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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Comments
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.
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.
That's true, but a troll isn't necessarily a shill, or vice versa.
That's true, but a troll isn't necessarily a shill, or vice versa.
That's also true, now we're really getting somewhere.
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.
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.
It's not Google so you don't get paid to comment.
HA!
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 ...
The big difference is that shills get paid, trolls (except those that are shills) don't.
The big difference is that shills get paid, trolls (except those that are shills) don't.
Yes, we covered that.
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.
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.