RIM's PlayBook may undercut Apple iPad at $399 - report - Page 4

exactly right

NETTAB

SPECIFICATIONS
CPU: ARM9(VM8505+)
Memory - RAM: 256MB
Memory - Flash: 2GB built-in flash drive
Display - Touch Panel: 7-inch TFT LCD
Display: Resolution 800 X 480 Pixels
WIFI: 802.11b/g
Camera: 0.3M Pixels
Input/Output - Touch Panel: Resistive touch panel
Input/Output - Speaker: Two built-in loud speakers, 1W
Input/Output - SD Card: Micro-SD card slot
Input/Output - Network/USB: Dongle for RJ45 network and USB connection
Buttons/Switches: Power On/Off, Speakers volume Up/Down
Battery: Built-in Li-Polymer battery
Charger - Input: DC 110-220V AC
Charger - Output: DC 9V DC
INCLUDED
One Tablet M-150 device
One A/C home charger
One Dongle for RJ45 network and USB connections
One Stylus
One User's manual

Thank goodness Playbook isn't coming out by Christmas. What a coal in the stocking that would be! I pity though the poor bast*rds who wake up to a Samsung Galaxy Tab.

Lovin' 4.2 and multitasking on iPad.

As specs goes, its very close to the Samsung Galaxy TAB, but there are notable differences: no 3G (will need a Blackberry Smartphone to connect to Internet in areas with no WiFi Hotspots),



DOA Steve Jobs called it. LOL !

7 LCD, 1024 x 600, WSVGA, capacitive touch screen with full multitouch and gesture support
BlackBerry Tablet OS with support for symmetric multiprocessing
1 GHz dual-core processor
1 GB RAM
Dual HD cameras (3 MP front facing, 5 MP rear facing), supports 1080p HD video recording
Video playback: 1080p HD Video, H.264, MPEG, DivX, WMV
Audio playback: MP3, AAC, WMA
HDMI video output
Wi-Fi 802.11 a/b/g/n
Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR
Connectors: microHDMI, microUSB, charging contacts
Open, flexible application platform with support for WebKit/HTML-5, Adobe Flash Player 10.1, Adobe Mobile AIR, Adobe Reader, POSIX, OpenGL, Java
Measures 5.1x7.6x0.4 (130mm x 193mm x 10mm)
Weighs less than a pound (approximately 0.9 lb or 400g)


Source > http://www.alltouchtablet.com/articl...h-tablet-5263/

Wow... never knew that it doesn't have capacity to put a SIM in it. To me the only way to have a tablet is with a mobile connection so you can access whatever you want when you need it.

The praybook's impressive CPU and ram will get minimized by flash being an integral development tool for praybook.

Microhdmi for iPad? No way - having the ability to stream to apple tv is much nicer.

I'd rather see an SD slot first and foremost.

Apple Insider team,

We are in the process of putting together a few videos showing side by side comparisons of the current tablets. I have always been a huge fan of the iPad, yet the PlayBook may be that real competition
.
Thank you for picking this up. There are many more exciting exclusives on the way. More video in the cue.

Have a great weekend.

Cheers,
Disposable Hero
Mobility Insider
www.mobilityinsider.com

RIM will take a loss on every unit but will make it up in volume.

I will wait for the next generation of iPad before considering a purchase.

Why? Even current iPad is hands down better.

How would volumes of "loss on every unit" make up for it?

Up until I bought an 11" MacBook Air, I was carrying around a MacBook Pro, an iPhone, and an iPad. I loved them all, and used them for different things. When I got used to the new Air, I sold the Pro and the iPad. Based on this experience, I wonder exactly what niche it is that the PlayBook or any other 7" tablet is hoping to fill. It isn't a phone, it isn't really a tablet in the sense of an iPad, and it definitely isn' a computer. So basically, anyone who needs telephony and a computer and a PlayBook is carrying 3 devices around. For me having the iPhone in my pocket and the Air in a sleeve gives me very little to carry, and all the power to do everything I could ever want.

Bottom line: I don't think its the iPad that is going to kill the PlayBook, its the MacBook Air. As usual, Apple's competitors are reacting to the wrong threat. The marketplace defined netbooks primarily based on their performace, and Apple has redefined them based on form factor and weight without the corresponding lethargic performance.

At the same time, we are also talking about this week European carriers saying that they are going to subsidize the ipad.

And don't forget about how you can only tether to a Blackberry for 3g etc.

And the comments from RIM suggesting that they have no intentions (despite what the analysts say) of ever doing built in 3g/4g. Cause hey they are selling to business customers and they all use blackberries so they don't need built in.

All that is going to make things tricky. I applaud RIM for not trying to trump the ipad in the consumer market but I have my doubts that they will really take over the business sales either. Because I"m not sure they are really looking at what business customers need and rather are just doing things as different from the ipad as they can.



Early Calendar 2011, not fiscal (which for some companies like Apple has already started)


they already do to a degree by allowing apps for hulu, netflix etc

And if they go full cloud for video and even audio, 16 GB will be more than enough for many.

I myself got a 16 for my personal use and even with tossing a couple of tv show eps and a movie on there don't scratch the surface on using up all the space. So I feel okay about that choice. Now if an ipad 2.0 comes out with the whole camera set up for recording I might go higher. Because then I might be sucking up more storage several days a week. This is what happens with my work ipad because I"m often offloading photos and even sometimes video onto it to send to the other unit. So it's good that the boss got the 64 GB models.

Well the porn industry is thinking that way and given what a large group that is . . .


There is a vast difference between saying "I wish Apple had done this" or "I'm not sure that X is the best way to go" or even "Rule Y in the SDK is confusing" versus "Apple is crap and you are all morons".

Guess which one is the not cool one. Especially when you are on a Pro Apple site.


1. They are not an authorized retailer. Jobs has stated this for the record. Likely because he wants to make sure no one tries to come into the stores and demand a price match this weekend. Second because there is a question of whether Apple has to stand by the warranty on those units. It is possible that perhaps they don't.

2. the price is that low because they are doing this to draw folks into the stores to buy other things. The dominant theory is that some authorized retailer had an overflow of 16GB that they can't return to Apple and don't expect to sell. So they sold them at cost to TJMaxx to recover that money and clear out room for other things. TJMaxx is selling them at that cost to recover their money and draw folks into the stores. Places like Costco do the same thing when they sell gift cards at a discount. They are hoping you will go there to get your $25 itunes card for $15 and while you are there, pick up $200 in other stuff.

Not seeing the relevance. Subsidized pricing against a contract is pretty standard stuff, giving stuff away to try and drive market share is quite another.

For instance, I might see Samsung TVs on sale for 15% off , or bundled with a free accessory, and that would seem like a "sale" or "promotion". if I consistently see a competitor's brand in huge stacks being sold for less than cost or given away as an adjunct to some other product, I would assume they're not selling well and are more or less being dumped, or at the very least that they weren't worth very much.

I realize handsets are sort of a special case, but once you start down the BOGO route you really do a number on your perception of value and quality. I suspect that no one is going to look at subsidized iPads and wonder if they're just cheap kit.

You obviously lack a sense of humor.

Sales promotion is sales promotion.

It's the carriers that are doing BOGO and/or subsidies. RIM has nothing to do with it.

The question isn't --- no one is oing to look at subsidized ipads and wonder if they are just cheap kit --- the question is whether people would buy an unsubsidized ipad.

[QUOTE=AppleInsider;1758618]Research in Motion......??? You mean Research in SLOW-Motion....these guys are gonna cut the price of their iRipOffBook tablet to $399 ??? Just watch them FAIL....I know far too many consumers and corporate big wigs who would buy an iPad over a RiM iRipOffBook ....even for $ 100 more in price. Those guys at Rim make me laugh....just watch them get kicked out of their co-President's positions wihin 3 years...!

I disagree that a promotion is a promotion. BOGO is different from a subsidized purchase price with a contract. I'm talking sales psychology here; see my post above for how I think that works.

But then if the question is whether or not people will buy an iPad at an unsubsidized price, then, obviously, yes.

Perhaps a more interesting question is whether or not RIM's sales would be cut in half if they weren't giving away every other handset.

But it isn't sold at less than cost. RIM still has the second highest profit margin in the industry.

iPhones don't change prices throughout the year, even the week before a new model comes out --- does it mean that it is "worth" more? No. Is it "worth" less just because an android phone price drops to $99 after 3 months? No.

The question is how much sales get hit by not subsidizing the ipad and/or not doing BOGO.

That's easy! The answers are None and None!

Until the very end of September (the last period for which we have sales figures) the iPad was supply constrained -- to the point it was not offered in some countries and not sold through some channel partners.

Only a fool would suggest not discounting under these condition would negatively "hit" sales.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/...us_earns_apple


Apple did just get it's channel inventory aligned at the end of September, though there were a few momentary blips -- Apple Store shipments went from 24 hours to 3 days for several days.

Further, Apple is anticipating very large iPad sales during the holidays -- so they had approximately 2 months to add resellers, build inventory, and stock the channel for the anticipated sales.


You, obviously, have no concept of how manufacturing and the supply chain works. It isn't magic -- it's hard work: analysis, planning, reporting, and execution -- with the built-in agility to adjust to conditions. Apple, and especially Tim Cook are masters at this -- that's Tim's job!


Apple sometimes misses the mark, but it's usually on the conservative side.


Others miss the mark, flood the channel -- then discount or BOGO their product... making it even less desirable.

.

If Apple can sell everything they make at whatever they charge, what possible motivation do they have to discount? If every RIM handset could be sold without BOGO, why do it?

If RIM and/or the carriers have to prop up market share at the expense of profits, then that's a choice they're free to make. If Apple doesn't need to, there's no choice at all.

But the ipad has a much lower profit margin than the iphone. So Apple is also making a choice to grab market share at the expense of profits.

In this case Apple wants people to warm up to this kind of devices, because it's the feature. Yes, it marketshare, but it's a new market.

If it was only GSM-based carriers doing 2 for 1 deals Samab would be using that as proof that GSM/UMTS is an inferior technology over CDMA/EV-DO.

Furthermore, hes completely wrong (as noted in previous threads) regarding the vendors potential say in BOGO sales.

On top of that, RiMs profit per device has significantly dropped since the emergence of the iPhone. To their credit RiM is a very well managed company and have increased profit YoY, despite having to lower the average retail price in order to compete in todays smartphone market.

Im surprised theyve managed to tread water for so long, but we all know that this isnt a sustainable model and without proper innovation they will crash.

I have mixed feelings about the Playbooks OS short and longterm feasibility, wonder if they can adopt their QNX+AIR OS for a multi-touch smartphones, and wonder how long phones with physical keyboards can continue to be the bulk of their smartphone business. All those questions should be answered within the next year.

Personally, I like the idea of RiM focusing now on a tablet after the Storm/Thunder failure. I had hoped MS would have done this with Windows Phones 7. My reasoning is that the smartphone market has changed a lot for this smartphone dinosaurs but the tablet market Apple reinvented is still nascent, which means both MS and RiM could come in with something pretty good, take a hefty chunk of the market, use that to refine their OS and build support for a smartphone.

After all, part of the iPads appeal for the average user was the built in acceptance of iPhone OS being well designed for the iPhone and iPod Touch, but neither RiM nor MS had nothing even their most rabid fans could directly compare when moving from BB OS or WM6 to a tablet. In other words, I think MS missed the boat here (even though I do like WP7 for what it is) and think RiM is actually on the right path (even though it remains to be seen if they used their great managing ability to add the requisite technical prowess that was so severely lacking).

Actually, Samabs statement is axiomatically wrong.
Hes saying that Apple is focusing on marketshare, not profits with the iPad, but that patently false in every aspect.

First of all, his statement tries to convince us that Apples primary concern is how many unit of their iPad are sold compared the entire tablet market. Since Apple hasnt dropped its price to meet or beat all the other tablets hitting the market he is clearly incorrect.

Secondly, Apple has a lower the profit margin, in order to gain more unit sales, thereby increasing their profits. His statement first suggest that its not about increasing their unit sales for the sake of increasing profit, but increasing sales to increase their share of the whole market, hence marketshare. He then finishes his statement by saying that Apple is choosing to lose profits by using a lower than their usual profit margin for this new iOS-based device, when in fact they choose this price point to maximize their profits.

As Povilas says, Apple needed to decide on a price point that would establish the iPad as the dominate incumbent, with little chance for the competition to compete on price. They're still making very healthy margins, so it's not as if they're giving the things away to drive adoption.

Again, there's quite a bit of difference between an aggressive price point and BOGO, which is what we're talking about.

I believe the services business is RIMs cash cow. If they recognized that they could develop interfaces for iOS, Android, whatever comes along, gradually ceding the handset business -- and still remain a major force.

I like QNX -- AIR, not so much!

Except for the lack of Cell radio and 7" screen, the PlayBook has "Hecka-Hardware" specs (to paraphrase my granddaughter).

Don't forget HP/Palm -- the great unknown in the tablet business! I agree in principle with what you say! Why beat a dead horse -- the tablet is the future (even when once revisited, like yourself). That's where the potential is.

What amazes me is that the MS, RIM management don't have the business acumen to take advantage of the situation. MS and RIM should be writing iPad apps (and later Android) apps -- making $, learning the ropes, keeping their brands in "front and center" view of all those consumers currently buying the iPad. How many would buy iPad Excel, Word, or BB Email if available,

Steve Jobs is the penultimate Apple Fan -- but he knows when to cede ground to gain strategic advantage -- iTunes on Windows,

BTW, I include AT&T among the short-sighted. Why in the world don't they have an app that streams from their AT&T U-Verse boxes to iDevices. SlingBox and Verizon will clean AT&T's clock -- real soon now!

What both RIM and MS fail to realize is the iOS interface blazed the trail for WebOS and Android -- RIM seems to be starting over with QNX/AIR, MS has about 80-90% of a Tablet OS in WP7. Both would be miles ahead if they had apps running on the iPad that they could "migrate and excel" to their own platforms -- when ready in mid 2011.

I am afraid, and a little sorry, that the MS and RIM "all or Nothing" approach will leave them nothing.

C'mon, guys -- This is the "Oklahoma Territory", "49'ers" and "Alaska Gold Rush" rolled into one... Get in the game, for God's sake!

+++ QFT!

Nailed!

If history is anything to go by Apple will hold prices on iPads but add valuable features over time at no additional costs. Of course we don't know what possible new iOS products might be coming.

As horrible as it may b i think its funny :-)

Here's a sober review of the Samsung Galaxy Tab.

http://brooksreview.net/2010/11/tab-review/

Admittedly, the PlayBook is a different device from a different company -- but they have similarities: 7" Form factor; Flash support; Cameras: App Ecosystem, etc.

That thing looks like a prop electronic at a furniture store, but thats aesthetics. Im sure it works a hell or a lot better than the $99 Android-based tablet found at Walgreens which is so bad that I want one for sake of owning the worst gadget of the century.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/revie...oid-tablet.ars

From Jacqui Cheng's review:

Yes...which means that Apple choose iPad price points based on their analysis of expected maxima for a consumer tablet device: $499. Then upsold from there. The ASP for iPads is $645. The ASP for iPhones is $610. Gross margins are down a little but still...36.9% is good (no worse than RIM) and net income was up.

In comparison RIM's ASP is $304 down from it's peak $371 in 2009 and they announced they'd stop reporting ASPs and subscription numbers. Gee...I wonder why. Reporting on downward trend lines is always unpleasant...and those BOGO offers probably are reflected in the ASP unless you think the carrier is sucking up all the damage (unlikely). Subsidizing does not since that cost delta IS covered by the carrier. Either way, RIM saw nearly a $70 drop in ASP in a year.

I don't know why anyone bothers to argue with samab. He clearly has no more knowledge about sales than he does about anything else and makes stuff up. Fortunately it's pretty easy to refute.

At the same time, RIM is doing a OS overhaul and is selling underpowered handsets (of course the ASP is lowered). It is a reflection that they are using a 600 MHz CPU.

Wall Street analysts don't ever mention BOGO when they talked about RIM's results.

"In the United States Sprint had a strong quarter with significant promotion of both the BlackBerry Tour and BlackBerry Curve smart phones. The BlackBerry Tour achieved the highest customer satisfaction rating of any device in RIMs portfolio and the BlackBerry Curve became the most successful device in the history following a $49 BOGO promotion on the 8330 and the launch of the new 8530 in an exclusive purple color at an attractive price point."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1965...all-transcript

Given that RIM talks about BOGO in their earnings calls I think that analysts probably do talk about BOGO in relation to RIM results...

Lowered ASPs are partly product mix as RIM claims. It's also Verizon and other carriers not willing to take it completely in the shorts when it does BOGO offers on BB. The need to do BOGO promotions to move BB units forces the negotiated unit prices downwards which impacts ASPs.

That the units suck in comparison to other devices from either a CPU or OS perspective is reflected in the lowered demand leading to lowered ASPs....that's hardly insightful.

It's different there. It isn't done here, it's done there. When it's done here, it mean they are scrambling for volume. You pay for that in the rates you pay there anyway. It's just 20%, or so, more to subsidize the whole thing. Someone is getting a bloodbath here when they have an expensive phone, where one is already heavily subsidized, and they then give another one away. That second phone is costing someone a lot. Who? The manufacturer? The carrier?

First of all about the BOGO, you don't know that You're just guessing. It could very well be RIM.

Lots of people are buying an unsubsidized iPad. This just locks them into a carrier. I thought that over there most people paid for their phones. So what's different here? An iPad isn't more expensive than any high end phone.

RIM makes a big profit on their servers and services, that could easily be paying for the BOGO.

I'd be willing to bet that Apple will be making more profit on iPads than other manufacturers will be making on their tablets.