Linked by brynet on Thu 15th Jul 2010 16:55 UTC
QNX As of April 2010, a silent change was made on Foundry27, users with a myQNX account could no longer checkout/update their copies of the QNX SVN repositories and a vague Wiki page was created "detailing" some licencing clarifications.
Thread beginning with comment 433576
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Proprietary
by vivainio on Thu 15th Jul 2010 18:15 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

RIM has nothing to gain by meddling with this proprietary crap (even if the proprietary crap is something they own). Going your own, proprietary way pays off if you have an established position already (Apple).

If I was RIM, I would dump the other stuff they've got, adopt MeeGo/Android and add their proprietary email stuff on top of that. They could cut most of their R&D expenses that way.

Actually, HP could have done the same thing instead of dumping the money on Palm, but money moves in mysterious ways...

Reply Score: 3

RE: Proprietary
by poundsmack on Thu 15th Jul 2010 19:00 in reply to "Proprietary"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

I have to disagree. RIM could potentially have a TON to gain from QNX. Using QNX as a base for their blackberry OS would put them in a great position. If for nothing else than QNX is being used as the multimedia system in a lot of cars and it would make it dead simple to integrate your blackberry device to your car. phone/car integration is key these days (or is starting ot be).

That all aside, QNX is more stable and can have a smaller footprint than the current blackberry OS.

as for HP and Palm. HP gained not only WebOS, but all of Palm's patents, and thats HUGE!

Edited 2010-07-15 19:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Proprietary
by vivainio on Thu 15th Jul 2010 19:20 in reply to "RE: Proprietary"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Using QNX as a base for their blackberry OS would put them in a great position. If for nothing else than QNX is being used as the multimedia system in a lot of cars and it would make it dead simple to integrate your blackberry device to your car. phone/car integration is key these days (or is starting ot be).


MeeGo has an in-vehicle infotainment profile as well. I have to admit I don't know much about that, but I believe integration with those systems doesn't require kernel level compatibility. If QNX is using X (or VNC?) in these systems, I believe MeeGo (or any other Linux) would be a drop-in replacement.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Proprietary
by mrstep on Thu 15th Jul 2010 19:08 in reply to "Proprietary"
mrstep Member since:
2009-07-18

Funny, because I think what HP did is probably the most interesting - and certainly a smart - option : get their own complete stack (metal to glass) which will allow them to make devices with unique features and an interesting interface that can differentiate itself.

Aside from not paying a 'Microsoft tax' and 'saving' on R&D costs, the Android vendors are basically stuck on the standard Windows route - very little to differentiate themselves on the software side and razor-thin margins on their hardware sales, not to mention Google dabbling in their own hardware versions to further screw them over.

Investing in Pre and R&D gives HP a shot at being a real competitor, and as Apple has shown you can do both hardware and software and make very good money with much better margins. Whether HP can capitalize on that remains to be seen - do they have the technical vision, can they get software shops interested with enough seats to make it worth porting/writing for the platform, and can they fight both Apple and Google platforms? Who knows, but they have deeper pockets than Palm did and possibly the will to try. Kudos, I can't wait to see what they can come up with and hope it isn't a total disaster.

And, uh, go QNX6! (To get back on topic... ;) )

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Proprietary
by ari-free on Sun 18th Jul 2010 07:19 in reply to "RE: Proprietary"
ari-free Member since:
2007-01-22

Apple leveraged their OS X developers. Android leveraged all kinds of people who want open development. Microsoft has all the Windows fans. WebOS brings very little developer support to the table.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Proprietary
by Morgan on Thu 15th Jul 2010 19:13 in reply to "Proprietary"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually, HP could have done the same thing instead of dumping the money on Palm, but money moves in mysterious ways...


And Palm could have taken BeOS and made perhaps the greatest mobile OS ever. Instead, they practically gave BeOS away to a company that ended up never even using it. And sure, WebOS is nice, but HP will probably kill it in its attempt to make a viable tablet. The vicious cycle continues.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Proprietary
by Karitku on Fri 16th Jul 2010 07:47 in reply to "Proprietary"
Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

If I was RIM, I would dump the other stuff they've got, adopt MeeGo/Android and add their proprietary email stuff on top of that. They could cut most of their R&D expenses that way.

Actually, HP could have done the same thing instead of dumping the money on Palm, but money moves in mysterious ways...


Man I wish you were CEO of some company, what a great plan. Lets dump proofed to work, has long history of devices, is well known, well liked system, that is selling rather well and move something that isn't well know, doesn't have any history or proofs that it's working or selling well. Mission complete, what next? Take out all company money, go casino and bet all on red? Damn it was black ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Proprietary
by vivainio on Fri 16th Jul 2010 07:52 in reply to "RE: Proprietary"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Man I wish you were CEO of some company, what a great plan. Lets dump proofed to work, has long history of devices, is well known, well liked system, that is selling rather well and move something that isn't well know, doesn't have any history or proofs that it's working or selling well.


QNX is not "proven" for whatever use case RIM might have for it.

Linux, OTOH, is.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Proprietary
by marcp on Sat 17th Jul 2010 06:54 in reply to "Proprietary"
marcp Member since:
2007-11-23

Looks like you never used QNX. It's ok, but don't say that it's a 'proprietary crap'. It may be proprietary, but is definitely *not* a crap. OS itself is very old, stable, fast and standarized. It makes lot better RTOS than Linux RTOS appliances.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Proprietary
by vivainio on Sat 17th Jul 2010 07:06 in reply to "RE: Proprietary"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

I tend to refer to proprietary infrastructure (when good open alternatives exist) as "crap" regardless of the quality - just a habit of mine ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 1