!  If the hardware becomes a commodity, then the value is in the software and services, so it makes sense that Samsung and Blackberry would be battling it out in this respect.

 

As for the NOC -- I am no security expert, but I suspect any security advantage associated with the NOC has less to do with encryption and interception than with being able to centrally monitor and control all corporate communications in real time (benefit to both corporations and governments).  That is probably the main architectural benefit to having a centralized choke point for communications, but again, I'm not a secure communications expert.  So I would consider it up for debate, but in any case, the NOC is not the end all be all when it comes to Blackberry being more "secure" than other solutions.

 

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

So you changed your tone form "more secure" to "better". If we connect the two,  you're saying  Knox is less secure because it is available on Samsung devices only.

 

Distract and reframe again, huh?  ;) ;)

 

Huh?  You're the one who said that Knox was "more secure."  And I said that I wouldn't say "more secure." 

 

Knox is not "more secure" than BBRY's solutions.  At best, it's "as secure," but because Knox won't work on iOS or other Android devices, it is arguably "less secure" from the standpoint of an IT manager, who has to deal with the BYOD movement (it's not just Samsung devices he has to control).  It could also be considered "less secure" because there is no NOC involved, assuming you actually believe that the NOC provides some additional measure of data security/privacy.  The NOC point is debatable though, as compoundinglife has pointed out.

 

Sorry, but you're the one who is "distracting and reframing."  Although I can see why you might try to play up the fact that I'm a lawyer and therefore shouldn't be trusted.  ;D

 

Seriously, there's no need to be a douche -- you can get your view across in a more constructive manner.

[Guest valueInv]

I was not the one who changed the frame from "more secure" to "better".

 

Knox is more secure because security is built into the hardware, making it much harder to break.

[compoundinglife]

I won't dispute the fact that Blackberry is playing up the security advantage for marketing purposes.  That's true of almost all of these companies we discuss.

 

It is true of all the companies we discuss. But Blackberry seems to be the only company where bulls consider it a strong moat. I guess my point is that it did not make their moat very strong in the past and I don't think it will in the future.

 

I am long BBRY -- although  I wouldn't call myself a "bull."  I view using the terms "bulls" and "bears" as almost nonsensical in the context of "value investing."  It seems when people don't like or disagree with what someone else is saying, they will derisively label others "bulls" or "bears" -- I don't think that's very constructive.

 

In any case, I never considered BBRY's security advantage (which I think is real, as opposed to a mirage) as a moat that made me want to buy into the company when it was trading at a lot higher price than now.  Indeed, I completely foresaw that BBRY market share would collapse because of GOOG and AAPL, and I think I made such a remark on this board at one point.  I was not big fan of BBRY until the price collapsed and HWIC went onto the board. 

 

So it's not at all true that the "bulls" considered the security aspect a "strong moat."  But to discuss the security aspect a bit more, I think the only reason Blackberry still exists and isn't completely dead is because of their security shtick, whether or not you believe it is real.

 

I just happen to believe there is something to the notion that they do have an advantage with respect to security.  Albeit one that could easily disappear fairly soon.

 

My comment about the bulls was more a general reference to people over the years that have talked about the security of the platform and handsets, not directed at you specifically. I am thinking back to 2008/9 when people were saying that enterprises and gov would never adopt android or iphone because of the security of the management that RIM provided. I have no bones to pick with Blackberry and no position in this stock just voicing an opinion on what I see.

 

Part of the reason they are still alive is because they offered a device management system when no one else did and there are switching costs for an enterprise to take on new devices and learn how to manage them and they have *some* fanatical customers. Device management is part of the security "schtick". So I agree with you there, that is part of the reason they are still alive.

 

As an exercise lets assume that IOS, Android, and BB10 all have feature parity with regards to device management. What is Blackberry's security advantage? Not looking for a right or wrong answer here, just posing it as something to think about.

 

 

[txlaw]

You keep repeating that they have a security advantage but are unable to articulate it while also admitting that you're no security expert.

 

Hmmmmmmmm ???

 

Yes, I fully admit I am not a secure communications expert.  (I've said that in the past as well.)  I doubt you are either.  But I have attempted to articulate why BBRY has a security advantage versus, say, an Apple.  Apparently, I have done a poor job.

 

The reason why I think BBRY probably has a security advantage -- for now -- is because it provides an integrated platform that places data security and privacy at the forefront of its design.  There are four working parts to the total Blackberry platform:

 

1.  BB 10 -- new OS which is built off of QNX and that is designed to tightly work with the other three working parts described below.  Competing solutions are Android, iOS, WinPhone, etc.

 

2.  Blackberry Balance -- architecture/feature set for putting a wall up between corporate and personal data.  Balance is baked into BB10 such that it is like having two phones in one device.  Knox is a competing alternative in this respect that is available only on Samsung devices.  Balance will also be available on iOS and Android devices, but this software will work differently because it can't be built directly into Android and iOS.  (Balance on Android and iOS is really a separate containerization product/feature set of the Blackberry MDM software -- they're just branding it as Balance.)  Works in conjunction with BES 10.  This is a solution focused both on data security and privacy.

 

3.  BES 10 -- combines old BES and MDM into one solution (note that I use MDM as short hand for both mobile device management and mobile application management).  Allows an IT manager to manage multiple  devices from different vendors for a BYOD environment.  There are obvious security reasons why you want IT guys to have the ability to control devices and applications that touch corporate data.  There are a lot of competing MDM vendors out there such as AirWatch, Good Technologies, etc.  BES 10 works in conjunction with the Blackbery NOC for encrypted secure communications and allows implementation of Blackberry Balance. 

 

4.  Blackberry NOC -- NOC stands for network operations center.  Essentially, a centralized architecture provided by a third party vendor that allows secure corporate communications/data transfer without using VPN.  Other MDM vendors, such as Good Technologies, provide NOC solutions.  Arguable whether there is a need for NOCs or VPN these days.  (I don't know enough to give you the answer here.)

 

When a corporation uses all four of the Blackberry platform components described above together, this is arguably as good as it can get (so far) in terms of having a secure mobile computing corporate environment that has both data security and privacy in mind, and that works in a seamless fashion.

 

However, Blackberry has made it (or will make it) so that an IT department can still utilize BES, Balance, and the NOC even if there are Android or iOS devices utilized in the corporation.  BES and Balance will be an MDM solution for these non-Blackberry devices that allows the split of personal and corporate data.  And corporate communications and data exchanges will be able to be tunneled through the Blackberry NOC when BBM is put onto these devices (this is my assumption -- I don't know this for sure, as I haven't watched the presentations).

 

Knox is simply the Samsung equivalent of the Blackberry Balance feature/architecture that is baked into BB10 devices.  It is not more "built into the hardware" than Balance on a BB10 device and, therefore, is not better.  For non-Samsung devices, the containerization that is needed to wall off corporate data will be provided by MDM solution providers, not by Samsung.

 

In other words, Knox + compatible MDM suites represent a modular solution for mobile device security and privacy in a BYOD environment.  Blackberry provides an integrated solution for mobile device security in a BYOD environment. 

 

IMO, the integrated solution is more elegant, will be easier to administer, and arguably is better if you believe the Blackberry NOC (and BBM) represents an additional enhancement to security.

[txlaw]

I was not the one who changed the frame from "more secure" to "better".

 

Knox is more secure because security is built into the hardware, making it much harder to break.

 

I wasn't trying to re-frame anything.  You're  just trying to use the fact that I'm a lawyer against me.

 

That's just BS. 

 

Take a look at my post above re: Knox being "more secure."