BB - BlackBerry

[Grenville]

Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd. is exploring ways to take BlackBerry Ltd. private, according to people familiar with the situation, prompting Fairfax chairman Prem Watsa’s departure from the smartphone maker’s board on Monday.

 

There was no strategic disagreement between Mr. Watsa and the board, and all sides would have preferred he remain a director, according to these sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But Mr. Watsa stepped down in order to avoid criticism that he was in a conflict of interest.

[Parsad]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/blackberry-says-it-is-exploring-strategic-alternatives/article13708618/

 

 

Fairfax mulls taking BlackBerry private

 

Prem should just give Wilbur Ross a call.  Let's team up again buddy!  ;D  Cheers!

[Guest valueInv]

 

- before I go looking through the BBRY financials; anybody have an idea as to how much of their revenue comes from QNX based products/services like the auto OS products, etc. (not including BB10 based devices, BBM, BES, subscriber base)?

 

This isn't broken out, but you can take a look at the Harman filings after QNX was sold to get an idea.

 

 

Here ya go:

 

http://blog.vdcresearch.com/embedded_sw/2010/04/update-2-rim-to-acquire-qnx-terms-of-the-deal.html

[txlaw]

 

- before I go looking through the BBRY financials; anybody have an idea as to how much of their revenue comes from QNX based products/services like the auto OS products, etc. (not including BB10 based devices, BBM, BES, subscriber base)?

 

This isn't broken out, but you can take a look at the Harman filings after QNX was sold to get an idea.

 

 

Here ya go:

 

http://blog.vdcresearch.com/embedded_sw/2010/04/update-2-rim-to-acquire-qnx-terms-of-the-deal.html

 

The Harman filings actually break out QNX revenues as discontinued operations, so anyone who is interested is better off going directly to the source.

[Guest wellmont]

so rimm spent $200m on a business that had sales of $40m+ in 2008 declining to $35M in 2010, giving harman a $150m gain? Wow! I bet Harman is glad ML came along. :) at that rate of decline I estimate less than $30m of annual sales for QNX this year. it's no wonder they don't break it out. :)

 

In fiscal year 2009, a $12.8 million goodwill impairment charge was recorded.

$41 of $46m net assets classified as "other".

[Guest valueInv]

So now things are getting a bit more interesting. 

 

I believe we're going to get some more clarity on the value of these assets I keep talking about (QNX, the NOC and security services, BES, BBM, subscriber base, etc.) fairly soon.  The market simply doesn't have the patience to wait for the "new" revenue to come -- though I believe it's coming, in the form of Secure Work Space/BBM subscriptions, BES subscriptions, and more -- but it will certainly listen to what strategics think about the value embedded there.

 

As I have always stated, when it comes to BBRY, think run-off/break-up value and resource conversion (see Martin Whitman et al).

 

------

 

Here's the important part of the press release:

 

[T]he Company's Board of Directors has formed a Special Committee to explore strategic alternatives to enhance value and increase scale in order to accelerate BlackBerry 10 deployment. These alternatives could include, among others, possible joint ventures, strategic partnerships or alliances, a sale of the Company or other possible transactions.

 

There has been a lot of focus on a PE buyout or sale of the company to strategic buyers, but we shouldn't discount the possibility of a JV, which could actually be the most likely outcome.  I have no opinion on who any potential PE buyers would be, but I highly doubt that FFH would put more money into BBRY.  They own quite a bit of the company already, and they'd be more likely to participate in a PE entity created for the purpose of purchasing BBRY.

 

----

 

Re: strategic buyouts, partnerships, alliances, and JVs, there are a multitude of options out there.

 

MSFT -- A lot of people have suggested MSFT in the past.  I don't believe this makes much sense, though.  MSFT is committed to Windows and its other solutions (included its own embedded systems option), and I don't think it's possible at all to fold in BBRY's core OS technology into Windows.  Having said that, there could be some incentive for MSFT to do a deal in order to take advantage of the security advantages that BBRY has over the competition.

 

AMZN -- Amazon could potentially be a JV partner, in order to bring out an AMZN smart phone, but at this point, I doubt this will happens.  They seem to be fairly committed to forking Android, and I think they don't really have the expertise necessary to form a partnership that would be of much value.  AMZN is better off sticking with Android, but making sure that its services will run on top of BB10.

 

Chinese hardware partners -- Importantly, the announcement talks about getting scale to accelerate BB10 deployment.  One thing that would be great for BBRY would be to do a JV with a low cost Chinese hardware partner who brings scale to the mix.  At that point, BBRY would be focusing solely on software and services, while letting its partner design hardware on an accelerated timeframe.  But one problem with having a Chinese hardware partner is that security is obviously a key differentiating factor for BBRY, and it's not clear that a JV or sale of the hardware ops would survive regulatory scrutiny.

 

Samsung -- Don't count out Samsung as being a potential partner here.  Samsung understands that the OS is commoditizing, and that their advantage lies in hardware manufacturing and in offering software and services on top of the OS.  Samsung has been heavily reliant on Android, but they're trying to address this problem.  They are developing Tizen, they are partnering with Mozilla to develop a solution that will compete with Chrome/ChromeOS, and they could easily start manufacturing hardware that would optimally run BB10.  Samsung has also expressed a desire to be everywhere, not just in traditional "mobile computing" devices, which indicates that they are interested in M2M and IoT (especially since they manufacture a lot of appliances that will be connected to the Internet).  As I keep mentioning, QNX has a huge advantage compared to other OS's when it comes to the M2M and IoT space (due to the differences between a microkernel vs. monolithic kernel).  And QNX allows developers to put HTML5 and Android apps into a container that runs on top of QNX.  Samsung could help BBRY reduce the performance issues we see with sideloading Android apps on BB10 and other OS's built on top of QNX, and could also help to make porting Android apps to QNX-based sysems a lot easier.

 

I could definitely see a partnership with Samsung in the works.  (Sony, on the other hand, seems to be very close to GOOG, and I doubt they will jettison Android right at the time when they are possibly due for a comeback in their electronic hardware ops.)

 

IBM -- IBM has been a leader when it comes to M2M and IoT.  I could easily see them buying BBRY in order to put QNX everywhere and sell software and services tied to QNX.  By purchasing BBRY, IBM would further strengthen their ties to the corporate boardroom, and they would have a shot at offering the premier "mobile computing platform" to handle any devices, appliances, or durable goods that need to be connected to the Internet.  There are many sophisticated manufacturers out there who are looking to provide services that are attached to their goods.  For example, companies like Agco are offering technology solutions to their farmer customers that are intended to increase productivity through data collection.  IBM would love to power these sorts of technology solutions.  And BBRY technology could provide a solution.

 

It's going to be very interesting to see what happens in the next couple of months.

 

So the idea here is that most of these companies want to buy/partner with RIM for their software business which are 2.5% of revenue. And somehow, that business will magically grow and replace the other 97.5% of the revenues and thus, investors will live happily ever after.  ::)

[fareastwarriors]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-13/made-in-canada-solution-seen-saving-blackberry-from-nortel-fate.html

 

 

Made-in-Canada Solution Seen Saving BlackBerry From Nortel Fate

[Ballinvarosig Investors]

I said this 2 months ago.

The real question now is how long Blackberry are going to pursue their present course. If the board are smart, they'll give it another quarter before they start looking at "strategic alternatives" - i.e. dropping BB10. If you ask me, Microsoft may very well end up stepping in and doing a deal to bring Windows Phone to BB devices. With that kind of backing, Blackberry might just have a chance in surviving. Microsoft also get to expand WP market share to businesses and corporations. Blackberry would want to decide quickly though, each quarter they are shedding market share and customers.

Guys, you need to cut through all the guff of the Blackberry statement.

 

When Blackberry talk about "accelerating BB10 deployment" - they're basically making a cry for help. They're saying "despite our best efforts, sales of BB10 have been awful and now we desperately need a third party to step in". It's like the drowning man who is trying to reach out to anything to stay afloat. There is nothing saving BB10 at this stage. None of the big players will step in to jeopardize their own OS's (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) and the remaining fringe players will have learned the lessons of HP's disastrous acquisition of Palm. BB10 is done.

 

Right now, there are a few different scenario's for Blackberry.

 

1. Exit the handset business entirely - focus on rolling out their enterprise services to Apple and Google devices. Sell the QNX/BB10 assets to the highest bidder.

2. Remain in the handset business, but adopt one of the industry leading OS's and bundle their enterprise services with that OS. Sell the QNX/BB10 assets to the highest bidder.

3. Find a strategic partner. They could do a deal with Microsoft for example. We know Microsoft are paying Nokia $1 billion a year for them to use Windows Phone exclusively. It would make a lot of sense for Microsoft to gain exclusivity of the Blackberry infrastructure on their OS.

4. Just put all the bits of the company up for sale to the highest bidder.

[txlaw]

So the idea here is that most of these companies want to buy/partner with RIM for their software business which are 2.5% of revenue. And somehow, that business will magically grow and replace the other 97.5% of the revenues and thus, investors will live happily ever after.  ::)

 

Not at all. 

 

What you and wellmont are missing is that the revenue I think you are referring to (licensing QNX to complex good manufacturers + associated revs for middleware, dev tools, and consulting) has little relation to the value of QNX today and the tied software and services business that BBRY is trying to create.  (Note that I referred yp to those filings because he asked, not because I place much importance on them, though of course I've looked at them.)

 

Remember, my thesis across the board continues to be that the OS is commoditizing, and that the OS licensing business model is in decline.  This includes selling embedded OS licenses in the form of an integrated hardware product.  The money for these OS providers is in software and services that are on top of the OS. 

 

I'll make it simple for you.  When Mike Lazaridis bought QNX, I believe he was thinking along the same lines as Larry and Sergey when they bought Android.  The idea is that QNX should be everywhere there is a need for mobile computing, and BBRY can provide software and services tied to that OS (e.g., MDM, secure work space, secure messaging, data transfer monitoring, etc.).  What's different now is that BBRY is also attempting to provide its software and services across the other OS's as well because the mobile handset version of QNX (BB10) is not being adopted.

 

So what you really need to be asking is what will happen to the over $3 billion in software and services revenue going forward. 

 

Unfortunately, the market is too impatient to wait to see how the revenue model will be changing going forward.  We're not even 9 months in to the launch of BB10, the new BES, and cross platform Secure Work Space and BBM, and investors are clamoring for certainty.  C'est la vie. 

 

And that's probably why BBRY is considering going private.  However, I still think a JV or sale to a strategic would be better for OPMIs.

[Guest wellmont]

the facts don't support what you are saying. the facts support the idea that ML bought a business that was in decline for a price that gave harman a $150m profit on a $50m investment. He overpaid. He paid $200m for a business that probably has $30m in sales and little to no earnings at this point. their biggest customer is moving to Android. QNX would have faded away had it not been for ML coming along believing the world needed yet another mobile operating system.

 

ML bought ML because of ego. Even though Android had established itself as the dominant OS alternative to IOS, he believed bbry needed to "own" it's own IP, it's own OS. The decision has turned out to be wrong and has simply delayed the day of reckoning for bbry. Many industry analysts believed it was a losing idea to compete against IOS windows and Android with another OS. They turned out to be right. I was incredibly surprised that they went ahead with the plan for bb10. 

 

PW has lost patience in that strategy, has resigned from bod, and now feels he has to own bbry outright in order to recoup his losses. I suspect that if he gets control of bbry, he will take drastic action to right size the company and begin to make economic decisions, out of the limelight of being a public company.

[txlaw]

I said this 2 months ago.

The real question now is how long Blackberry are going to pursue their present course. If the board are smart, they'll give it another quarter before they start looking at "strategic alternatives" - i.e. dropping BB10. If you ask me, Microsoft may very well end up stepping in and doing a deal to bring Windows Phone to BB devices. With that kind of backing, Blackberry might just have a chance in surviving. Microsoft also get to expand WP market share to businesses and corporations. Blackberry would want to decide quickly though, each quarter they are shedding market share and customers.

Guys, you need to cut through all the guff of the Blackberry statement.

 

When Blackberry talk about "accelerating BB10 deployment" - they're basically making a cry for help. They're saying "despite our best efforts, sales of BB10 have been awful and now we desperately need a third party to step in". It's like the drowning man who is trying to reach out to anything to stay afloat. There is nothing saving BB10 at this stage. None of the big players will step in to jeopardize their own OS's (Google, Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) and the remaining fringe players will have learned the lessons of HP's disastrous acquisition of Palm. BB10 is done.

 

Right now, there are a few different scenario's for Blackberry.

 

1. Exit the handset business entirely - focus on rolling out their enterprise services to Apple and Google devices. Sell the QNX/BB10 assets to the highest bidder.

2. Remain in the handset business, but adopt one of the industry leading OS's and bundle their enterprise services with that OS. Sell the QNX/BB10 assets to the highest bidder.

3. Find a strategic partner. They could do a deal with Microsoft for example. We know Microsoft are paying Nokia $1 billion a year for them to use Windows Phone exclusively. It would make a lot of sense for Microsoft to gain exclusivity of the Blackberry infrastructure on their OS.

4. Just put all the bits of the company up for sale to the highest bidder.

 

The break up of BBRY could certainly happen.  On the other hand, you shouldn't discount other options because the value of BBRY is greater together than apart.

 

The reason that is the case is because the software and services model that BBRY is trying to create has more value if you can ensure that it will be used on more than just mobile phone handsets.  And that's what QNX is all about.

 

And you shouldn't expect BB10 to just go away.  It may remain niche, but there's no reason to just let it die.  After all, BB10 is one of the reasons why a number of existing corporate and government customers will be adopting BES, BBM, other associated services.  Do you really think DoD would even care about BES if the entire package didn't offer some differentiation from other MDM solutions?  I don't. 

 

If BBRY does something stupid now like adopting Win Phone and junking QNX/BB10, then the value of their software and services business will be less than what it is today, and they'd really be screwed.  (I do think it's fair to say, however, that BBRY might be worth more today if they had never bought QNX and, instead, had partnered with a MSFT at the outset.  But what's done is done.) 

[txlaw]

the facts don't support what you are saying. the facts support the idea that ML bought a business that was in decline for a price that gave harman a $150m profit on a $50m investment. He overpaid. He paid $200m for a business that probably has $30m in sales and little to no earnings at this point. their biggest customer is moving to Android. QNX would have faded away had it not been for ML coming along believing the world needed yet another mobile operating system.

 

ML bought ML because of ego. Even though Android had established itself as the dominant OS alternative to IOS, he believed bbry needed to "own" it's own IP, it's own OS. The decision has turned out to be a wrong and has simply delayed the day of reckoning for bbry. Most industry analysts believed it was a losing idea to compete against IOS windows and Android with another OS. They turned out to be right. 

 

I disagree.  QNX is worth more today than what BBRY paid for it. 

 

You just don't have the patience to wait and see that.  You wanted to see tied service revenues and BB10 licensing right out the gate -- that's not long term thinking at all.  Do you think Larry and Sergey thought that way when they bought Android?

 

You're also focusing far too much on the legacy "handset" business.  You have to think M2M and IoT.  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.

 

PW has lost patience in that strategy, has resigned from bod, and now feels he has to own bbry outright in order to recoup his losses. I suspect that if he gets control of bbry, he will take drastic action to right size the company and begin to make economic decisions, out of the limelight of being a public company.

 

You don't know anything about what PW is thinking, and it drives me crazy when you make statements like this (about PW, ESL, or whomever).

 

Isn't it possible that PW still agrees with BBRY's strategy, but that he thinks that being a public company is hampering BBRY's ability to execute?

[Guest wellmont]

it drives me crazy when you don't support (with data) your statements about QNX MDM and all the other pie in the sky estimates about bbry future revenue opportunities that you come up with. I guess it's a "secret". The facts, the only published data to the SEC database, show that QNX was in serious decline at time of purchase for $200m. And all indications are, with HI moving to Andriod, that the business is getting worse. Where is the evidence that QNX is getting any traction whatsoever? why don't they break it out? why don't they talk about it? Why is this even being discussed ($30m of revenue) out of a multi billion $ revenue base as if has any business impact? It's not a value driver. It's a sideshow that you seem to be fascinated with.

[Guest valueInv]

the facts don't support what you are saying. the facts support the idea that ML bought a business that was in decline for a price that gave harman a $150m profit on a $50m investment. He overpaid. He paid $200m for a business that probably has $30m in sales and little to no earnings at this point. their biggest customer is moving to Android. QNX would have faded away had it not been for ML coming along believing the world needed yet another mobile operating system.

 

ML bought ML because of ego. Even though Android had established itself as the dominant OS alternative to IOS, he believed bbry needed to "own" it's own IP, it's own OS. The decision has turned out to be a wrong and has simply delayed the day of reckoning for bbry. Most industry analysts believed it was a losing idea to compete against IOS windows and Android with another OS. They turned out to be right. 

 

I disagree.  QNX is worth more today than what BBRY paid for it. 

 

You just don't have the patience to wait and see that.  You wanted to see tied service revenues and BB10 licensing right out the gate -- that's not long term thinking at all.  Do you think Larry and Sergey thought that way when they bought Android?

 

You're also focusing far too much on the legacy "handset" business.  You have to think M2M and IoT.  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

 

Hey genius, Linux runs most of the world's routers where security and reliability are paramount. It also runs most of the world's mission critical servers and pretty much everything.

 

QNX has half of the in-car operating system market but little else. To jump from there to the M2M market is a feat of imagination worthy of JK Rowling. I would be surprised if QNX has even a single digit percentage of the embedded OS market.

 

[txlaw]

it drives me crazy when you don't support (with data) your statements about QNX MDM and all the other pie in the sky estimates about bbry future revenue opportunities that you come up with. I guess it's a "secret". The facts, the only published data to the SEC database, show that QNX was in serious decline at time of purchase for $200m. And all indications are, with HI moving to Andriod, that the business is getting worse. Where is the evidence that QNX is getting any traction whatsoever? why don't they break it out? why don't they talk about it? Why is this even being discussed ($30m of revenue) out of a multi billion $ revenue base as if has any business impact? It's not a value driver. It's a sideshow that you seem to be fascinated with.

 

Like I said, you don't have the patience to wait for it. 

[Guest wellmont]

neither does PW apparently.  ;D

[txlaw]

the facts don't support what you are saying. the facts support the idea that ML bought a business that was in decline for a price that gave harman a $150m profit on a $50m investment. He overpaid. He paid $200m for a business that probably has $30m in sales and little to no earnings at this point. their biggest customer is moving to Android. QNX would have faded away had it not been for ML coming along believing the world needed yet another mobile operating system.

 

ML bought ML because of ego. Even though Android had established itself as the dominant OS alternative to IOS, he believed bbry needed to "own" it's own IP, it's own OS. The decision has turned out to be a wrong and has simply delayed the day of reckoning for bbry. Most industry analysts believed it was a losing idea to compete against IOS windows and Android with another OS. They turned out to be right. 

 

I disagree.  QNX is worth more today than what BBRY paid for it. 

 

You just don't have the patience to wait and see that.  You wanted to see tied service revenues and BB10 licensing right out the gate -- that's not long term thinking at all.  Do you think Larry and Sergey thought that way when they bought Android?

 

You're also focusing far too much on the legacy "handset" business.  You have to think M2M and IoT.  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

 

Hey genius, Linux runs most of the world's routers where security and reliability are paramount. It also runs most of the world's mission critical servers and pretty much everything.

 

QNX has half of the in-car operating system market but little else. To jump from there to the M2M market is a feat of imagination worthy of JK Rowling. I would be surprised if QNX has even a single digit percentage of the embedded OS market.

 

Haha, routers and servers are not exactly what I was talking about.  I'm talking about medical devices, transport systems, complex telecom hardware, energy grid systems, mission critical sensors and devices, etc.

 

What I am arguing is that the QNX kernel is architecturally superior to a monolithic kernel like Linux when it comes to providing an embedded solution that is both reliable and secure (to the extent that's even possible).  That's why you don't have people putting Android everywhere.  Take a look at where QNX runs (it's easy -- just go to the QNX website) and read some white papers/academic literature if you want to get a better understanding.  Actually, for those of you who are more technically sophisticated, I refer you to the Tannenbaum-Torvalds debate.  In many ways, QNX is a manifestation of the idea that a microkernel architecture is superior when it comes to security and reliability.  Or if you hate BBRY so much, think about MSFT's Midori project.

 

These issues of security and reliability are very important to the future of mobile computing.  There was a fellow named Barnaby Jack who recently passed who made a career out of demonstrating the security and reliability flaws of embedded solutions.  Business and governments need to be concerned about this.

 

Btw, when you talk about this being "fiction," what you're really demonstrating is a lack of "vision."  And this is not my vision -- it's Mike Lazaridis' vision.  ML has to be commended for his vision, if not for his execution.

 

As an aside, you really ought to change your tone and the way you post.  I've never complained directly to Parsad about your insulting posts, but you're totally bringing down the quality of the board, IMO.  Clearly, others think so.  It's very difficult to have a conversation when someone engages in flaming.

[txlaw]

Btw, QNX is used on the most complex routers.  Check out Cisco's portfolio.

[rkbabang]

While it is certainly debatable which kernel architecture is superior and for which applications, I'd argue that any truly secure system is open source.  That is the number one requirement regardless of architecture.  Otherwise you have no way of knowing which bugs or weaknesses exist in the code and no easy way to find out.  You are simply trusting the vendor.  QNX was open source before Blackberry acquired it, it no longer is. Anyone trusting the operation of a mission critical system such as power grid or a nuclear powerplant to a closed source OS is insane regardless of its other advantages.

[mikazo]

While it is certainly debatable which kernel architecture is superior and for which applications, I'd argue that any truly secure system is open source.  That is the number one requirement regardless of architecture.  Otherwise you have no way of knowing which bugs or weaknesses exist in the code and no easy way to find out.  You are simply trusting the vendor.  QNX was open source before Blackberry acquired it, it no longer is. Anyone trusting the operation of a mission critical system such as power grid or a nuclear powerplant to a closed source OS is insane regardless of its other advantages.

 

In my experience, closed source versus open source has little to do with software security. What determines the security of software is how well it is written. There is terribly-written closed source software and terribly-written open source software. What matters is the skill of developers involved, the time spent on quality control, and how well developers design the software and coordinate with each other. A well-funded team of closed-source developers could arguably produce an amazingly secure product, or a notoriously insecure product. Similarly, the open source community could produce an amazingly secure product, or a notoriously insecure product.

 

Additionally, closed-source and open source has little to do with bug fix turnaround time. A bug could be fixed in either case and not make it to production systems very fast at all, or could make it to production systems very quickly. It all depends on the distribution model for fixes and the willingness of clients to stay on top of security updates.

 

There are many other factors at play too. The security industry is more complex than just open source vs. closed source.

[txlaw]

While it is certainly debatable which kernel architecture is superior and for which applications, I'd argue that any truly secure system is open source.  That is the number one requirement regardless of architecture.  Otherwise you have no way of knowing which bugs or weaknesses exist in the code and no easy way to find out.  You are simply trusting the vendor.  QNX was open source before Blackberry acquired it, it no longer is. Anyone trusting the operation of a mission critical system such as power grid or a nuclear powerplant to a closed source OS is insane regardless of its other advantages.

 

And I respect your opinion, while completely disagreeing with it.  I'm not an open source fundamentalist at all, and I think we need both open systems and closed systems.  It's good for consumers to have both types of systems available.

 

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.

[mikazo]

Where is the evidence that QNX is getting any traction whatsoever?

 

QNX has had traction for years. Have you looked at their website? Here is a list of companies from their website that use QNX, most of which do so because of security and stability reasons. http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.html

 

Automotive

 

Acura

Audi

BMW

Chrysler

Daewoo

GM

Hyundai

Land Rover Range Rover

Porsche

Saab

Renault Samsung

 

Industrial

 

AECL

Caterpillar

Emerson

Fortna

General Electric

Intalysis

Kieback & Peter

Novar/Honeywell

Precitech

Tridium

uControl

US Postal Service

 

Networking & Telecom

 

Adtran

Ciena

Cisco

DragonWave

Infinera

JDSU

BTI Photonics

Stoke

 

The other two categories are Medical and Security & Defense, which probably aren't disclosed because of privacy/intellectual property/security reasons.

[mikazo]

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.

 

+1

[rkbabang]

While it is certainly debatable which kernel architecture is superior and for which applications, I'd argue that any truly secure system is open source.  That is the number one requirement regardless of architecture.  Otherwise you have no way of knowing which bugs or weaknesses exist in the code and no easy way to find out.  You are simply trusting the vendor.  QNX was open source before Blackberry acquired it, it no longer is. Anyone trusting the operation of a mission critical system such as power grid or a nuclear powerplant to a closed source OS is insane regardless of its other advantages.

 

In my experience, closed source versus open source has little to do with software security. What determines the security of software is how well it is written. There is terribly-written closed source software and terribly-written open source software. What matters is the skill of developers involved, the time spent on quality control, and how well developers design the software and coordinate with each other. A well-funded team of closed-source developers could arguably produce an amazingly secure product, or a notoriously insecure product. Similarly, the open source community could produce an amazingly secure product, or a notoriously insecure product.

 

Additionally, closed-source and open source has little to do with bug fix turnaround time. A bug could be fixed in either case and not make it to production systems very fast at all, or could make it to production systems very quickly. It all depends on the distribution model for fixes and the willingness of clients to stay on top of security updates.

 

There are many other factors at play too. The security industry is more complex than just open source vs. closed source.

 

 

I agree, but with closed source how would you know?  That is like an encryption system, you could claim that you have an encryption system designed by  smarted mathematician in the world, and maybe you even do, but if it isn't open source there is no way it could be fully trusted.  Sure not all open source projects are secure or even security driven, but many are.  If you have an obscure project without very much participation, then it likely wouldn't be very high quality. But with something like Linux there are a lot of people looking at that code.  No internal software verification team at any company could equal that many eyeballs searching for bugs.  A good team of software developers can create great code, but you would have no way of knowing how secure it is from the outside. QNX has been open source for a long time and I'm sure it is pretty safe, but there is no way to inspect the code that has been added/modified over the last few years, so you have no reason to trust it other than simply trusting that Blackberry hasn't introduced any security flaws.

[Guest wellmont]

Where is the evidence that QNX is getting any traction whatsoever?

 

QNX has had traction for years. Have you looked at their website? Here is a list of companies from their website that use QNX, most of which do so because of security and stability reasons. http://www.qnx.com/solutions/industries/automotive/index.html

 

Automotive

 

Acura

Audi

BMW

Chrysler

Daewoo

GM

Hyundai

Land Rover Range Rover

Porsche

Saab

Renault Samsung

 

Industrial

 

AECL

Caterpillar

Emerson

Fortna

General Electric

Intalysis

Kieback & Peter

Novar/Honeywell

Precitech

Tridium

uControl

US Postal Service

 

Networking & Telecom

 

Adtran

Ciena

Cisco

DragonWave

Infinera

JDSU

BTI Photonics

Stoke

 

The other two categories are Medical and Security & Defense, which probably aren't disclosed because of privacy/intellectual property/security reasons.

 

revenue is declining. that tells me it's losing traction. I don't care about names on a website. I care about revenue. it's headed due south.