Then why make a free "open" OS in the first place? If it was such a concern that Google should control the OS they could have done what Microsoft did with licensing Windows, or like Apple where they keep iOS to themselves for their own hardware.
This is an opportunity for Yahoo. The article mentions that OEMs can't leave because they're afraid of losing Google services, Yahoo can be that replacement. They've been making beautiful mobile apps lately and they have some very polished services. They are a pure play service provider who isn't trying to compete with the OEMs; they have no conflict of interest.
If you work at Yahoo, this is something you should run up the chain. A relationship with OEMs would solve their problems, and allow you to get a foothold in mobile that you haven't been able to before.
Open always wins, until it conflicts with your business interests. "Open" used to be the oft-repeated advantage over iOS in the early days, I wonder if that will slip away from the narrative like "SD card slots", "removable batteries", and "real keyboard" did.
They gained share on Android last quarter, which doesn't include their newly launched phones. Horace Dediu raised the idea that Android has peaked in the US a few months ago, and the latest numbers seem to back him up.
Apple acquired Authentec for it, so it's going to be difficult for competitors to replicate it. I'm sure there are other vendors that provide fingerprint sensors, but their implementations of it and how the tech works probably isn't going to be the same.
Fairfax first invested in RIM back in 2010 and they've been adding to that position ever since. Their 10% stake was purchased at an average price of $17. He's been in the red on this investment for a while. I think this purchase is more about trying to turn the company around and try to recoup whatever they can. What JonFish85 posted is probably what's going to happen here.
> Take it private, do another, more aggressive round of layoffs and get down to a very core group. Then decide whether to chop it up and sell it off (patents alone are probably worth a good chunk of money). As far as I know, Blackberry has no debt, so that makes the math a bit easier.
Watsa is a great investor with a solid track record, but I think this has been a mistake for him.
You linked to a support document explaining how the technology works. You may have had a point if this was listed on their product page describing the feature, but instead you have them touting the convenience of using your finger to unlock your phone and make purchases:
You check your iPhone dozens and dozens of times a day, probably more. Entering a passcode each time just slows you down. But you do it because making sure no one else has access to your iPhone is important. With iPhone 5s, getting into your phone is faster, easier, and even a little futuristic. Introducing Touch ID — a new fingerprint identity sensor.
Put your finger on the Home button, and just like that your iPhone unlocks. It’s a convenient and highly secure way to access your phone. Your fingerprint can also approve purchases from iTunes Store, the App Store, and the iBooks Store, so you don’t have to enter your password. And Touch ID is capable of 360-degree readability. Which means no matter what its orientation — portrait, landscape, or anything in between — your iPhone reads your fingerprint and knows who you are. And because Touch ID lets you enroll multiple fingerprints, it knows the people you trust, too.
They have choices. They have complete flexibility. They are under no pressure to do anything that isn't explicitly their goals. They want to control inflation and increase employment. If the economy starts to heat up and inflation starts to rise above their 2% target they will then have the option of selling bonds or raising the federal funds rate, the latter of which is more likely.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with the last comment. He doesn't know the exact number off the top of his head. The exact amount remitted last year to Treasury is $88.4 billion.