BB - BlackBerry

[txlaw]

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.

 

We are already getting closer to parity between the Blackberry platform and competitors' solutions with respect to MDM and smart phone handsets.  Knox + third party MDM is very, very close for Android.  iOS is not there yet, as far as I can tell.  But maybe that will change with iOS 7.

 

But I suggest that we invert our thinking on this one -- what if Blackberry the Company really consists of two divisions: (1) an MDM/MAM and secure communications/data transfer infrastructure provider, and (2) an OS provider whose products (BB10 and QNX) are optimized for use with BBRY's MDM/MAM software and security infrastructure? 

 

With their recent announcements, Blackberry the Company has essentially decoupled BES, BBM, and the NOC from BB10 -- you could conceivably use BES, BBM, and the NOC without having any BB10 devices at all.  The MDM and secure data transfer side of Blackberry the Company, then, is stand-alone from BB10 and QNX, though they are all branded as "Blackberry" products.  That's huge!  If people don't adopt BB10, that doesn't mean that BES, the NOC, and BBM will be discarded.  On the contrary, BES becomes the premiere MDM/MAM suite because it works with all the most popular devices and allows all those devices to use Blackberry's secure communication/data transfer services (if you buy the notion that the NOC and BBM add some additional measure of security). 

 

And if BB10/QNX is truly a better OS for connected embedded systems and gets put into all sorts of places (think the car, medical devices, industrial equipment, etc.), that will drive increased use of BES, the NOC, and BBM to the extent that these connected embedded systems need to be managed using MDM/MAM software and services, and need to transfer data in a secure manner.  There may be some additional benefits other than security to sending data through a NOC, but that's unclear to me. 

 

The point is that my conception of BBRY's asset value has never been contingent on asking whether BB10 will take back market share from Android and iOS.  I've always assumed that they would be a niche player at best with respect to BB10.  But the combination of QNX, Blackberry's MDM/MAM software, and secure communications/data transfer infrastructure has always had a lot of value, in my mind, because I believe there is a role for BBRY assets to play in a world full of connected devices.

 

This is why I talk about M2M and the Internet of Things, which is where I see the real value in BBRY's assets.  I know others don't buy that and think that I'm just saying buzz words, but I do believe this. 

 

Once this becomes the thesis, it's just a question of what run-off/resource conversion value is. 

[compoundinglife]

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.

 

We are already getting closer to parity between the Blackberry platform and competitors' solutions with respect to MDM and smart phone handsets.  Knox + third party MDM is very, very close for Android.  iOS is not there yet, as far as I can tell.  But maybe that will change with iOS 7.

 

But I suggest that we invert our thinking on this one -- what if Blackberry the Company really consists of two divisions: (1) an MDM/MAM and secure communications/data transfer infrastructure provider, and (2) an OS provider whose products (BB10 and QNX) are optimized for use with BBRY's MDM/MAM software and security infrastructure? 

 

With their recent announcements, Blackberry the Company has essentially decoupled BES, BBM, and the NOC from BB10 -- you could conceivably use BES, BBM, and the NOC without having any BB10 devices at all.  The MDM and secure data transfer side of Blackberry the Company, then, is stand-alone from BB10 and QNX, though they are all branded as "Blackberry" products.  That's huge!  If people don't adopt BB10, that doesn't mean that BES, the NOC, and BBM will be discarded.  On the contrary, BES becomes the premiere MDM/MAM suite because it works with all the most popular devices and allows all those devices to use Blackberry's secure communication/data transfer services (if you buy the notion that the NOC and BBM add some additional measure of security). 

 

And if BB10/QNX is truly a better OS for connected embedded systems and gets put into all sorts of places (think the car, medical devices, industrial equipment, etc.), that will drive increased use of BES, the NOC, and BBM to the extent that these connected embedded systems need to be managed using MDM/MAM software and services, and need to transfer data in a secure manner.  There may be some additional benefits other than security to sending data through a NOC, but that's unclear to me. 

 

The point is that my conception of BBRY's asset value has never been contingent on asking whether BB10 will take back market share from Android and iOS.  I've always assumed that they would be a niche player at best with respect to BB10.  But the combination of QNX, Blackberry's MDM/MAM software, and secure communications/data transfer infrastructure has always had a lot of value, in my mind, because I believe there is a role for BBRY assets to play in a world full of connected devices.

 

This is why I talk about M2M and the Internet of Things, which is where I see the real value in BBRY's assets.  I know others don't buy that and think that I'm just saying buzz words, but I do believe this. 

 

Once this becomes the thesis, it's just a question of what run-off/resource conversion value is.

 

I am mainly focused on the "security" word because it gets tossed around quite a bit when talking about Blackberry. One of the reasons I asked that question is because there is a different between security/management features (which is stuff like MDM) and the actual security of the platform/network etc...

 

I don't disagree with your thoughts about becoming a niche player in different areas. I think these are all possible. They could become a leader in the MDM. But it would be because they have features that meet the needs of customers. Not because their platform is "truly secure".

 

I think I am just worked up over the statement Thorsten made about it being the first truly secure mobile platform.

[Guest valueInv]

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. 

Wow, You seem to know a lot about me. What books I've read, what expertise I have,etc.

 

FYI, I am not a lawyer trying to understand tech by reading websites and books I have worked a mobile, networking and security companies. I spend 14 hours a day neck deep in this crap.

 

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.

 

There are about 25 companies offering Balance type of containerization technology.

 

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. 

That would be nice except for the fact that MDM has little to do with a NOC & many MDM companies offer containerization.

 

 

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.)

You don't need a NOC to communicate securely. You just need an encrypted connection. SSL works just fine. You are confusing the technologies.

BTW, sometimes you don't even need a VPN:

http://gigaom.com/2013/05/15/ruckus-wireless-designs-an-open-wi-fi-hotspot-with-a-secure-connection/

 

 

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).

Most MDM vendors support Android and IOS. Few care to support BB with its 2% marketshare.

 

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.

 

Read the link I posted about Knox and look at what technology it has been built on.

 

Then read this:

http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.prd29-genc-009492c/PRD29-GENC-009492C_trustzone_security_whitepaper.pdf

 

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.

 

Counselor, have you heard of this book called the "Innovator's Solution" that talked about this issue. Some guy was posting about it on this other thread, can't seem to remember his name..... :o:

 

From Chapter 6: How to Avoid Commoditization

 

(Note: this is a whole chapter on commoditization in "The Innovator's Solution."  ValueInv, do yourself a favor by buying this book and reading it. ;))

 

The process that transforms a profitable, differentiated product into a commodity is the process of overshooting and modularization. . . . When [the] circumstance changes—when the dominant, profitable companies overshoot what their mainstream customers can use—then this game can no longer be played, and the tables begin to turn.  Customers will not pay still-higher prices for products they already deem too good.  Before long, modularity rules, and commoditization sets in.  When the relevant dimensions of your product’s performance are determined not by you but by the subsystems that you procure from your suppliers, it becomes difficult to earn anything more than subsistence returns in a product category that used to make a lot of money.  When your world becomes modular, you’ll need to look elsewhere in the value chain to make any serious money.

 

The natural and inescapable process of commoditization occurs in six steps:

 

1. As a new market coalesces, a company develops a proprietary product that, while not good enough, comes closer to satisfying customers’ needs than any of its competitors.  It does this through a proprietary architecture, and earns attractive profit margins.

2. As the company strives to keep ahead of its direct competitors, it eventually overshoots the functionality and reliability that customers in lower tiers of the market can utilize.

3. This precipitates a change in the basis of competition in those tiers, which . . .

4. . . . precipitates an evolution toward modular architectures, which . . .

5. . . . facilitates the dis-integration of the industry, which in turn . . .

6. . . . makes it very difficult to differentiate the performance or costs of the product versus those of competitors, who have access to the same components and assemble according to the same standards.  This condition begins at the bottom of the market, where functional overshoot occurs first, and then moves up inexorably to affect the higher tiers.

 

Note that it is overshooting—the more-than-good-enough circumstance—that connects disruption and the phenomenon of commoditization.  Disruption and commoditization can be seen as two sides of the same coin.  A company that finds itself in a more-than-good-enough circumstance simply can’t win:  Either disruption will steal its markets, or commoditization will steal its profits.

 

. . .

 

There can still be prosperity around the corner, however.  The attractive profits of the future are often to be earned elsewhere in the value chain, in different stages or layers of added value.  That’s because the process of commoditization initiates a reciprocal process of de-commoditization.  Ironically, this de-commoditization—with the attendant ability to earn lots of money—occurs in places in the value chain where attractive profits were hard to attain in the past:  in the formerly modular and undifferentiable processes, components, or subsystems.

 

--------

 

The mobile device industry is becoming modular in nature.  Google provides the OS for close to free.  Samsung and others manufacturer components and handsets.  Google and third party app developers provide the layers of added value on top of the OS.  New standards like HTML5 make it almost inevitable that modularization will win.

[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.

 

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."

 

Read your posts - you switched from "more secure" to "better". They are two different things.

 

I'm not using the fact that you are a lawyer against you. I am using your behavior against you. That fact that you are a lawyer simply explains your behavior.

[zenith]

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/los-angeles-county-sheriffs-department-confirms-blackberry-10-blackberry-enterprise-service-10-deployment-2013-05-15-8173321?reflink=MW_news_stmp

 

 

[txlaw]

I am mainly focused on the "security" word because it gets tossed around quite a bit when talking about Blackberry. One of the reasons I asked that question is because there is a different between security/management features (which is stuff like MDM) and the actual security of the platform/network etc...

 

I don't disagree with your thoughts about becoming a niche player in different areas. I think these are all possible. They could become a leader in the MDM. But it would be because they have features that meet the needs of customers. Not because their platform is "truly secure".

 

I think I am just worked up over the statement Thorsten made about it being the first truly secure mobile platform.

 

Fair enough.

[txlaw]

You don't need a NOC to communicate securely. You just need an encrypted connection. SSL works just fine. You are confusing the technologies.

BTW, sometimes you don't even need a VPN:

http://gigaom.com/2013/05/15/ruckus-wireless-designs-an-open-wi-fi-hotspot-with-a-secure-connection/

 

I am not confusing the two technologies at all.  That's just one of your usual idiotic pot shots.  As I have made perfectly clear in my posts, encryption and having a NOC are not the same thing. 

 

It is debatable whether having a NOC or VPN plus encrypted communications is more secure than just encrypting all communications.  But I would note that there are a number of vendors -- not just BBRY -- that offer NOC services. 

 

I am happy to hear informed opinions about whether or not I am overestimating the value of the NOC architecture.  You're clearly not going to provide that.

 

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.

 

Read the link I posted about Knox and look at what technology it has been built on.

 

Then read this:

http://infocenter.arm.com/help/topic/com.arm.doc.prd29-genc-009492c/PRD29-GENC-009492C_trustzone_security_whitepaper.pdf

 

You can't tell from this whitepaper whether Knox is "more secure" than BB10 + Balance.  Even Samsung hasn't gone that far in its marketing to say that it is more secure.

 

At best, we can say that Samsung Knox is pretty much the Android version of Blackberry Balance.

 

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.

 

Counselor, have you heard of this book called the "Innovator's Solution" that talked about this issue. Some guy was posting about it on this other thread, can't seem to remember his name..... :o:

 

Indeed I have, and the thesis fits right in with the Innovator's Solution. 

 

Namely, Clayton Christensen has theorized that "whenever [commoditization] is at work somewhere in a value chain, a reciprocal process of de-commoditization is at work somewhere else in the value chain." 

 

Guess what's going on now?  In a BYOD world and a world where M2M/Internet of Things becomes a reality, we have secure communication/data transfer software and services that are "not good enough."  BBRY is positioned to capture profits in this part of the value chain as an integrated solutions provider, and it is using its OS (BB10/QNX), which is competing in a commoditizing market, to push its services. 

 

Eventually, however, I agree that the process of commoditization will set in, and modularity will take over. 

[Guest wellmont]

how much m2m revenue has rimm reported?

[txlaw]

Okay, this is a bit eerie:

http://www.zdnet.com/how-blackberry-is-co-opting-ios-and-android-to-fuel-its-rebirth-7000015356/

 

I am not this guy . . .

[txlaw]

how much m2m revenue has rimm reported?

 

Skate to where the puck is going.

[Guest wellmont]

bbry was dragged kicking and screaming to byod mdm market. it's a defensive move (one they absolutely had to make) being of course, spun as highly positive for the company. but the fact is they have lost their "lock" on the IT customer as they enter a far more competitive market. And we get the obligatory "explosive" growth from the  bbry marketing representative as well, without quantifying what that means to revenue and profit. these kinds of articles are so rich in corporate PR, and so thin on specifics and quantitative data; they amount to being nothing more than free commercials, and thus pretty much useless to impartial gatherers of information. They may not even be free.

[Guest wellmont]

how much m2m revenue has rimm reported?

 

Skate to where the puck is going.

 

what is the market size? who is competing in the market? what product is bbry offering? what price is the product? how much revenue and profit will these products produce in 2014?

[Guest valueInv]

how much m2m revenue has rimm reported?

 

Skate to where the puck is going.

 

Cisco projects M2M to be about 5% of mobile traffic by 2017.  And they are known to exaggerate traffic projections.

 

The puck ain't going to M2M but the hype sure is ;)

[Guest valueInv]

how much m2m revenue has rimm reported?

 

Skate to where the puck is going.

 

what is the market size? who is competing in the market? what product is bbry offering? what price is the product? how much revenue and profit will these products produce in 2014?

 

Ask those same questions about MDM.

[Guest valueInv]

I am not confusing the two technologies at all.  That's just one of your usual idiotic pot shots.  As I have made perfectly clear in my posts, encryption and having a NOC are not the same thing. 

 

It is debatable whether having a NOC or VPN plus encrypted communications is more secure than just encrypting all communications.  But I would note that there are a number of vendors -- not just BBRY -- that offer NOC services. 

 

I am happy to hear informed opinions about whether or not I am overestimating the value of the NOC architecture.  You're clearly not going to provide that.

You still don't understand what a NOC is. NOC is like a headquarter for a network. Saying RIM offers NOC services is like saying Berkshire offers headquarter services.

 

NOC-based email used to be important when Microsoft did not offer ActiveSync for mobile. RIM was the only game in town for push email then. Now, push email is offered by everyone.

 

Security is only a small part of NOC-based email. If you send or receive an email from outside the company, the NOC does not help you.

 

 

You can't tell from this whitepaper whether Knox is "more secure" than BB10 + Balance.  Even Samsung hasn't gone that far in its marketing to say that it is more secure.

 

At best, we can say that Samsung Knox is pretty much the Android version of Blackberry Balance.

 

You don't understand this either. Balance is the containerization technology, KNOX is the full security architecture(of which containerization is a part). Comparing Balance to Knox is like comparing a BMW transmission to a Toyota Corolla.

 

And yes, Knox is more secure, they don't say it explicitly because it invites liability issues.

 

Indeed I have, and the thesis fits right in with the Innovator's Solution. 

 

Namely, Clayton Christensen has theorized that "whenever [commoditization] is at work somewhere in a value chain, a reciprocal process of de-commoditization is at work somewhere else in the value chain." 

ton Christensen has theorized that "whenever [commoditization] is at work somewhere in a value chain, a reciprocal process of de-commoditiza

Guess what's going on now?  In a BYOD world and a world where M2M/Internet of Things becomes a reality, we have secure communication/data transfer software and services that are "not good enough."  BBRY is positioned to capture profits in this part of the value chain as an integrated solutions provider, and it is using its OS (BB10/QNX), which is competing in a commoditizing market, to push its services. 

 

Eventually, however, I agree that the process of commoditization will set in, and modularity will take over.

 

Hmmm, this sounds familiar. Where have I heard this before??

 

By the way, what is this "law of conservation of attractive profits?" How does that effect an vertically integrated player like Apple?

 

From Chapter 6: How to Avoid Commoditization

 

(Note: this is a whole chapter on commoditization in "The Innovator's Solution."  ValueInv, do yourself a favor by buying this book and reading it. ;))

 

The process that transforms a profitable, differentiated product into a commodity is the process of overshooting and modularization. . . . When [the] circumstance changes—when the dominant, profitable companies overshoot what their mainstream customers can use—then this game can no longer be played, and the tables begin to turn.  Customers will not pay still-higher prices for products they already deem too good.  Before long, modularity rules, and commoditization sets in. 

 

 

So customers think phones are too good?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

Both questions that you side stepped in the Apple thread. You can't argue on both sides at the same time, Counselor.

[Guest valueInv]

More on this "modularization" theory:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2013/05/15/samsung-owns-android-captures-95-of-global-android-smartphone-profits/

 

Let's ignore the fact that 95% of the profits in the industry are made by the two companies that are vertically integrated  ;)

[txlaw]

You still don't understand what a NOC is. NOC is like a headquarter for a network. Saying RIM offers NOC services is like saying Berkshire offers headquarter services.

 

NOC-based email used to be important when Microsoft did not offer ActiveSync for mobile. RIM was the only game in town for push email then. Now, push email is offered by everyone.

 

Security is only a small part of NOC-based email. If you send or receive an email from outside the company, the NOC does not help you.

 

This is nonsense and suggests that you're not quite as informed as you pretend to be.  You've just stated the generic definition of a NOC, which simply stands for network operations center. 

 

The additional security from using BBRY's NOC services -- and I recognize that the following points are debatable -- comes from: (1) the architectural aspect of routing corporate data (not just email) through a centralized choke point versus simply encrypting all data and sending over the Internet in the way that most of us do every day, which allows for real-time monitoring of corporate data that is going across the Internet; and (2) outsourcing IT functions, such as monitoring of corporate communications and administration of devices that hold corporate data, to a more sophisticated organization.

 

Go back and read compoundinglife's post re: centralized choke points:

http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/rim-research-in-motion/msg116792/#msg116792 .  This is an informed opinion re: the NOC and the value of having a centralized choke point.  My counterpoint or theory as to why using  BBRY NOC services would be "more secure" would be because you are essentially outsourcing part of IT's job to a service provider who will do it better and possibly even more cheaply. 

 

Instead of having your IT guy setting up VPN for access to the private network, being responsible for pushing security updates to end user devices, and monitoring when sensitive data is traversing the Internet, you outsource to BBRY.

 

Really, we shouldn't be getting hung up on the use of the terms "NOC" and "infrastructure."  These are metaphors that are used to explain what value-add BBRY provides.  We could just as well call this Blackberry data protection service and get rid of the use of the words "NOC" and "infrastructure."

 

So "the NOC" is ostensibly about more than just push or data efficiency, although those are nice features that demonstrate why the infrastructure/architecture is worth something for an M2M world.

 

You don't understand this either. Balance is the containerization technology, KNOX is the full security architecture(of which containerization is a part). Comparing Balance to Knox is like comparing a BMW transmission to a Toyota Corolla.

 

And yes, Knox is more secure, they don't say it explicitly because it invites liability issues.

 

No, you're completely wrong about this.  Both Knox and Balance are containerization technologies.  And both are architected into their respective OS'es.  Knox is the Android version of Balance, and is no more secure than Balance, as far as we know (I doubt liability issues have anything to do with Samsung's silence).  The reason Samsung had to develop Knox is because stock Android is not as secure as other OS'es.

 

As it turns out, I was wrong about Blackberry branding their containerization software for iOS and Android as Balance.  The containerization software that Blackberry is going to offer for those devices will be called Secure Workspace.

 

 

[Guest wellmont]

this central "choke point" has choked a lot of BB customers in recent months. Double edged sword. It's funny, three companies with massive financial resources, aapl, goog, and msft do not go around hyping up their NOCs. They did not design their networks to have an NOC. Because they are no longer needed nor are they advantageous. NOCs are from a bygone era. The Internet has evolved as networking platform in such a way that a centralized choke point has the potential nowadays to do more harm than good.

[txlaw]

 

By the way, what is this "law of conservation of attractive profits?" How does that effect an vertically integrated player like Apple?

 

So customers think phones are too good?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

 

Both questions that you side stepped in the Apple thread. You can't argue on both sides at the same time, Counselor.

 

I didn't sidestep anything.  I got tired of you failing to provide substantive responses to any of my posts and pretending to be knowledgeable by using the Socratic method.  If you have an answer to these questions, feel free to lay them out.

 

As to having it both ways, I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding how commoditization and reciprocal de-commoditization works.  I thought I explained this by quoting from Christensen, but it might be that you are just in denial. 

 

Here's the simplest way I can put it. 

 

The OS layer -- which is where the value has been, as evidenced by the outrageous margins generated from licensing OS'es (note that Apple's margins would be a lot higher if you decoupled the hardware from the software) -- is being commoditized because the OS itself is "good enough."  As Eric Schmidt has stated, the OSes (i.e., platforms) are at the point where you can pretty much do whatever you need to with them by building software and services on top of them.  Therefore, the value is now shifting to providing applications, services, peripherals (think sensors), etc.

 

The BBRY secure data services and software that I have talked about in all the posts above are part of the layer where the value is right now.  Right now, BBRY benefits from providing an integrated solution because we are no where near "good enough" in this realm.  Very few people are truly prepared for a world where everything is connected and data is flying across the Internet from all these connected things. 

 

Eventually, however, modularity kicks in.  It already doesn't make as much sense to take the total package from BBRY (BB10, BES/Balance, NOC services).  That's why BB10 itself doesn't have a moat based on security.  BBRY has recognized this and is decoupling the OS from their security services.

[Guest valueInv]

 

No, you're completely wrong about this.  Both Knox and Balance are containerization technologies.  And both are architected into their respective OS'es.  Knox is the Android version of Balance, and is no more secure than Balance, as far as we know (I doubt liability issues have anything to do with Samsung's silence).  The reason Samsung had to develop Knox is because stock Android is not as secure as other OS'es.

 

As it turns out, I was wrong about Blackberry branding their containerization software for iOS and Android as Balance.  The containerization software that Blackberry is going to offer for those devices will be called Secure Workspace.

 

Take a look at where the container is in the diagram:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/samsungknox/images/img_knox_01.jpg

 

Do you even have a clue? Do you know what containerization is?

[Guest wellmont]

 

 

The BBRY secure data services and software that I have talked about in all the posts above are part of the layer where the value is right now.  Right now, BBRY benefits from providing an integrated solution because we are no where near "good enough" in this realm.  Very few people are truly prepared for a world where everything is connected and data is flying across the Internet from all these connected things. 

 

 

And how much of bbry revenue is generated in this Layer? :)

[txlaw]

 

No, you're completely wrong about this.  Both Knox and Balance are containerization technologies.  And both are architected into their respective OS'es.  Knox is the Android version of Balance, and is no more secure than Balance, as far as we know (I doubt liability issues have anything to do with Samsung's silence).  The reason Samsung had to develop Knox is because stock Android is not as secure as other OS'es.

 

As it turns out, I was wrong about Blackberry branding their containerization software for iOS and Android as Balance.  The containerization software that Blackberry is going to offer for those devices will be called Secure Workspace.

 

Take a look at where the container is in the diagram:

http://www.samsung.com/global/business/mobile/samsungknox/images/img_knox_01.jpg

 

Do you even have a clue? Do you know what containerization is?

 

All that is the same with Blackberry Balance on BB10.  That's why government agencies have approved both BB10 and Knox for use by their employees!

 

Seriously, you are saying that Knox is different than Balance on BB10 because you looked at that diagram?  Do a little research into the architectural aspect of BB10 and Balance.

[txlaw]

 

 

The BBRY secure data services and software that I have talked about in all the posts above are part of the layer where the value is right now.  Right now, BBRY benefits from providing an integrated solution because we are no where near "good enough" in this realm.  Very few people are truly prepared for a world where everything is connected and data is flying across the Internet from all these connected things. 

 

 

And how much of bbry revenue is generated in this Layer? :)

 

Well, they break down software and services revenue separately from hardware revenue.  The question is whether they can stabilize that revenue and how profitable that revenue will be, isn't it?

[txlaw]

Incidentally, in case people are wondering why I even bother to engage with ValueInv and wellmont on BBRY, given the way they behave (I've been asked this question by PM before), it is because this board is very Fairfax-centric, and so I feel I can add some value by discussing the business behind such a large FFH equity position.

 

However, it's taking a lot of time to respond to these posts and, frankly, I'm tired of being trolled.  So I'm going to have to resist the urge to respond to these guys. 

 

If I relapse, feel free to intervene so that I don't get caught up in these exchanges!

[Guest wellmont]

 

Well, they break down software and services revenue separately from hardware revenue.  The question is whether they can stabilize that revenue and how profitable that revenue will be, isn't it?

 

I don't mean device subscription revenue, which is declining. I mean how much revenue is bbry reporting in these segments that you are so focused on, MDM and M2M?  I am trying to figure out why you ascribe so much of bbry intrinsic value on this segment...

 

ps: how I "behave"? are you serious?