BlackBerry staggers back into the tablet market with Samsung hardware and IBM software

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 58
    larryalarrya Posts: 608member
    relic wrote: »
    You guys do know that BlackBerry is once again profitable and are not going Bankrupt anytime soon, even though you would like this to happen. Just do a simple search on their current financial situation. Their phone line is still in question, though I hope it survives as I absolutely love their phones now. My Passport is (A)wesome in almost every aspect, especially editing document, logging into remote servers via a secured terminal, emails, messaging, etc. I couldn't imagine going back to a phone that doesn't have a keyboard, llluuuvvv it.

    The last report I could find, issued 12/19/14, was not that encouraging. GAAP loss of $148M. I'm not too sure a "non-GAAP" profit means anything. Rolling 3-mon revenue continues to decline.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post

     

     

    You're being pedantic.

     

    That was not a "wrong answer." A shill can be a troll, and a troll a shill.

     

    Also, the definition of "troll" you selected is too narrow. A troll is not just someone that "sows discord," but also is a person whose primary purpose is to push an agenda outside the interests of the forum. And you clearly fit that description.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

     

    His wording was correct. It's not semantics or pedantic.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 58
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    You're being pedantic.

    That was not a "wrong answer." A shill can be a troll, and a troll a shill.

    Also, the definition of "troll" you selected is too narrow. A troll is not just someone that "sows discord," but also is a person whose primary purpose is to push an agenda outside the interests of the forum. And you clearly fit that description.

    That's true, but a troll isn't necessarily a shill, or vice versa.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 58
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    cali wrote: »
    It's the first thing I noticed.

    Sounds strange and dirty. I thought Apple had exclusive contracts with IBM. What a disappointment.
    You thought IBM wouldn't make software for anyone else? You realise what IBM do, right?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 58
    I can imagine what a rubbish is gonna be that 'secutablet', especially if it is based on scamdung hardware. I had a playbook, it was a real crap. Only way to improve it was smashing it against the wall, then tarmac and then throwing it in to the bin. What I actually did. After that I bought an iPad mini 2 and finally forgot about all those awful lags and glitches. I wonder why I even bought that junk?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 58
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    That's true, but a troll isn't necessarily a shill, or vice versa.

     

    That's also true, now we're really getting somewhere.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

     

    His wording was correct. It's not semantics or pedantic.


     

    His wording was not necessarily correct, and was dependent on his personal intention, which was not obvious in his post. He could have been referring to a shill, or a troll, as they would typically behave similarly. While technically he was most likely referring to a shill, my assumption that the reference was of a troll is relatively insignificant, unless one is being pedantic about semantics, which he was (quoting a wikipedia entry is not conclusive, all encompassing definition of a troll). He could have just informed me that his intention was to call the OP a shill, but he instead presented his selected definitions of a troll and a shill, thus suggesting that his prior statement was definitively referring to a shill (without the need for clarification), which it wasn't.

     

    While this is a fun diversion, it again does not take away the fact that dasanman69 is a troll.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 58
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post



    You thought IBM wouldn't make software for anyone else? You realise what IBM do, right?

    It is understandable when you are just buying a product or service a company offers. You might expect them to also sell that same product or service to your competitor, but it is a completely different matter when you jointly establish a partnership and then the partner goes out and establishes a similar partnership with your arch rival. We refer to that as back stabbing. Sort of what Google did to Apple. IBM is starting to look just as sleazy.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 58
    disturbiadisturbia Posts: 563member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    It's not Google so you don't get paid to comment.



    HA!

     

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 58
    disturbiadisturbia Posts: 563member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lord Amhran View Post

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

     

    His wording was correct. It's not semantics or pedantic.




    Always remember the old saying ... don't argue with fools ...

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 58
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    That's also true, now we're really getting somewhere.


    His wording was not necessarily correct, and was dependent on his personal intention, which was not obvious in his post. He could have been referring to a shill, or a troll, as they would typically behave similarly. While technically he was most likely referring to a shill, my assumption that the reference was of a troll is relatively insignificant, unless one is being pedantic about semantics, which he was (quoting a wikipedia entry is not conclusive, all encompassing definition of a troll). He could have just informed me that his intention was to call the OP a shill, but he instead presented his selected definitions of a troll and a shill, thus suggesting that his prior statement was definitively referring to a shill (without the need for clarification), which it wasn't.

    While this is a fun diversion, it again does not take away the fact that dasanman69 is a troll.

    The big difference is that shills get paid, trolls (except those that are shills) don't.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 58
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    The big difference is that shills get paid, trolls (except those that are shills) don't.

     

    Yes, we covered that. :rolleyes:

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 58
    justbobfjustbobf Posts: 261member
    Sounds like a really smart move on BlackBerry's part.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 58
    cornchipcornchip Posts: 1,954member
    Wow what a great name…
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 58
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Apple made a huge mistake getting in bed with IBM in my opinion. They are completely untrustworthy. Just look what they are doing with the Open Power Foundation. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 58
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    mstone wrote: »
    It is understandable when you are just buying a product or service a company offers. You might expect them to also sell that same product or service to your competitor, but it is a completely different matter when you jointly establish a partnership and then the partner goes out and establishes a similar partnership with your arch rival. We refer to that as back stabbing. Sort of what Google did to Apple. IBM is starting to look just as sleazy.
    I hardly think providing some security software is on the same page as the partnership with Apple, which is to deliver enterprise apps using IBM's experience and patents in big data and analytics. If Apple sees this small fry software deal as a betrayal then they are far too sensitive.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 58
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    mstone wrote: »
    Apple made a huge mistake getting in bed with IBM in my opinion. They are completely untrustworthy. Just look what they are doing with the Open Power Foundation. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.
    <img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-31208" src="http://cdn.mactrast.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Steve-IBM.jpg" style="display:block;width:580px;" title="Steve IBM">
    What have Apple trusted IBM with? A little bit of design nous? Apple don't really stand to lose anything if the partnership goes sour.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 58
    herbivoreherbivore Posts: 132member
    Android needs Blackberry and IBM in order to secure the system. But 2300 for the device seems a little steep. Not certain this is the product to bring blackberry back into relevance. They should have produced a "secure" iPad. At least the iPad will have a bigger market and folks actually willing to spend that kind of money. But since the iPad is fairly easy to secure, security solutions from BB aren't really needed. So why is this product going to sell?

    An iPad can be secured fairly easily, and costs less. Android is the poor man's OS. So why do they think a 2300 dollar Android device is going to sell again?

    I don't get it. But maybe BB has it figured out.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.