or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple increases iPad orders, decreases CDMA iPhone build plans - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple increases iPad orders, decreases CDMA iPhone build plans - report

post #1 of 37
Thread Starter 
Apple will build more iPads than expected at the end of 2010, but the company has also slightly reduced its 2011 CDMA Verizon-compatible iPhone build plans, according to one Wall Street analyst.

Mike Abramsky with RBC Capital Markets said in a note to investors Friday that Apple has made slight upward revisions to its iPad build plan for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010. Apple also reportedly plans to build the same number of iPads in calendar year 2011, at 40 million.

Abramsky noted that both numbers remain above Wall Street expectations. He said that Apple's increase for the end of 2010 suggests that the company expects strong holiday sales, despite concerns over new Android-based tablets and potential cannibalization from the thin-and-light MacBook Air.

Though Abramsky's number is apparently higher than Wall Street expects, some see iPad sales in 2011 reaching even greater heights. Earlier this month, Brian Blair with Wedge Partners said he expects Apple to produce 48 million iPads next year.

The current iPad is expected to cease production in January, Abramsky said, when production of the new hardware will begin. Abramsky expects the second-generation iPad to debut between February and March with FaceTime front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as "beefed up" internal components.

As for the CDMA Verizon-compatible iPhone expected to launch in early 2011, he said the numbers have been "adjusted to a more realistic forecast." With the alleged reduced build plans, he expects 20 million sales, down from 30 million.

Abramsky's comments on a Verizon iPhone are noteworthy because as recently as September he said that a deal with Apple "may not ever get resolved," because the companies have different business interests. He said Apple may not want to be a "second banana" to Android at Verizon, while the arrival of the iPhone could hurt Verizon's investment in Android.
post #2 of 37
Realistic CDMA adjusted numbers? Maybe they are thinking that some people will forgoe the CDMA iPhone 4 and wait for the 5th generation. Just a guess.
post #3 of 37
Quote:
...the iPhone could hurt Verizon's investment in Android.

Huh? Verizon is only interested in one thing... Selling contracts. If the iPhone gets them more of that, then they will carry it. The issue here is all the services that Verizon forces on their customers. Apple doesn't play that game.
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
Disclaimer: The things I say are merely my own personal opinion and may or may not be based on facts. At certain points in any discussion, sarcasm may ensue.
Reply
post #4 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Huh? Verizon is only interested in one thing... Selling contracts. If the iPhone gets them more of that, then they will carry it. The issue here is all the services that Verizon forces on their customers. Apple doesn't play that game.

I don't think it is quite that simple. WIth Android, Verizon has a commodity product made by competing manufacturers, where they are the "value add" to the equation. They have invested money in promoting Android and the Droid line of phones. If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones, and just let them focus on the service.

It might take another two or three years, but the wireless providers will eventually become dumb pipes. Hopefully Apple can help speed up that transition. Still voting for an Apple MVNO!
post #5 of 37
The 256MB of RAM really hurts the iPad, I say this as an iPad owner. It makes browsing a chore when it has to reload the page every time.

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply

iPod nano 5th Gen 8GB Orange, iPad 3rd Gen WiFi 32GB White
MacBook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHz 8GB RAM 120GB Intel 320M
Mac mini Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz 8GB RAM, iPhone 5 32GB Black

Reply
post #6 of 37
All these guys throwing out numbers and keep in mind that APPLE gives no guidance other than the press conferences we are all privy to. It means that these are merely guesses, dreams, or hopes. It just proves these guys are talking heads and their guess is as good as yours or nine.
post #7 of 37
I don't know why anyone expected Apple to sell 30 million phones through Verizon in 2011. That's a very big number. Even 20 million seems like quite a lot. Perhaps that's not just Verizon numbers?
post #8 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

I don't think it is quite that simple. WIth Android, Verizon has a commodity product made by competing manufacturers, where they are the "value add" to the equation. They have invested money in promoting Android and the Droid line of phones. If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones, and just let them focus on the service.

It might take another two or three years, but the wireless providers will eventually become dumb pipes. Hopefully Apple can help speed up that transition. Still voting for an Apple MVNO!

I disagree with you here: Apple didn't require ATT to stop advertising other phones during their contract, no indication and no reason that would be a requirement for Verizon. And when it come to Verizon's "investment" if you compare their approach with Android to that of other phones you will see that as far as Verizon is concerned "Android" is just another "feature" for advertising smartphones. Their advertising hasn't changed because of Android. It was just folded into their strategy as a talking point or focus, that's all - no special investment.

In fact only the handset makers scored by moving to Android, mostly from the Windows Mobile platform which they had to license from Microsoft and cost them money. But with Microsoft leveling the playing field via suit-driven licensing against the Android touch interface elements, Android is no longer "free" for them and they have to re-embrace Microsoft and the new WinPhone7 offering.

And I agree with you completely - the carriers will fight tooth and nail against it, but just like many other utility suppliers, they will become commoditized bandwidth brokers eventually.
post #9 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aizmov View Post

The 256MB of RAM really hurts the iPad, I say this as an iPad owner. It makes browsing a chore when it has to reload the page every time.

There were a couple of us who couldn't understand why Apple went with 256 rather than 512, but we were yelled at those who insisted that Apple knew what they were doing, and that 256 was therefor enough. The iPhone 4's 512 busted that argument. I hope Apple leaps over 512 and goes to a full 1GB for the new model. The 256 was given as the reason why the movie editing app for the iPhone 4 wouldn't come to the iPad, which was a pity, because it's a great platform for this purpose. And considering that in one of Apple's patent applications they show a tablet doing movie editing, it seems that they know quite well that that app would be ideal for the iPad.

Possibly, if the rumors are true about a dual core Cortex 9 are true, we may get that app, and will be able to get some REAL photo editing apps. But Apple will also have to allow the OS to share the files in a way they don't allow now. I forget which company it was, but one of the pro photo RAW editing developers said that they investigated this as soon as the iPad came out, but they couldn't get access to the info they needed about the photos to do the job, so they abandoned the effort. Too bad. Adobe has completed a survey to see how many people wanted a photo editing app on the iPad, and the response was overwhelming.
post #10 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by LewysBlackmore View Post


In fact only the handset makers scored by moving to Android, mostly from the Windows Mobile platform which they had to license from Microsoft and cost them money. But with Microsoft leveling the playing field via suit-driven licensing against the Android touch interface elements, Android is no longer "free" for them and they have to re-embrace Microsoft and the new WinPhone7 offering.

The truth is that Android isn't exactly free now. Ballmer was correct about one aspect of that. While Google doesn't charge for the OS itself, they do charge for the apps that come with it. Estimates are that those charges are about equal to What MS charges for their package. It's one reason we see some of the companies eliminating some of Google's apps for their own. It cuts the price.
post #11 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Adobe has completed a survey to see how many people wanted a photo editing app on the iPad, and the response was overwhelming.

So Adobe, a professional photo editing software supplier, completed a survey of their customers, who are primarily professional photo editors, and those professional photo editors said they wanted a professional photo editing app? Shocking.

Meanwhile, the other 98% of the people owning iPads are perfectly happy with the devices capabilities, as evidenced by the sheer number of sales. I am not saying there shouldn't be progress and upgrades, obviously, but I don't think Apple blew it with a Gen. 1 device.
post #12 of 37
20 million Verizon iPhones, ha!

Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.

Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.

How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.
post #13 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

So Adobe, a professional photo editing software supplier, completed a survey of their customers, who are primarily professional photo editors, and those professional photo editors said they wanted a professional photo editing app? Shocking.

Meanwhile, the other 98% of the people owning iPads are perfectly happy with the devices capabilities, as evidenced by the sheer number of sales. I am not saying there shouldn't be progress and upgrades, obviously, but I don't think Apple blew it with a Gen. 1 device.

Well, interestingly, the survey wasn't exactly for a pro level editing app, but something a bit less. The response was for a version of Lightroom instead. John Nack, on whose blog this was done, said that Adobe was surprised at the level of interest for such a thing. I got a very strong impression that they were very pleased, even if it can't be done yet. I also got a feeling that they were going to investigate if it could be done. I'll have to write to some of my contacts within Adobe to see what's going on.

I wonder if Apple was mostly trying to keep costs within the levels they offered them at. As it is, margins are lower on the iPad, and we know that Apple won't sell products without making a decent profit, as is correct.

Remember that the cost of flash memory, and RAM, hardly dropped throughout 2010. Price drops are expected in 2011.
post #14 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckdutter View Post

20 million Verizon iPhones, ha!

Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.

Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.

How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.

Is this post real? If you look at the surveys done over the past year, you'd see that about 25% of Verizon's customers are interested in the iPhone, and as many as 33% of Verizon Android owners would be interested in switching over to one. I think that 20 million iPhones on Verizon may be too much for the first year, but it certainly could approach that number. I can see Apple moving anywhere from 25 to 50% more iPhones here if Verizon gets them early in the year.

I just read this after I posted:

http://www.macrumors.com/
post #15 of 37
A more complete version of the survey I posted above:

http://www.electronista.com/articles....tops.android/
post #16 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

I don't think it is quite that simple. WIth Android, Verizon has a commodity product made by competing manufacturers, where they are the "value add" to the equation. They have invested money in promoting Android and the Droid line of phones. If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones, and just let them focus on the service.

It might take another two or three years, but the wireless providers will eventually become dumb pipes. Hopefully Apple can help speed up that transition. Still voting for an Apple MVNO!

Wow, what an old kind of thinking.

Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.
post #17 of 37
What's funny about this article and most of the comments is the fact that the iPhone has not even been released with Verizon. Just because some experts say it's going to happen doesn't mean it will. How about we confirm iPhone is actually coming to Verizon early next year BEFORE we start debating how many Apple/Verizon will sell.

Donkey before the cart?
post #18 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Wow, what an old kind of thinking.

Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.

Oh no, here we go again. I think its time I put you on my ignore list. Ive never thought of you as a troll, Samab, but your rhetoric isnt making for a useful or enjoyable forum discussions. Later.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #19 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Wow, what an old kind of thinking.

Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.

Now, that's silly. I read that in a couple of columns and blogs. It seems that a few people ascribe too much to Apple. If anyone is dangerous, it's Google. They even have a goal of controlling all the info out there, including everything about us. This is a STATED goal, not some nonsense about Apple.
post #20 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There were a couple of us who couldn't understand why Apple went with 256 rather than 512, but we were yelled at those who insisted that Apple knew what they were doing, and that 256 was therefor enough. The iPhone 4's 512 busted that argument. I hope Apple leaps over 512 and goes to a full 1GB for the new model...

I'm not sure Apple is prepared to move that quickly when the product is still selling as quickly as they can make them. I expect only modest improvements (512MB, low res cameras) for iPad 2. By the third year more radical changes might be possible.

It took 4 generations for Apple to make a radical change to the iPhone, but I think they'll move faster with the iPad.
post #21 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Wow, what an old kind of thinking.

Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.

First of all Apple tries to promote the use of open standards on the web, more so than any other large corporation that immediately springs to mind.

Second, I'm not sure "the web" should be the future. The internet is a continuously evolving place and some day the web as we know it might be as obsolete as Gopher or WAIS.

In fact maybe the old approach of using a separate application for each type of internet data request is actually what the majority of people want. Maybe people don't want to use a browser for everything. Maybe they truly want an app-centric world where data comes from apps specifically written for particular content.
post #22 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

I'm not sure Apple is prepared to move that quickly when the product is still selling as quickly as they can make them. I expect only modest improvements (512MB, low res cameras) for iPad 2. By the third year more radical changes might be possible.

It took 4 generations for Apple to make a radical change to the iPhone, but I think they'll move faster with the iPad.

Now, Apple's got to keep up. The Samsung's got two bad cameras. Apple will want to do better. They have to do better if the want to keep their place. If word is correct that we'll be seeing a dual core Cortex 9 for the next one, I would hate to see Apple waste that power with too little RAM. Developers who want to do video editing and photo editing need that RAM. If Apple waits another year, others will give it.

In fact, I really think that Apple's on the verge of blowing in in a number of areas. They've got to listen more, and cross their arms less.
post #23 of 37
RAM is the cheapest thing in the world. I know every penny counts when you're pushing millions of units out the door, but damn, this isn't 2004. Pared-down OS or not, Apple is selling people a device that is essentially a keyboard-less MacBook. If Apple is going to sell them a sealed-box solution, then they should at least know they're getting more than the bare minimum.
post #24 of 37
Like Mike Abramsky has a clue how many CDMA phones are being made.......... for China.
post #25 of 37
Anyone think Apple will continue production on iPad1 and drop the price while letting iPad2 take over it's current price point? That move would surely destroy the 7" tablets under-cutting the 499$ price point.

Either way, it looks like iPad2 will be announced right before Blackberry releases Playbook1.
post #26 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The current iPad is expected to cease production in January, Abramsky said, when production of the new hardware will begin. Abramsky expects the second-generation iPad to debut between February and March with FaceTime front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as "beefed up" internal components.



I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose. A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad. But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.

And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer. Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
post #27 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorGonzo View Post

RAM is the cheapest thing in the world. I know every penny counts when you're pushing millions of units out the door, but damn, this isn't 2004. Pared-down OS or not, Apple is selling people a device that is essentially a keyboard-less MacBook. If Apple is going to sell them a sealed-box solution, then they should at least know they're getting more than the bare minimum.

Maybe not as cheap as you think. Even if it added $10 to the selling price, that could be unacceptable.
post #28 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-G View Post

I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose. A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad. But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.

And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer. Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.

Since the Samsung has them, and no doubt others will as well. It's not so farfetched. Besides, do you look above the camera? No, you'll look at the screen.

Apple's case works well in holding the iPad at two different angles. Even the low typing angle works well for this on a desk. I've got it right in front of me. You look slightly down at the screen, and your head is parallel with the screen, just as it should be. All is well.

What will you post here when the next model has at least a front camera?

I haven't noticed those who were saying so definitely that it only needed 256MB memory because that's all Apple put into it, recanting.
post #29 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Oh no, here we go again. I think its time I put you on my ignore list. Ive never thought of you as a troll, Samab, but your rhetoric isnt making for a useful or enjoyable forum discussions. Later.

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you there. "Apple is trying to destroy the internet" is one of those memes that's so foolish on the face of it the only reason I can think for trotting it out is just to be sort of a dick about Apple.

It's a shame, because I think Samab can make some reasonable arguments, but this kind of thing is just tiresome.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #30 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Wow, what an old kind of thinking.

Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.

Interesting: http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/11/the-verizon-iphone/
post #31 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh View Post

If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones,

Something their contracts with the Android phones might not allow.

So it is possible that they would have to have a 'silent' release of the iphone. Assuming that there is one any time in the next couple of years.

I am not going to be shocked if there are stories about contract issues etc in a couple of months. Things that could 'delay' the release. Or rather cover up the fact that there was never going to be one this year. Typical Tabloid Tactic. Same game they play when a rumored couple is rumored to be having trouble and rumored to have broken up.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #32 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoctorGonzo View Post

RAM is the cheapest thing in the world.

So why do I still not have 64 gigs of RAM in my Mac Pro? OH. I KNOW. BECAUSE IT'S 2,099 DOLLARS.

And it'll hit an artificial low and then start going back up in price as my machine ages. Your statement is folly.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #33 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckdutter View Post

20 million Verizon iPhones, ha!

Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.

Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.

How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.


The majority of my friends who want an iPhone but don't want AT&T are still holding out. I can think of half a dozen. Half of those have bought an Android phone.
post #34 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostface147 View Post

Realistic CDMA adjusted numbers? Maybe they are thinking that some people will forgoe the CDMA iPhone 4 and wait for the 5th generation. Just a guess.

I agree- I think this is it. It is going to be difficult for me to decide, although I am about to go nuts- I can't get tets in Chapman LAw School int eh middle of Orange County!
post #35 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill-G View Post

I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose.

While I agree that the camera will often produce a less than flattering view, Facetime is still a huge initiative on Apples part. Besides for the vain the iPad would be giving you co tinous feedback about how you look.
Quote:
A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad.

Apple does a lot of stupid things with cameras. The lack of a "shutter release" on the iPhone really sucks for example. Honestly I think Apple will do one of two things. The most likely would be to leave the rear facing camera out. The second option would be to go with a significantly better camera with a good lens.
Quote:
But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.

You don't know if Apples reason was good or not. There are many possible reasons including risk avoidance.
Quote:
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer.

Well this is obvious but it is also not a problem. People have already announced prototype ARM core built on 22nm tech. Now I don't expect Apple to take on that node for iPad 2 but the still have options for an Cortex A9 based SoC. Dual core should be very easy due to the cores requiring maybe 500 milli watts at full orocessing power. That core power number is highly variable though due to whatever process is finally choosen.
Quote:
Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.

I agree that they won't crap on the battery life any more than the have to. However battery life is a spec just like everything else. Frankly I don't even see the processor as the biggest issue with iPad, rather it is the lack of user RAM that is a big issue especially as it inhibits developers to much. That and it is pretty pathetic that iPhone 4 has more RAM than iPad right now.

So yeah beefing up iPad won't be done without keeping an eye on power usage. That however is not a problem. Think about how long ago PA Semi and Intrinsity where purchased and then add a couple of years to that. This should give you a realative idea about how old the iPads processor tech is. The development tools should be fairly well proven by now so they should be able to focus more on integration and performance. The A4 right now is a rather simple SoC, they have had the time to do a much more complex solution.

I know some get indignant when I say this but the A4 is looking rather poor up against the new Cortex A9 based processors hitting the street. Simply put Apple will have to do something soon.
post #36 of 37
The question is will people go for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allmypeople View Post

Anyone think Apple will continue production on iPad1 and drop the price while letting iPad2 take over it's current price point? That move would surely destroy the 7" tablets under-cutting the 499$ price point.

It is very possible. From what I can see Apple has plenty of room to lower the price of the current iPad. As far as the competition and claims that they can't beat Apple in pricing that is mostly BS.
Quote:
Either way, it looks like iPad2 will be announced right before Blackberry releases Playbook1.

Most likely. I actually think Playbook will be the long tern competition piece for iPad. Blackberry bought out the owners of QNX for an OS to use on this device. QNX is nothing to sneeze at at all. The real challenge for Blackberry will be the development of a good native SDK. If they do the SDK right I can see them being stiffer competition for Apple than the Android market. Google could potentially clean up the Android market but does not appear to be motivated to do so.

So while Playbook mwy be laughed at for six months to a year it will be a different story when a viable SDK comes out. This is no different that when the iPhone first came out. The big difference was that Apple had the freedom to throw a lot of people at SDK develoment where as Blackberry is a much smaller company with more limited resources. Watching what happens with Playbook over the next year will be very interesting. It is a bit of an underdog but that is what makes it interesting.
post #37 of 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Most likely. I actually think Playbook will be the long tern competition piece for iPad. Blackberry bought out the owners of QNX for an OS to use on this device. QNX is nothing to sneeze at at all. The real challenge for Blackberry will be the development of a good native SDK. If they do the SDK right I can see them being stiffer competition for Apple than the Android market. Google could potentially clean up the Android market but does not appear to be motivated to do so.

So while Playbook mwy be laughed at for six months to a year it will be a different story when a viable SDK comes out. This is no different that when the iPhone first came out. The big difference was that Apple had the freedom to throw a lot of people at SDK develoment where as Blackberry is a much smaller company with more limited resources. Watching what happens with Playbook over the next year will be very interesting. It is a bit of an underdog but that is what makes it interesting.

Well, interesting points:

- The Playbook has got no 3G connectivity on its own, it will only tether with a Blackberry. This limits the target audience, even without knowing how much carriers will charge for that honor...
- If RIM would be serious about releasing a "good native SDK" anytime soon, why would Jim Balsilly (some day I have to investigate what's fundamentally wrong with CEOs starting with "Bal") make so much noise about how terrible apps are, and that everything can be done in the browser? Basically the "sweet solution" that even Jobs could not sell in 2007... App development on the Playbook will be mainly a Flash/Air thing as far as I can see... amateur hour.
- I have no hard numbers, but production capacities for the CPU RIM is using are said to be quite limited for the first quarter of 2011. If they really want to stay below $500 without subsidy and deliver significant numbers, I would not expect wide availability any earlier than, say, April or May... The question is how many more tablet announcements we will hear until then, and who will even remember the Playbook...

IMHO there are two tablet competitors with at least some chances: HP with WebOS (if original HP staff has no say in it) and MS, if they drop that "Windows 7 is for tablets" mantra and bring Windows Phone 7 to the tablet... splitting the few touch developers they have (bribed) between two platforms is nonsensical at a point in time where Windows 7 on the tablet is nowhere, and WP7 still has no market share worth talking about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple increases iPad orders, decreases CDMA iPhone build plans - report
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple increases iPad orders, decreases CDMA iPhone build plans - report