RIM unveils 7-inch 'PlayBook' tablet set to launch in early 2011 - Page 8

Be prepared for drawing and quartering, but only after tarring and feathering.

Way back when this thread was a mere youngster, I mentioned what I thought were RIM's substantial challenges to making a success out of this product. For sure it's going to be an uphill climb. But since I consider them to be a competent company with a large and fairly loyal customer base, I certainly would not count them out before they even enter the ring -- which is what many here appear so anxious to do, merely on the strength (or weakness) of one video.

See what I mean about your DNA? ... Still avoiding the obvious and trying to shift the blame elsewhere. .... nice

I don't think anyone is counting them out based solely on the video. Their chances of success are being discounted a) based on the point they are in producing this (very early), b) their to-date lackluster success at producing touchscreen devices, and c) their likelihood of not being able to attract significant enough mind share to their device given the competition for the same from iOS and Android.

and d) not made by Apple

The fact of the matter is that BB has higher market share in North America than iOS or Android, and their phones offer greater encryption. If this integrates well with BB devices, I can see it doing well. Sure it won't have the apps or the mindshare of the iPad, but it will likely have its place in the market. It may turn out to be a very successful product for RIM.

You don't have to outsell the iPad, or even take sales from the iPad to have a successful tablet as it appears like the market for tablets is going to expand rapidly and Apple won't fill it all.

RIM gave THREE different shipping dates: next month for enterprise/developers, early 2010 for generall US release, and Q2 for international. They won't be that specific if they weren't close to final release.

The new Blackberries with OS 6 came out pretty soon after the "concept video". The actual devices came out pretty close in performance to the concept video --- the only complaint so far has been that it's underpowered by the slow cpu. If these blackberries came out with a 1 GHz CPU, then it would have been perfectly mirroring the concept video.

Someone has probably mentioned this already but I'm wondering if the rumoured 7" iPad that was supposed to be more like the iPhone and is now a finished product ( http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=113294 ) was in fact this Blackberry tablet. It's a taller type of screen and resembles an iPhone shape way more than an iPad. In the Chinese factories, it probably wouldn't have any branding on it.

Just take a look at QNX CAR --- same concept. UI/Graphics designers are used to Adobe Flash, so QNX just put the skinning on Flash.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f3WIn14fd0

Yes, but RIM has zero mind share for touchscreen devices, and practically zero mind share with developers, as opposed to (my point (c)) iOS and Android.

If this is so common name me 3 companies that announced a product to ship in the next 3-5 months for which absolutely nothing for the product exists at the time of the annoncement. Mind you Dick Applebaum claims that nothing about the product currently exists, hence his claim that it will be a year before it ships. Btw at the launch event, the president of QNX claimed they had been working on the os for about a year.

Not having seen the BB6 concept video to compare, I can only say that, based on this video, and what information they did release, I don't believe this will be released before Summer 2011, in the US, or elsewhere.

Well, since I never claimed "nothing" exists for this tablet, I don't see why validation of my comment should be held to your interpretation of someone else's comment that may have nothing to do with mine.

But, as far as 3 companies (and there are probably thousands of these, but who keeps track of them all) who have announced products nowhere near ready to ship:

1. Microsoft - Access (arguably, not ready to ship when it did ship)
2. Google - Chrome OS
3. Palm - webOS

The last one, while certainly not the biggest lag in announcement to shipment, is included to point out that it was 6 months from announcement to product shipping. So, at least 6 months to actual shipping tablets, is not at all far-fetched in this case.

i think you are pretty much right. Now on the notin of Apple etc using this info to outdo the Playbook. Whatever they were going to do has been done and is being tested by now.

but this up to 6 more months of waiting is giving folks more time to decide not to wait and to try an ipad, buy an ipad and become entrenched in it. So when Apple reveals ipad 2 the week before the Playbook comes out those folks will be less likely to jump ship and will wait the month for the ipad release. That is if the typically rampant rumors don't already have them ready to stick around.

This was an issue with the Slate and such as well. They had a prime chance during the 60-90 days before the ipad was out and during all that 'can't keep them in stock','won't let folks buy more than 2' stuff. They blew it. RIM has done the same thing. Even just focusing on businesses isn't a sure thing because tons of businesses are using ipads.

RIM released the BB OS 6 teaser video at the end of April 2010, and the first BB OS 6 phone came out in Sept --- about 4.5 months. Put 4.5 months from today and you get a mid February release.

Yes, but, as I said, I have not seen the BB OS 6 teaser video, so cannot compare what was shown there vs. eventual release date to what was shown in the PlayBook teaser video vs ETA. Based on the PlayBook teaser video, I think they are at least 6 months out. (And, I'm not willing to accept your word they are comparable.) At least we are agreed it's nothing but a teaser video, though.

If you have not seen the BB OS 6 teaser video, then watch it before you start posting dozens of comments about it. What you are doing is --- in legal terms --- willful blindness.

I haven't posted any comments about the BB OS 6 teaser video, other than to say I haven't seen it.

So instead of spending 3 minutes of your time to watch the BB OS 6 teaser video, you spent that 3 minutes writing numerous comments on how you haven't seen the video.

Well, MacBook was already taken...

Basically you are stating that you are uninformed and wish to remain that way so that that you can keep making wild assumptions, but here you go.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAwEx8WmWEk

I think there's likely to be a substantive difference between how Apple depicts its stuff (via ads, product roll-outs, demos, whatever you like) and the RIM piece in question. I say "likely" because we haven't seen the finished product and it could hover in midair with friggin' laser beams, for all I know.

iPad, iPhone and iPod Touch ads (regular iPod ads are a bit different because it has become so ubiquitous as to make any question of "how does that work?" irrelevant, for advertising purposes) always show the device in use, emphasizing the UI, apps, and any aspects of physicality Apple is interested in touting. And yes, they use music, editing and production design to make the whole thing look fun, or hip, or empowering, or whatever. But the important thing is that what is being depicted is precisely how those devices in fact look and behave, however festive the alleged circumstance and however pretty the hand models may be.

My question regarding the Rim video is specifically about whether the UI, apps and physicality as shown will correspond to the device as shipped. If they don't-- if RIM (as Nokia before it) has elected to indulge in some exaggeration or wishful thinking in terms of the speed and fluidity of their UI, or the slickness of their transitions, or the manner in which one might reasonably be expected to manipulate and operate the device-- then this is something that Apple never, ever does, and a difference in kind rather than degree.

This actually gets into a larger difference between Apple's ad strategy and pretty much every other handset maker: despite the mockery of Jobs' use of "magical" as a product descriptor, it's Apple that just puts the device itself on the screen and lets the user interactions speak for themselves, whereas the others attempt to generate a sense of mystery or wonder or magical empowerment by showing, not the device in use, but urban spaces transformed, the user transformed, phone as ray gun, phone as drug, phone as portal to alternate universe, etc.

To that extent the RIM thing is actually relatively constrained (although I would guess the UI doesn't actually appear on the things around you) but unless it can actually do exactly what they show it's still a victim of "magical" thinking.

You're right, I should have watched it. Having done so, I would say that BBOS6 was much more a finished concept, and that I don't expect to see PlayBook tablets released before June 2011.

The only complaint for the BB OS 6 was that it feels sluggish as opposed to the teaser video --- but that's because they put in a underpowered CPU.

You are selectively quoting and ignoring everything else. Brilliant.

OK. But this is an entirely new OS, which AFAIK has never been used to run a full-on user environment and certainly never on this kind of touch pad (as I recall when RIM acquired QNX it was generally reported as being a play for better in-car audio control, based on QNX's track record).

So it remains to be seen. Maybe the point is that RIM doesn't have a history of making wild claims that they can't deliver on, but then again RIM doesn't have a history of being forced way out of their comfort zone to compete in brand new product segments that have little or nothing to do with the devices that they built their reputation on, so I don't know if history gives us much to go on, in this case.

I for one would have been much happier if RIM had shown something that looked like its tablet in day to day use, even if the screens were necessarily rendered, as opposed to the "awesome force field of transformation" approach. You give the art directors that much latitude, there could be problems.

I would disagree with that assessment, but at least you've compared the two now.

It's not like I think the PlayBook will supplant the iPad as the most popular tablet or anything. I just think it will have plenty of opportunity to do well in a rapidly expanding market. From my perspective, RIM seems to have a solid device in development, and there is no reason to dismiss its potential at this point.

At the very least, it could give more incentive for Apple to include 1GB of ram in the iPad 2, not that they play the specs game.

Yeah, these RIM teaser videos are pretty awful stuff, utterly divorced from reality. I've seen pretty of software/product demos/presentations/announcements over the years, and the less you see real devices, real app screen output, real user interaction vs. this sort of fluff, the warier I've learned to be. Basically, if they can't show you the actual product working, it's wise not to accept anything they tell you about it. (Especially beware the demo that starts as a demo and ends as a PowerPoint slideshow of "screen shots".)

And, as you point out, moving to QNX introduces yet another unknown to the equation. Well, I'm sure they'll release a tablet at some point, but I'm betting on next Summer.

QNX has been around for a long time. I grew up using it in high school in the 80's in Canada. The server ran QNX, and the client computers ran QNX.

http://www.computernostalgia.net/articles/icon.htm

During the internet bubble 10 years ago, 3Com made a QNX-based internet appliance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3Com_Audrey

If Apple does plan on releasing a new iPad in about 6 months could they change things up at this point? Would they want to?

Perhaps most importantly, do they need to up the RAM past 512 MB for the next iPad? There are many avenues for arguments I could take but the most important probably boil down to the lack of Flash and the well worn and efficient iOS which probably make moving to 1GB RAM a little pointless. If this new OS from RiM does multitasking like WebOS then it will surely need 1GB RAM, if not more.

Dont get me wrong, Id like to see 1GB or more RAM, but because Apple wants to measure up on a spec sheet, and especially not at the expense of power consumption.

It may (or may not) end up being a fine device, but a) RIM really hasn't been that successful getting developers on board, b) the combination of iOS and Android is going to suck up most of the market share (iOS has it all now, but "Android" in some form, will beat this to market, and has way more developer mind share than RIM, I don't even think there is much room for webOS tablets to exist in this market, unless they knock everyone's socks off -- i.e., they have to be way more compelling than the Pre.), c) it's a mistake to market this as a mainly enterprise device, but I think that's because they know it's going to be expensive, and they hope their enterprise clients will be willing to spring for it because of promised BB integration. RIM has a very steep uphill battle ahead of them.

But NOBODY has complained that the BB OS 6 teaser video is utterly divorced from reality when actual blackberries running BB OS 6 came out a few months later. It pretty much work as advertised --- with the exception being sluggish on a vastly underpowered CPU (when compared with the current iphone 4 and the various Droids that have GHz CPU).

A serious response to my points. Thank you.

Yes, a difference of degrees perhaps -- but not of general approach. Advertising is advertising. I again watched part of the intro video Apple made available on the iPad's announcement, which I recall generating a certain amount of controversy here at the time. Yes, you get to see hands hovering over the device, but the question of whether it actually worked "that way" was not fully answered by the ad (which a lot of people rightly pointed out), nor should we have expected it to. I also had a look at some of the current iPad ads. Similarly, lots of quick cuts which provide only general impressions of what the product does. They are not trying to explain it in any sort of detail. Nothing wrong with that.

The problem I have with the reactions I'm reading here about the RIM video is the implicit assumption that this is RIM's actual product rollout and should be measured against a Steve Jobs on-stage presentation (as if anything could). It's a teaser ad. If they do no more to explain the product, then the charge that they're selling sizzle with no steak coming is a valid one. If this was Microsoft, I might lean towards the view that they might just be screwing with our minds, but I don't think RIM can afford to be that cavalier. Maybe others think they can. If so, I'd like to know why. That's a question I've asked repeatedly.

I don't know why this is an Apple-vs-Adobe issue. It's painted that way by the sensationalist media and the SEO click sites, but really, Apple has said no to any kind of plug-ins for Mobile Safari. Not just Flash. Full disclosure: I can't stand Flash; it was the single reason I stopped using Firefox on the PC several years ago. Ads would peg the CPU at 100% spinning up the fan on my Windows laptop. I've got a Mac now, but I've installed No-Flash to stop the insanity.

Anyway, Apple & Adobe work together on a lot of things, like optimizing Flash on Mac OS, and Apple still licenses Display PDF for use in OSX, something Microsoft could never do. I don't interpret Apple as having done anything to single-out Flash or Adobe for unfair treatment. Mobile Safari supports no plug-ins, from any vendor.

I'm fine if RIM and Google and whoever else wants to advertise Flash in their mobile browser, but I'm convinced that putting another layer of software between content and device, particularly one that Apple cannot guarantee will work nicely with the hardware is a risky proposition. I hope that other companies that can't wait to put Flash on their mobile devices as a bullet point against iOS competition will give their users the choice to install NO FLASH plug-ins.

Well, my comments were on technology presentations/demos generally, so not everything necessarily applies in this case, but..

As I pointed out earlier, that video presented a much less vague, more finished concept. This video much less so, much more smoke and mirrors stuff. So much so that it would actually be difficult to say, once they eventually do release a tablet, how well it lives up to this video.

Well, they're selling steak, the question is, have they even killed the cow yet, and what cut will they be serving?

Why are you browbeating him for something I posted?

The post in question is at:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=216

and is quoted:



Based on what I saw in the video I drew some conclusions.

From the announcement material I read, I understood, that there was going to be::

-- a QNX designed UI for the PlayBook Tablet (different from the UI for RIM phones)
-- a QNX OS for the PlayBook Tablet
-- a QNX SDK and simulator for PlayBook Tablet
-- among other things, the RIM-supplied web browser would support sites using Flash

Overnight, additional material was made available by RIM (or posted here) that indicated:

-- The UI was already [somewhat] defined - Flash would be used for the UI and presentation Services
-- The OS was to be a QNX/Flash hybrid or a skin of one on the other
-- The SDK Simulator would, likely be mainly Flash

OK... that brings us up to date.

AFAIKT, outside of RIM:

-- no one has seen the UI on paper or in operation or simulaated
-- no one has seen the OS on paper or in operation
-- no one has seen the SDK or simulator
-- no one has seen the device in operation.

New conclusions:

-- it may be possible to define (or solidify) a UI based on the way Flash works currently on iphone devices or with QNX implementations such as the Cars demo...
-- I don't know if enough of what QNX has done with Flash applies to a generalized Tablet UI
-- If they (RIM/Adobe) can get enough of the UI defined, and they can flesh this out in Flash
-- then they could, just maybe, deliver a beginner SDK and Simulator to their "partners" in the next 33 days or so
-- you don't need the OS to use the SDK or the Simulator as these, apparently, will be existing Flash tools fleshed out for the purpose
-- That would provide some breathing room to: refine the UI; add function to the SDK and Simulator; finish implementing the hybrid OS
-- meanwhile they could build some operational prototype tablets

If they can make this happen, they could start showing controlled demos by the end of, say, Nov or Dec - when nobody will be paying attention.

Then, progress allowing, they could show some live demos in, say Jan-Feb 2011.

Then ship pre-production units to developers/partners in April-May 2011.

Finally with initial shipments beginning June 30, 2011 -- meeting their commitment for early 2011 delivery.

That to me is the critical path -- and it mainly revolves around the software.

There ar lots of potential hardware issues:
-- will they be able to resolve the battery issue
-- will display components be available
-- will dual core A9s be available
-- will production lines be available

Will any of this matter?


Yes, using the above conclusions and scenario I can see them meeting each of their comitted deadlines mas o menos.


Here's my original quote:

There is no way in hell that this will be ready for release before 3Q 2011!

Let me wind it back a little:

There is no way in hell that this will be available in any significant quantity before 3Q 2011!


.

Well yeah, but Linux has been around for a while too and that has been no proof against some not very great implementations in the mobile space. I don't think QNX's status as a long standing POSIX embedded and appliance OS tells us very much about how RIM and/or the QNX team will fair with making a full on tablet, especially now that Apple has radically rewritten the expectations of what a device like that should be.

That's not to say that it won't be fine, or even great, but experience suggests the devil is in the details-- which is exactly what we are lacking, at this point.

Well, as I've mentioned Nokia did precisely this-- wildly oversold the capabilities of what was being touted as a make-or-break device-- so apparently giant mobile companies are capable of behaving insanely-- perhaps particularly if they feel pressured by a market that is changing out from under them.

Now, I have no idea if Nokia has a track record for this kind of thing, or if there something unique to Nokia that makes it susceptible to this kind of marketing. Maybe RIM is famously circumspect when it comes to product announcements, and exaggeration at this point would be vastly out of character. Certainly I can't claim that whatever Nokia might do has any real bearing on whatever RIM might do.

But the Nokia example does seem to at least suggest that the idea that a very large corporation would stoop to "protohype" (to borrow Solipsism's neologism) can't be discarded out of hand as crazy talk.

Well, I watched the video and was quite iimpressed!

It showed the UI in significant detail (including a real date)

It looked as if it were images of actual device or simulator screens (correct size, scale, detail, aspect ratio and all that).

It showed the flow of the UI in use (albeit stylized)

It showed a confident presentation of a mature, solid-looking product [interface] that one could believe was close to being released -- based on RIM's history with phones.


Unfortunately, the PlayBook video showed nothing of the kind.

RIM has no track record with tablets and they showed nothing that would lead one to believe they had a UI designed for one -- not to mention the operattional flow.

If RIM had presented the PlayBook in the same level of detail, one could believe that it existed-- at least in the labs.

The fact that they didn't... hay dudas!

.

But This is today, This is RIM, This is a new Device category. RIM has no experience or track record with a tablet... with all the [supposed] time and talent, they couldn't even show a mackup of the device or UI.

When Apple announced the iPad they showed and demonstrated the product!

How can anyone extrapolate a finished product from what RIM showed in the PlayBook video?


.

Linux is a big kernel designed for servers.

QNX has been used as a self-hosted development platform for the embedded QNX devices for pretty much the last 30 years (i.e. engineers use QNX on big desktop PC's to do their programming). So they understand the larger PC world.