or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM's PlayBook may undercut Apple iPad at $399 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM's PlayBook may undercut Apple iPad at $399 - report - Page 2

post #41 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Really? Kinda lame. I get the impression you're increasingly driven to find some kind of anti-Apple angle, even when it doesn't make much sense.

I mean, seriously: comparing screen size to seating capacity? Good lord. But let's play: what about the PlayBook gives it "Ferrari" status against the iPad's "minivan"? Since that's how this works, apparently.

And for bonus points, maybe you can square the now minivan-esque status of the iPad with the constant drumbeat of how only hipsters and posers buy them so they can look cool.

A ferrari doesn't have to be a good thing either --- it has terrible gas mileage, seats are crammed, some don't even come with a cupholder. It goes nicely with our discussions like battery life or comfort with a larger screen.
post #42 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

7 inch display with 16 GB will be 499? Good luck selling.

should be 45% cheaper, and why get the thing in the first place what else in the rim universe are they offering,
the apple universe is more diverse,

it will fold like the folio did

can we now predict a return rate?
how about 80%
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #43 of 166
RIM, MS, Google, HP, Acer...another race to the bottom...haven't they learned anything from PC's and NetBooks! Uggh!

Best and Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US!
post #44 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

A ferrari doesn't have to be a good thing either --- it has terrible gas mileage, seats are crammed, some don't even come with a cupholder. It goes nicely with our discussions like battery life or comfort with a larger screen.

Well, except the screen, when it comes to a touch tablet, is pretty much the whole thing. As such it makes an even worse car analogy than the usual not so good car analogies.

There's nothing on a car that is remotely analogous to the complete domination of the screen on a tablet with regards how it functions and what the user experience is like. You don't trade handling for comfort or speed for gas mileage or luxury for size or any of that. It's just a slightly more cramped environment in exchange for slightly better portability, the end.
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 #45 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

That depends on how they intend to deliver content. Imagine when/if Apple introduce a cloud based streaming model for movies, 32 Gb is going to be more than enough.

Also there are as many different usage patterns as there are people.

I use my iPad exclusively for writing and creative work. Since I already carry 20 gigs of music on my iPhone, it would be stupid of me to duplicate it on the iPad when I have both with me at all times anyway. I put a couple of movies on it, just to show people how they look, but I don't really have a need for that. Any more than the base model 16GB model is total overkill for me even though I'm a "power user" of sorts.
post #46 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Well, except the screen, when it comes to a touch tablet, is pretty much the whole thing. As such it makes an even worse car analogy than the usual not so good car analogies.

There's nothing on a car that is remotely analogous to the complete domination of the screen on a tablet with regards how it functions and what the user experience is like. You don't trade handling for comfort or speed for gas mileage or luxury for size or any of that. It's just a slightly more cramped environment in exchange for slightly better portability, the end.

It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.

Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.
post #47 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.

Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.

Would love some details on these "implications".
post #48 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.

Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.

Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.
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 #49 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by ihxo View Post

"MAY" undercut the iPad.....

and I MAY buy 10 billion iPads....

Well at $399 it will undercut the iPad. In price.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #50 of 166
I can see Apple introducing the second generation iPad in January and lowering the cost of the 16GB first gen to $399. Touche, RIM!!!
post #51 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.

Good, we agree to disagree --- nothing wrong with that.

The sports car analogy is a lot appropriate than most naysayers seemed to think. The RIM Playbook will come with a faster CPU with a worse battery life. A Ferrari comes with a V12 with worse gas mileage. Who says that a Ferrari has to be a good thing? If you want market share and pure profit --- sell a Honda Accord.
post #52 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewyboy View Post

I have to agree with jobs on this and that 7" is too small. For what they do, 10" is perfect. Still, I'm a lappy fan.

post #53 of 166
RIM's largest issue is they will be way behind on day one in apps.
post #54 of 166
Hm, any details on this "free tethering with Blackberries" mentioned in the article? It would surprise me quite a bit, if this turns out to be true. With some carriers / in some countries BBs were getting cheaper plans than real smart phones, because they are mainly used for email. Tethering a Playbook to the phone will cause data transfer to go through the roof. I do not see carriers doing that for free at all. Just look at the horrendous rates Verizon tagged to the MS KIN-non-m 1 and 2... and this was not even a tablet, just a feature phone with some video uploading and a social platform refresh every 15 minutes. Playbook users might even end up paying a lot more than iPad users, if they need an add-on contract, and they might not even get the opportunity to opt out of additional data charges on a monthly basis.

It will be interesting to see the effect on battery life of this approach. I expect both, Blackberry and Playbook, will be depleted by the time an iPad approaches 80%...
post #55 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.

Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.

It renders well. There's Rage HD, and the demo of Epic Citadel to look to realize that.

And Apple develops Webkit. Everyone else uses what Apple works out. As for flash, well, now that there's close to 60% of all video on the web being sent using HTML 5, it's not that important anymore. Considering that 6 months ago, that number was just 16%, that's a pretty big jump. So, what else does Flash do?

There are some websites that use Flash. Most also work quite well without it. Some, and it's a smaller number as time goes on, won't work without Flash. Who cares other than the developers who are getting paid for the work? Very few.

Then there are the Flash games on the web. There are tens of thousands of games for iOS that are free, or cost 99 cents. So no biggie there, ESP. considering that you can't play web based Flash games when in the subway, on a plane, or in most cruise ships.

Ahh, then there are the Ads. You LOVE Flash Ads, right? We all do.
post #56 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

That's like saying that my minivan should cost more than a Ferrari because my minivan sits 7 people and the Ferrari sits 2.


Strange comparison. That makes no sense at all.

Given that the screen is by far the most expensive component in the iPad (even by iSupply standards, a company that makes headlines for ridiculously under-estimating the costs of any Apple Bill of Materials).

By their measure, the screen is still 35% more than processors, SDRAM and NAND Flash combined. Throw in the 2 cameras for $10.75, you still come up short.

So I'd say it is still a valid suggestion that a smaller 7" tablet should cost less than an iPad...
post #57 of 166
.

First impression: RIM is going to offer a special promotion -- BNGO (pronounced BINGO), stands for Buy None Get One
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #58 of 166
Loss leader to keep BB folks in the fold. Little if any upfront profit.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #59 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It really depends on how stuff are rendered on the screen --- not whether the screen is physically larger or not.

Not even considering the lack of Adobe Flash on the ipad --- Apple has always been the last to update their webkit core, which has enormous implications on how stuff are rendered on the 10 inch screen.

Given the enormous demand for the iPad, I suggest that virtually nobody besides Flash developers and Adobe gives a rip about Flash not be able to play on the device.
Content providers will not want to miss the significant purchasing power of millions of iPad customers and either create apps or deliver their stuff via HTML/H.264. This is already happening on the video-side of things.

Also, I suggest that the form factor of a 7" device is not to its advantage. It's more or less the shape of a box of spaghetti. The iPad has a more usable format, independent of size...
post #60 of 166
Anything that forces Apple to drop their premium pricing. Excellent!
post #61 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Hm, any details on this "free tethering with Blackberries" mentioned in the article? It would surprise me quite a bit, if this turns out to be true. With some carriers / in some countries BBs were getting cheaper plans than real smart phones, because they are mainly used for email. Tethering a Playbook to the phone will cause data transfer to go through the roof. I do not see carriers doing that for free at all. Just look at the horrendous rates Verizon tagged to the MS KIN-non-m 1 and 2... and this was not even a tablet, just a feature phone with some video uploading and a social platform refresh every 15 minutes. Playbook users might even end up paying a lot more than iPad users, if they need an add-on contract, and they might not even get the opportunity to opt out of additional data charges on a monthly basis.

It will be interesting to see the effect on battery life of this approach. I expect both, Blackberry and Playbook, will be depleted by the time an iPad approaches 80%...

They won't have to worry about bandwidth until their web presence becomes significant. For that to happen, blackberry users really need to use a lot more web and the playbook has to sell significantly well. The absence of that happening is being counted on by the cell providers, and a little bit by rim as well
post #62 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post

Anything that forces Apple to drop their premium pricing. Excellent!

What premium pricing? Pretty much everyone in the business has said that the iPad pricing is too low for other companies to match given equal specs. We see that with the Samsung. We don't even know what the specs of this are for the screen, other than it will be a lot smaller and cheaper. The CPU will not cost more than a couple of bucks more, and don't forget that this, the Samsung and others will have to contend with Apple's next model, as this one is nearing the end of it's life, with just four months to go at most, while the RIM, and most others aren't even out yet, except for the HP, which is $800 without 3G.

And if Apple does have the current 16GB model for $399 when the new ones come out, it will make it difficult for better spec'd models to get a foothold.
post #63 of 166
.

First impression: RIM is going to offer a special promotion -- BNGO (pronounced BINGO), stands for Buy None Get One
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #64 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by Povilas View Post

7 inch display with 16 GB will be 499? Good luck selling.

Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.
post #65 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by kube View Post

I've had the 32 gigabyte ipad since April. Its now more than half full (with no movies). About 1/3rd music, half apps (and documents) and assorted other stuff like photos.

On initial purchase I hadn't a clue about how much space it needed. Now 32 gigs seems about right. At 16 gigs I'd making difficult choices. It may turn out that I should have gone for 64 gigs.

But, judging from the iPad use of memory, 8 gigs would be very difficult to use. I'd lose about half of the functionality that I now have. Assuming similar memory use with the RIM device, the entry model seems dysfunctional.


How quickly they forget how much memory the first iPhone had and there was no App store in sight. Even the mighty Apple increased specs rather quickly as more people financed the development with the purchase of the older devices.
post #66 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy288 View Post

Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.

SAP. Can they afford to? They just lost their case with Oracle, and owe them $1.3 billion.
post #67 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHOBIZ View Post

How quickly they forget how much memory the first iPhone had and there was no App store in sight. Even the mighty Apple increased specs rather quickly as more people financed the development with the purchase of the older devices.

Times have changed.
post #68 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.

Yes, but the point is the PlayBook does little beyond rendering web pages -- RIM has said that apps are overrated.

@samab's trying to make a weakness/disadvantage into a strength/advantage. Sometimes less is more -- but comparing content/capability on a 7" screen to content/capability on a 10", less is less (anyway you look at it).

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #69 of 166
I think it depends on how well/easily enterprise apps can be built on the platform. Almost every (large) IT shop deploys BB servers so most companies have a fairly large install base of BB phones deployed.

We didn't do BB simply because we were waiting for the Playbook. I guess I need to start playing with the SDK soon but I probably will do a legacy BB phone app first (gak...java ME). Almost all of our data and business logic is available via REST/JSON so it's mostly UI code anyway and we already have flash version that just needs to get converted to AIR for the playbook.

Meh...not my cup of tea, I prefer iDevices over BB but enterprise deploys what enterprise deploys.
post #70 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And if Apple does have the current 16GB model for $399 when the new ones come out, it will make it difficult for better spec'd models to get a foothold.

Based on the interest and mindshare the iPad had all year, its dominance in the tablet market, the way its redefined the tablet market, the excessive sales as a 1st generation product, and the fact that most are trying to compete with Apples pricing with half the display area and a fraction of internal storage I cant make a good argument for Apple lowering the pricing of the next iPad.

CES 2011 will show us what is on the horizon now that everyone has had a year to go back to the drawing board, but from the limited info I have Id $499 as the entry price is most likely for the 2nd generation device.
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 #71 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy288 View Post

Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.

Jury is still out on Galaxy tab. Sold decent in the first month worldwide, but not exactly to iPad standards.
post #72 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I think it depends on how well/easily enterprise apps can be built on the platform. Almost every (large) IT shop deploys BB servers so most companies have a fairly large install base of BB phones deployed.

We didn't do BB simply because we were waiting for the Playbook. I guess I need to start playing with the SDK soon but I probably will do a legacy BB phone app first (gak...java ME). Almost all of our data and business logic is available via REST/JSON so it's mostly UI code anyway and we already have flash version that just needs to get converted to AIR for the playbook.

Meh...not my cup of tea, I prefer iDevices over BB but enterprise deploys what enterprise deploys.

Last I remember, BB's marketshare was 37% and dropping among US enterprises. That is a lot by any measure, but I wouldn't quite use the terms "almost every" and "most companies".

Enterprises today have many more choices that can do without the expensive BB server infrastructure and from what I have seen in a survey of 1200 IT professionals last week, 73% of them said that they will deploy iPads to their employees within the next 12 months.

I would not count on BB's stronghold in the enterprise Email market to relate to tablets.
post #73 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by easy288 View Post

Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.

Well, I'm now working with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab - because I had to. Can't neglect Android Tabs as a software developer, and the Galaxy Tab seems to be a reasonable representative for (upcoming) Android Tabs.

Well, better than expected, but doesn't stand a real comparison to the iPad. UI is sluggish, screen somehow too small - even so the resolution difference doesn't suggest it (iPad: 1024 × 768, Galaxy Tab: 1024 × 600), display looks cheap. Current Android version really seems to be optimized for phones and wastes bigger screen sizes.

And I really have to state that without the iPad as some sort of "reference tablet" my ratings would range from "good" to "great". But for example rating the browser scrolling experience on the iPad as smooth to acceptable gives the Galaxy Tab a rating from sluggish to unacceptable.

Apple set the reference bar. Not everybody may need or require that level. But hell, I paid more bugs for the Galaxy Tab than for the iPad with a smaller display (cheaper to manufacture) and the Galaxy Tab battery live time is less than half of that of the iPad.

Good to have some competition, but the iPad deserves a better competitor.
post #74 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by clochard42 View Post

Well, I'm now working with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab - because I had to. Can't neglect Android Tabs as a software developer, and the Galaxy Tab seems to be a reasonable representative for (upcoming) Android Tabs.

[]

Good to have some competition, but the iPad deserves a better competitor.

I dont expect to see a real competitor to iOS for iPad until Android 3.0. Apple went to a lot of trouble to redesign iOS for a 9.7 device and Android 3.0, which is expected to tackle the tablet I/O, will need to focus on this instead of the current offerings using Android v2.x that are simply a poor UI to get to market ASAP. RiM seems to have done a pretty good job on the UI, but I have yet to see how well it actually performs in the real world.
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 #75 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Times have changed.

Yep, everyone else is supposed to magically just come up with a device despite Apple growing thier products from what was aguably a limited product initially compared to todays Apple products.
It's Okay, I know I am not allowed to say anything that is not glowing of Apple or negative of anyone else. RIM and others are not doing anything different that what Apple did, they put out a product, determined true interest and then went with expanding it if applicable. Pretty normal practice in all segments over the entire planet for many, many years...
post #76 of 166
oops.
post #77 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I dont expect to see a real competitor to iOS for iPad until Android 3.0. Apple went to a lot of trouble to redesign iOS for a 9.7 device and Android 3.0, which is expected to tackle the tablet I/O, will need to focus on this instead of the current offerings using Android v2.x that are simply a poor UI to get to market ASAP. RiM seems to have done a pretty good job on the UI, but I have yet to see how well it actually performs in the real world.

Yep, let's hope for the best. I like the accomplishments of Apple - and buy Apple products for that reason, but I hate monopoly. Apple does a good job, but this isn't magic. Blackberry OS, MS Phone 7, Palm (HP) WebOS and Android please stand up and fight! What I've seen so far is "honorable" at best.
post #78 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Based on the interest and mindshare the iPad had all year, its dominance in the tablet market, the way its redefined the tablet market, the excessive sales as a 1st generation product, and the fact that most are trying to compete with Apples pricing with half the display area and a fraction of internal storage I cant make a good argument for Apple lowering the pricing of the next iPad.

CES 2011 will show us what is on the horizon now that everyone has had a year to go back to the drawing board, but from the limited info I have Id $499 as the entry price is most likely for the 2nd generation device.

I think Apple will keep the same pricing, unless they lower the GPS/3G upgrade price somewhat, and give a better spec'd device as they usually do.It would be interesting if they did offer the current 16GB model for $399.
post #79 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by clochard42 View Post

Well, I'm now working with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab - because I had to. Can't neglect Android Tabs as a software developer, and the Galaxy Tab seems to be a reasonable representative for (upcoming) Android Tabs.

Well, better than expected, but doesn't stand a real comparison to the iPad. UI is sluggish, screen somehow too small - even so the resolution difference doesn't suggest it (iPad: 1024 × 768, Galaxy Tab: 1024 × 600), display looks cheap. Current Android version really seems to be optimized for phones and wastes bigger screen sizes.

And I really have to state that without the iPad as some sort of "reference tablet" my ratings would range from "good" to "great". But for example rating the browser scrolling experience on the iPad as smooth to acceptable gives the Galaxy Tab a rating from sluggish to unacceptable.

Apple set the reference bar. Not everybody may need or require that level. But hell, I paid more bugs for the Galaxy Tab than for the iPad with a smaller display (cheaper to manufacture) and the Galaxy Tab battery live time is less than half of that of the iPad.

Good to have some competition, but the iPad deserves a better competitor.

The point you made bout having the iPad to compare it to is an important one. We often go through life thinking something is great, or horrible because we have nothing to compare it to. Many people will be buying one or the other without ever having tried anything else. If it's slow, well, then maybe that's the way it has to be.
post #80 of 166
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I think Apple will keep the same pricing, unless they lower the GPS/3G upgrade price somewhat, and give a better spec'd device as they usually do.It would be interesting if they did offer the current 16GB model for $399.

The cellular plus GPS pricing isnt as extreme as people think it is. I think the Samsung Galaxy fluctuates between $100 and $150 for that addition. I recall paying around $300 only a few years ago for a 3G cellular USB for Mac from AT&T.

On top of that, its not the cost of the components, but other costs that drive it up, as you are well aware And we have to look at it as a premium feature that any smart company will try to make a higher profit on since they will sell less of because they are premium options. We can look at it from the entry level iPads price but its possible Apple has decided to take a much profit margin specifically to draw customers in. This isnt only common, but good business.


On an unrelated matter, the TJ Maxx/Marshalls pricing is confusing. First of all, I thought official retailers had contracts that regulated how much below retail they could sell items for. Secondly, why so low when even at, say, $480 I think they would have sold out about as quickly.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM's PlayBook may undercut Apple iPad at $399 - report