BlackBerry Messenger for iPhone (it’s OK to laugh)
If you can’t beat ’em, tell the government to force ’em to let you beat ’em. That’s the approach BlackBerry CEO John Chen wants to take to mobile software development. Today Chen wrote in a blog post on the BlackBerry website that he believes the issue of net neutrality requires the government to not only promote and protect neutrality not only among wireless and broadband carriers, but also among app and content providers.
Chen argues that it’s pointless to tell Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, and other carriers that they can’t discriminate against certain data while still allowing applications and content providers to discriminate against certain platforms.
Here’s a direct quote from Chen’s post:
Unfortunately, not all content and applications providers have embraced openness and neutrality. Unlike BlackBerry, which allows iPhone users to download and use our BBM service, Apple does not allow BlackBerry or Android users to download Apple’s iMessage messaging service. Netflix, which has forcefully advocated for carrier neutrality, has discriminated against BlackBerry customers by refusing to make its streaming movie service available to them. Many other applications providers similarly offer service only to iPhone and Android users. This dynamic has created a two-tiered wireless broadband ecosystem, in which iPhone and Android users are able to access far more content and applications than customers using devices running other operating systems. These are precisely the sort of discriminatory practices that neutrality advocates have criticized at the carrier level.
To put Chen’s points in simpler terms, he’s angry that services like Netflix and iMessage are not available for BlackBerry devices and says that the government should require the companies responsible for those services (and others like them) to stop “discriminating” against BlackBerry.
The executive points to BlackBerry’s BBM service as a shining example of a cross-platform messaging service, noting that it is also available to users on iPhones and Android devices. Unfortunately, the lackluster BBM app currently available for iOS doesn’t do a great job of inspiring confidence in cross-platform design.
Chen’s argument, of course, hinges on the idea that features like iMessage shouldn’t serve as selling points for their respective devices. It seems the CEO has forgotten that the point of creating proprietary software is to encourage people to spend money on a specific product.
If iMessage was available on BlackBerry and Android phones, Apple wouldn’t have much reason to keep improving it because it would no longer be helping them sell iPhones. To the contrary, the exclusivity of iMessage on Apple’s devices is the single factor keeping many people on iOS. To allow those users to take their iMessage account to another platform would be helping sell competing handsets.
As for Netflix and other services that are typically platform agnostic but choose to exclude BlackBerry, the problem lies in the investment of time and money required to build an app for a new platform. Are there enough BlackBerry users clamoring for a Netflix app to warrant the effort, or would it ultimately be a waste of time for the streaming service to pursue? Why should Netflix invest its own time and money on an app that won’t serve a user base substantial enough to justify the expense? Would the work essentially be charity for BlackBerry to help sell smartphones?
Of course, BlackBerry isn’t the only platform that would benefit from this. Suddenly, messaging services with Mac apps could also have to build a Windows app and a Linux app. Without a clear definition of how popular a platform needs to be to qualify for “neutrality,” could any company theoretically create a smartphone running a new operating system and demand that legislators ensure that software developers support whatever they’ve created?
As soon as one takes even a slightly closer look at Chen’s argument, it starts to fall apart and his true intentions become painfully obvious: he wants the government to force other companies to help him get people interested in his products again—a goal he has thus far been unable to accomplish on his own.
Perhaps if Chen worried more about attracting consumers back to his platform, he could provide Netflix and other companies with a proper incentive to support BlackBerry devices.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
lol, no one asked/forced BB to release bbm for ios. If you have an iphone, why would you need a bbm, no one care and really use that sh*t anymore…at least none of my friends… if any of you by any chance have one, i feel sorry for you…
As a long time Mac user, I remember pre-iMac when a lot of Mac users cried in frustration about getting Windows software ported over. And if it wasn’t for San Francisco Canyon Company, Apple most likely would have been put out of business had MS stopped selling Office for the Mac. How would Mac users have felt then.
Perhaps. But that was a business arrangement between companies, not a government mandate.
Chen wants the government to step in and fundamentally change the way businesses operate because he’s having a tough time competing. Well, tough toenails. That’s the way the world works. That’s the way things have always worked.
People need to stop running to the government to fix everything. That’s not what government is for. Regulating the data infrastructure is not the same as regulating the apps and services that use it.
The Government told MS that couldn’t integrate a browser into their operating system because it created a barrier to entry for Netscape. The penalty ultimately resulted in MS giving users a choice on first startup to select one of many competing browsers. I don’t remember their being much blow back for that decision.
I don’t care about blowback. I’m saying it’s wrong for the government to involve itself this deeply in business and the markets. What happened to MS was wrong. OS integration has nothing to do with browser choice and everyone knows it. People were using alternative browsers long before the government stepped in. The government had no business doing what they did. The same holds true here with BB.
idk, never really use ms office except when i have to at work (ms excel), i keep my mac clean of ms stuffs… i guess ms ported it because there were demands from customers, and since ms is as greedy as apple, they wanted that untapped money from mac users. Fortunately, apple won’t do the same mistake ms did.
You guys clearly weren’t around when Netscape was the #1 browser, or you would remember how quickly MS crushed them with Internet Explorer.
I was around for Netscape. What does that have to do with government intervention in business affairs?
Netscape had complete control of the browser market until MS used its monopoly power and forced their browsers on 98% of PC users. The government stepped in, forced MS to unbundle the web browser from the file browser, and then forced MS to give users a choice in browsers. If you look at the market share of Netscape on Wikipedia, you’ll see that IE’s market share began dropping shortly after the government control was put in place. Now we really do have a choice in browsers.
I should add that Netscape earned its browser share the right way, it invented it. MS had nothing to offer in their early browsers except their control over the OS.
So your argument is that Netscape’s dominance was upset by Microsoft’s dominance and the government needed to step in and correct that…because Microsoft.
Three problems.
One, IE’s integration with Windows Explorer had nothing to do with what browser you used. People used Netscape and Opera before, during, and after the MS judgment. I know I did. Choice has always been available; the government didn’t make it happen. Just because people chose to use the installed browser doesn’t mean there was a problem. Just because people choose to use Mobile Safari on their iPhones and iPads more than Chrome or Opera doesn’t mean the government needs to step in. People actually like integration and convenience.
Two, even if a browser does have dominance, it doesn’t last for long. No one stays on top. The market corrects. People invent. Trends change. And it does this with or without the government. Better without.
Three, the government shouldn’t be able to tell a company what to do with it’s own product. Private companies are not beholden to the US Government. Push them too hard and they will leave, like oh so many that have left the US behind over the last few decades. People wonder why America isn’t what it used to be, here’s an example!
Well, this is quickly turning into a political discussion and those get tiresome real fast. I’ve said my peace. Enjoyed the talk.
This was my concern. You’ll basically ignore all reasonable evidence to the contrary. You should be addressing the market share chart provided by Wikipedia which shows MS’s complete dominance in the browser market share up to 2001 when the trial started. You can always go find that one person who uses Mosaic, but that doesn’t mean it was a viable product, especially when MS had 98% of the market. The browsers you’ve cited were all introduced well after the trial.
Okay, of course Apple isn’t going to write iMessage for BB, but there is an old, obvious problem pointed out here.
Open Formats and Protocols. Standards.
Operating systems have gotten siloed into their messaging systems. See http://goo.gl/SvLQ8d
I smell a Samsung end-run.
For a stupid person, Mr. Chen sure says dumb things.
And yet, he is running a multi-billion dollar company while you sit here and run your mouth. Pretty sure stupid didn’t get him into that position.
Well, he is running one of the most famous examples of a company that is rapidly going extinct. 7 years ago, they were a household name and the biggest thing going in smartphones. Now they’re a footnote on their way out the door that can’t compete.
And while they were failing, Android was able to coma along and dominate in the new touchscreen smartphone field. That Blackberry couldn’t shift their existing might against two TOTAL NEWCOMERS to the market shows that, yeah, that company has no problem putting stupid in charge.
He didn’t sink the company, the people before him started it.
Apple could easily avoid the imbalance that Chen complains about by simply ceasing to distribute the BBM app for iPhone. Those who still use BB will use BBM, while iPhone users will use Apple’s iMessage, but not BBM. Would Chen prefer that outcome ?
And also..I used bbm from 2010 to 2012 which was its most popular years in Turkey. I bought a bb torch right before it came out it was I guess 2008 that bb was still a dominating power. When it was dominating power did it give bbm to other companies? No. There wasnt even whatsapp when they were the only one and now they are not they are crying like a spoiled child. This is pathetic.
Chen can go to hell Apple is doing the right thing,
Chen does seem to doing and saying anything just to keep people talking, even if it is to point and laugh, it’s still promotion.
Sadly he always fails to address the fact that people are done with BB, numbers dwindling.
BB exists to prop up share price and keep up the search for a patent buyer with deep pockets, that’s all this is about. We are way beyond death throws, this company is already buried. It’s just a ghost remains looking for some kind of resolution….
BlackBerry would be so much more successful if successful apps were forced to come to Blackberry
Interesting points, but history will show that RIM dragged its feet to port BBM to any other platform way past the point where people really cared for cross-platform support. How come it took them 7 years to port it? Reminds me of the bully in the sandpit that refuses to share his toys, and only when he wants a toy from another child quickly hands him a spade and starts crying to the teacher that his generous deed is not being reciprocated… LOL!
Isn’t Blackberry enterprise server running only on Windows??
I can feel that BB is circling the crapper.
Hello Mr. Chen,
Please gtfo!
You know what I’d love to see – Apple open up iMessage if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the market that Chen is grasping at straws to find someone or something to blame for their mismanagement. Talk to any Blackberry customers and they’ll tell you just how horrible their devices were – that the love for the Blackberry (prior to iOS and Android) was out of necessity rather than because of devotion to the product. If Chen wants to save face then they should stick to the Blackberry Classic and focus on developing their QNX product which is winning some big names recently.
By that logic, anyone should be allowed to create an inferior operating environment on subpar hardware, then force everyone to create apps for it.
“Desperate Times Call For Desperation” – John Chen’s plan to resuscitate Blackberry.\
John – Just go quietly into the night and be satisfied with Blackberry / RIM’s past glory and accomplishments!
I had a BB Curve and used a MacBook Pro. Syncing was terrible. BB did not support it, Windows only was their attitude. Had to but expensive 3rd party software and it worked poorly at best. When the iPhone came out with its builtin sync support for Macs, I dropped BB like a hot potato. Never looked back. BB built their boat, let it sink with them in it.
Perhaps I misunderstand, but it sounds like Chen is arguing for his own demise. If iMessage is ported to BB, wouldn’t that pretty much be the end if BBM?
That really takes the cake in terms of dumb things the CEO of a dying company could say.
Is this guy serious? Net neutrality should certainly NOT extend to forcing content providers to develop for platforms that they do not find to provide a return on their investment. The government should never be allowed to tell a company what platform to develop for. The whole idea is ridiculous.
Hahahahaha I had some respect for BlackBerry but now with this and the fact that they’re talking to Samsung I kinda lost that respect. Also, this might be the funniest title I’ve ever read on 9To5Mac!
So Chen is pooping his pants and wants to introduce socialism into app development. If you can’t make on your own force the government to give you welfare. Despite not being a Blackberry user, I had respect for what Chen was doing to revive Blackberry and his execution of the plan. I just lost all respect for him.
Its not even HIS government. 😄
Moooooooooom! Apple won’t play with us!!
Net neutrality has nothing to do with iMessage. Chen is on drugs. Net neutrality is about data and how it is delivered at what cost. If you pay for a certain speed you should get that speed that you paid for and that’s it.
Not one get one speed and another get another speed and cost even though they are paying for the same package.
Im going to play devils advocate for a sec… I agree to a certain extent to what Chen is saying, Until the iphone 6 was released with the bigger screen i was an android user, and i would get a little upset when there were only apps geared toward iphone, especially when android was first starting out.
Now, i primarily use Apple devices as my daily drivers, and i am really enjoying the experience. The only thing that frustrates me with Apple is that they have yet to open their apps up to EVERYONE. The primary reason that i took the plunge from android to Apple is that Google has majority of its apps available for iphone users.
Apple has yet to extend the olive branch to other platforms. In a sense Apple is locking customers into one platform
While i do believe apple should be more open, how many consumers actually use blackberry to raise such a concern? Blackberry has been struggling for years now and I really hope someone is able to put them out of their misery.
And I want Burger King to make the Whopper available at McDonalds. Life isn’t fair.
So, let’s see.. Chen CAN’T find, internally or externally, people that will come to work for him that CAN do this job but HE won’t pay for it….Humm.. BUT, he expects the Guv-ment to force Apple and others to just do the additional development that does NOT benefit them, but it does Blackberry, at no cost to Blackberry…Humm.. Wonder where he got his definition of “CAPITALISM’ ??… Oh yea, rethuglicons!!!
A number of folks have suggested that Apple should apply a small portion of its cash pile and buy BlackBerry.
In some ways that is a bad idea, as the phones are not long for this world (it would seem).
On the other hand, BB does have a substantial pile of important patents and Apple would do well to make sure that these do not fall into the hands of, say, Samsung. And the secure-message-system is very well regarded and would be a boost to Apple in Enterprise.
And since BB is a Canadian company, I guess Apple could use its non-U.S. funds to make the acquisition.
I want Mario on PS, XBOX and PC/Mac/iOS/Android!
Way back at the launch of iMessage, I’m 99% sure that Apple said they would make it an open standard or protocol. Can you imagine how many companies would have trouble if they were FORCED to spend resources on developing apps for every single platform? – especially the small game developers.
Apple never said they’d make iMessage an open standard. They said that FaceTime would be, though, and I think we’re still waiting on that to happen.
oh, maybe that was it… I think both should be though. Nobody uses FaceTime as much as iMessage – I hate green bubble people XD
Let’s play Devil’s advocate for a moment.
iMessage is useless to me. Nobody I routinely correspond with via text uses iOS or a sufficiently-recent OSX. Those that have the hardware don’t use iCloud or update their software or just don’t take advantage of it. AIM has let itself become a joke, Yahoo! messenger fails miserably when you have multiple computers, Skype gets a lot of hate but at least message sync works. Google has been removing the features I liked about Talk, and the official client is an extension for a browser I don’t want to run because it eats a gig of RAM, and third-party client interoperability is flaky at best since the talk-to-hangouts transition. iMessage is a robust platform, and I want it to provide at least a modicum of value to me.
hahahahaha hahahhahahahahah lol hahahahahahahahhahahah no way hahahahahahah oh wow hahahahhahaahahah I can’t breath… can’t breath.
Ah ok… so. Even if they were required, what living person would use it? Do they even sale blackberry devices anymore?
I quite like those underdogs. That got me interested in apple back then when they were in struggle to remain relevant in computer industry. And it is what makes me interested in BBRY now. By the way John Chen, who wrote this unfortunate article, was also among very few persons considered to do turnaround of Apple Computers. Judging by what he done at Sybase and steps that now undertakes BBRY there is no doubt apple would be very different indeed if he was appointed.
It is also fair to mention, that BBRY did have more than a decade of having BBM exclusively for itself, helping it tie consumers to tis platform, just like apple does with imessage now. Before it realized that its own installed base is rapidly shrinking to non existence and to remain relevant it actually had to port to iOS and android. And by the way, it didnt even botherd to port BBM for its own Playbook. I also personally believe that BBRY would acctually not very happy if apple was to port imesage, because it would really only eliminate any need for not only BBM but also WhatsApp and perhaps even viber. Only thing I got from his statement is that his platform is under equipped, when it comes to apps. And it is true. Chen is now focusing on enterprise – thing he understands – selling platform independent server communication and device management services to corporations. Also, even BBRY is far behind apple in consumer space, refinement and app-ecosystem. The system, however, which is based on QNX- the same soft that powers your carplay-enabled car infotainment – is still way better in design than android.