or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM sees PlayBook OS as 10-year future for smartphones, tablets
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM sees PlayBook OS as 10-year future for smartphones, tablets - Page 2

post #41 of 132
First of all:

Kudos to AI for a very concise interpretation of what Lazaridis was apparently trying to say. I read several blogs of the event and Lazaridis' comments were totally disjointed and didn't make any sense -- to the point that the interviewers said he didn't make sense.

Second:

RIMM has an earnings call on December 16th -- lets' hope the numbers are good or this guy will be hurting.


Third:

Quote:
According to Lazaridis, the 7-inch PlayBook, which RIM unveiled in September, is still "tracking" for a first quarter launch.

Rim's Fiscal Year 2011 runs thru Feb 2011 -- that could mean that a first quarter launch (1Q FY 2012) is Mar-May 2011 (using standard co-CEO vernacular).

If it doesn't "track" successfully, it could mean 2Q FY 2012 or Jun-Aug 2011.

What will the tablet marketplace look like, say, Jun 2011?

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #42 of 132
I love this debate about whether 7" is too small. Steve Jobs should introduce iPad2 while Rihanna sings, "tell me boy is your tablet big enough"...

Steve Jobs turning the market for tablets into an allegory for enzyte = brilliant. Young men will buy tons of both without any regard to reality.
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
I have seen the future, and it's my mac mini server. I love that little guy...
Reply
post #43 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevt View Post

But I'm with RIM on this one, Apple fan though I am. 7" will be a compelling form factor. Not better than 10", I trust Jobs on that, just different: in a way that a MacBook Air 11" is from a 17" MacBook Pro. Buyers of one have different needs & preferences to the other. Jobs spouted marketing BS about filing fingers down for a 7" device. If you can use iOS on an 3.5" iPod Touch, you could use it on a 7" device. Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed.

I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down too far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does." Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.
post #44 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

iPhone is doing well in enterprise, and it seems to be gaining by the day. And enterprise sales are RIM's bread and butter. I'd be surprised if RIM lasts another 5 or 6 years, let alone 10.

5 or 6 years on sounds about right ... and by then I wonder if (and if so, who) will buy them just before they die ..? Microsoft perhaps during its own death thrashes or one of the PC makers during theirs ...
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #45 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down to far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does. Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.

I agree and IMHO the simple fact is that with the iPad you just load a newspaper or magazine and relax and read. With a 7" or an iPhone you spend most of the time zooming in and out. On an iPhone you accept that as .. hey, it's your phone and it's amazing ... but accepting that on a device you bought as a pad! I don't think so.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #46 of 132
.

With apologies to Prince Andrew:


Oh, The co-CEO of RIM,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up the hill,
And he marched them down again.

And when they're up, they're up,
And when they're down, they're down,
And when they're only half-way up,
They're all fucked up!

.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #47 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

You mean like all the people here who were hoping they would be able to tether the iPad to the iPhones they already owned? Imagine Apple had come up with it. People here would have been calling it a great idea but since it's not Apple, it's clearly a stupid concept.

No the problem with RIM's implementation is that a BB is basically required to get any kind of work or productivity stuff done. People wanted to tether the iPhone because they already had existing data plans for those devices, and didn't want to pay another $30/month for data on the iPad
post #48 of 132
Don't count RIM out just yet. They recently acquired a UI company called TAT which had a UI replacement for Android but never released it. A tablet with a UI like this might just sell very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOGmn...e_gdata_player
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #49 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

I think you're mistaken. According to your logic regarding the 11 and 17" MacBooks, the iPad UI should work fine on the iPhone. Clearly it won't. There's a minimum size at which a UI is useable (and a maximum at which it is useful). Scale the Mac OS UI up or down to far and it will become unusable or at least awkward. There are also not an infinite number of optimal device sizes. That's why it's necessary to include fuzzy language like, "Software optimisation for screen size would be all it needed," which is basically code for, "If they totally reinvent how this thing works and what it does. Even then, some sizes just won't be optimal for common purposes. A 7" tablet is a compromise size, that carries with it the negatives of smaller and larger devices, yet offers few of their respective benefits.

No. There is nothing fuzzy about the concept of "optimisation for screen size" at all.
It has a very clear precise meaning. Let me spell it out. It simply means that as far as the OS is concerned Icons, Controls, Type should be an appropriate to the screen size. As far as the Developers/Apps are concerned an appropriate amount of content on the screen.

With respect it is you rather, who are fuzzying the issue. iOS devices are inherently the same. You do not need to reinvent how things work.


Yes 7" is a compromise size.

So is 3.5" iPhone.

So is a 9.7" iPad.

All sizes are compromises of weight, cost, dimensions, batterly life etc etc etc .

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I agree and IMHO the simple fact is that with the iPad you just load a newspaper or magazine and relax and read. With a 7" or an iPhone you spend most of the time zooming in and out. On an iPhone you accept that as .. hey, it's your phone and it's amazing ... but accepting that on a device you bought as a pad! I don't think so.

Yes, yes, a newspaper or magazine is obviously an app which favours a bigger screen. But an eBook would be better on a 7" device - lighter, easier to hold for long periods.

All this tells me is that you'd probably preferred a 10" one - fair enough, for you. But I sold my iPad because the form factor didn't suit me.
post #50 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollerborges View Post

This is completely false. As we all know, the iPad was being developed at least at the same time as the iPhone, if not before. Apple wisely held off until they had all the kinks worked out with the iPhone.

That's one thing that Apple does brilliantly that no one else seems to grasp: they don't release half-baked products or features.

This is what I don't get about Microsoft, Research In Motion and all the others.

Apple only introduced a competing product a few years ago because they took the time to develop what people wanted. And it shows in the sales figures and market percentages.

These other companies were already invested with resources and mindshare in these markets and appear to be scrambling. How did they get so complacent that an "upstart" like Apple wiped the floor with them. If anything, Apple should be the one worried about all the secret projects these companies must have had going on for the last decade that are just waiting to see the light of day.

As a shareholder, I would really hate to think the latest round of products from these companies is catch-up technology that has not matured in the lab as well as Apple's has. But it sure looks like it is.
post #51 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



1. RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis.


2. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.

3. In November, RIM posted a comparison video between the iPad and the PlayBook, touting the PlayBook's ability to run Flash.

4. The competition between Apple and RIM has increased as RIM prepares to enter the tablet market, in which Apple has taken a substantial early lead.

1. That's fairly obvious aye?!

2. I thought CEO's that wanted to stay in business would research and take other CEOs words as gold. Jobs has stated that apple designed the OS for a tablet and thought it would also work for a phone.

3. Flash as an ability...more like disability...

4. Substantial is understatement. more like total domination. Where are those incredible sales numbers for the Samsung? waiting...waiting... Playbook come out first and then we will talk about you making a dent in the market..
post #52 of 132
"Mike: I'm not going to comment on our future."

I wouldn't either
post #53 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevt View Post

No. There is nothing fuzzy about the concept of "optimisation for screen size" at all.
It has a very clear precise meaning. Let me spell it out. It simply means that as far as the OS is concerned Icons, Controls, Type should be an appropriate to the screen size. As far as the Developers/Apps are concerned an appropriate amount of content on the screen.

With respect it is you rather, who are fuzzying the issue. iOS devices are inherently the same. You do not need to reinvent how things work.


Yes 7" is a compromise size.

So is 3.5" iPhone.

So is a 9.7" iPad.

All sizes are compromises of weight, cost, dimensions, batterly life etc etc etc .

Your argument is basically that function ought to follow form. My argument is that form, which includes screen size, ought to follow function. Sure, you can make a UI that is "useable" on almost any screen size, but to what purpose? A 7" screen completely changes what the device is all about, gives you none of the convenience of a phone, and none of the purpose of a 10" tablet. You are basically arguing that there are an infinite number of screen sizes that are optimal, which might be true if we qualify it with, "for particular niche applications," but it isn't true for general purpose devices.

Quote:
Yes, yes, a newspaper or magazine is obviously an app which favours a bigger screen. But an eBook would be better on a 7" device - lighter, easier to hold for long periods.

All this tells me is that you'd probably preferred a 10" one - fair enough, for you. But I sold my iPad because the form factor didn't suit me.

Is an ebook better on a 7" device? What if you want to read in landscape/2-page mode? Not so much. However, if all you want is an ebook reader, then, quite seriously, you are probably better off with a Kindle. As a general purpose tablet computing device, a larger screen opens the device to a greater range of possible applications and functions, and a smaller screen restricts it. Too large and it becomes unwieldy. Too small and it becomes less generally useful. A 7" tablet still doesn't fit in your jeans pocket, but it's also not very useful for editing a word processing document; yeah, you can do it, but you can't do it with the same ease.

A 7" tablet is going to be an exercise in frustration. Barely more functional than a phone, much less easy to carry around. Everything is a compromise to some extent, but the key to success is to make the right compromises, not assuming that all compromises are equal. The 7" tablet form factor makes all the wrong compromises.
post #54 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuwafuwa View Post

I'm not sure RiM is still in business after 10 years.

Exactly what I thought when I was reading this.
I think they came out with the "All of this is coming together to set up BlackBerry for the next decade." line to try and reassure investors that they are a good investment for the future. Sounds more like "Honest, we'll be here in 10 years! And we'll be the bestest company evah!" The man doth protest too much.
I don't think they are a good future investment.
post #55 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.

This struck me as particularly egregious. Surely everyone at RIM is aware that iOS is a flavor of OS X, and that far from an "upgrade of a mobile phone OS" that the the iPad runs the same OS X underpinnings as every iOS device.

I get that RIM has some catching up to do, but (in so far as I can even make out what Lazaridis is saying) he appears to be trying to claim that their every misstep and slow reaction to date has been part of a very clever master plan, wherein the BB OS remains relatively lackluster because those darn phones just can't handle the awesomeness that they've intended for next gen kit all along, and that QNX is the first true tablet OS (conveniently, because they can't figure out how to get it to work on their phones yet).

And when it does work on their phones then it will be an awesome phone OS, despite having explicitly made noise about purpose built tablet-ness and the phone being another kind of thing different from what tablets need. Or something.

At any rate, RIM was shrewd to hold tight till real soon now, because the hardware is finally catching up with their vision, never mind iOS and Android who apparently are offering half baked non-awesome solutions on not really sufficient hardware.
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 #56 of 132
Did any of you guys (and girls) watch the Lazaridis interview? The guy is completely incomprehensible and never answers any question directly--he is the Donald Rumsfeld of tech.

Amazing how Jobs can directly answer questions about suicides at Foxconn, yet this jackwagon can't directly answer questions about hi-tech toys.
post #57 of 132
My biggest doubts regarding the Playbook aren't specs, size, cores, OS, etc. I derive the most concern from the people I've seen demonstrating and talking about the Playbook. The people at RIM are the problem.

The demo given at Rogers Tablife was done by a stodgy old intellectual. Undoubtably very smart and successful, but apparently lacking any understanding of the world outside of RIM's traditionally successful niche. And when asked why someone should choose the Playbook his first answer was that it has two cameras. His first answer was a technical specification (not a benefit) that every other tablet will have by the time Playbook is on the market.

Then Mike gets up at D and does the exact same thing (but less coherently). Portrays himself as a stodgy old man who only seems to know RIM's history and is predicting the future based on their isolated history. Poor MIke didn't have a chance to explain why people should choose Playbook because he couldn't get past the basic questions on what it was and how it fit into RIM's product portfolio.

There does not seem to be any outward acknowledgment that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed. There is no acknowledgement that the methods RIM used to achieve success 10 years ago are in need of a revamp over the next 10 years. RIM really needs to show that they have a vision, and a passion for that vision. Right now they have a piece of hardware and an OS (or at least half an OS).
post #58 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Yes, Apple, who bought PA Semi that designed a low power version of the Power Architecture AND Intrinsity, who designed the Hummingbird core, has no chops to design a dual-core Cortex A9 with Samsung as a partner for the iPhone 5.

Never mind that the A9 is also actually more efficient than the A8 on a per cycle basis, has lower idle power, can idle an unused core and can be clocked for less time (or clocked lower) to do a task than on the A8.

Never mind that Ti is claiming it will be shipping Dual Core A9 OMAP4430s for use in smartphones before the end of 2010 and several dual core A9 phones (LG) are already announced for 2011 launch probably before the iPhone 5.

Wanna bet that Apple already has a dual core A9 design done already?

Another example of you making bald assertions not based remotely on reality.

TI can claim whatever they want --- but if you look at the Playbook demo video from last Friday and freeze frame the video (as Crackberry.com had done), you would have found out that the Playbook demo unit is running on OMAP4430 (not 4440). And the Playbook comes with a huge battery --- which isn't suitable for cell phones.

http://forums.crackberry.com/f222/pb...64/index2.html

I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.
post #59 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.

You're not considering that Steve Jobs is a terminator from the future. That has to count for something.
post #60 of 132
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.

"I'll tell you a secret. It actually started with the tablet first."

- Steve Jobs. AllThingsD Conference, July 2010.
post #61 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.

While I think the PlayBook may have some potential, he's going to end up eating his words. First with how it measures up against the iPad 2, then how it measures up against iOS5, and finally 3 or 4 years into this "10 year future" when Apple unleashes Mac OSXI.

Apple likes to add features slowly so they can get them right. iOS will keep tracking towards all the capabilities of a full desktop OS minus any of the garbage that comes with them. Eventually the only difference between the desktop and mobile could be some UI elements.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #62 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It's not that QNX is not ready for the smart phone --- it's rather that dual core ARM processors are still in first gen and you can't put it into a phone.

And last Friday's Playbook demo in Canada, RIM VP stated that things like the browser is not optimized yet and is still running on single core. And at tonight's presentation, the Playbook was running the most number of apps in its history of demos (and you can watch the demo video at http://video.allthingsd.com/).

Optimized is deceptive term, The reality is that most stuff are written for single processor & made SMP safe so that they don't behave worse in the SMP environment. What's the point in putting the H/W if the framework is not there to take advantage of.
post #63 of 132
The tablet will be the future & RIM will be the past

Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Allow me... All too easy.


"Lazaridis showed off the upcoming PlayBook tablet, which he called "the perfect size." When questioned by Mossberg whether RIM is working on any other sizes, Lazaridis acknowledged the company's plans for different sizes."

Translation: Steve Jobs said 7" was rubbish so we gotta say 7" is perfect. But just so we look forward-thinking and have an actual clue, we'll say we have plans for different sizes.


Lazaridis emphasized that RIM is betting heavily on the PlayBook and its BlackBerry Tablet OS. "This is a complete mobile computing platform," said Lazaridis. "All of this is coming together to set up BlackBerry for the next decade."

Translation: We're definitely screwed, so we hope this tablet and funky new tablet OS will save all of us from certain irrelevance. Who cares it's a tablet OS. Just say it's BlackBerry in the next decade, that will sound visionary.


According to Lazaridis, the 7-inch PlayBook, which RIM unveiled in September, is still "tracking" for a first quarter launch.

Translation: Oh gawd, I hope we pull this of. I have no idea...


When questioned whether RIM was leaving behind BlackBerry phones by moving ahead with next generation technology in tablets, Lazaridis emphasized RIM's global strategy. RIM won't abandon developing markets that have yet to reach 3G or 4G and can't afford high-end stuff, he explained.

Translation: Hell yeah we'll still be selling cheap crap all around the world... Who knows what our high-end smartphone business will be like. Just churn out our same BB OS and phones, send it to the "developing markets", because, heck, they don't care about the latest gadgets do they... Wait, do they?


Lazaridis also claimed during the interview that the BlackBerry began appealing to consumers by itself. "We didn't go out and try to make BlackBerry a consumer device. It crossed over on its own," he said.

Translation: We were sitting on our asses in our fine suits and thank goodness this phenomenon came along. But consumers suck. Let's still focus on businesses, because that's what matters, not mom and pop and kids... Yeah, I think tablets will be the future. Did I mention the tablet is the future?


RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis. Apple is trying to upgrade a mobile phone OS for tablets, while RIM is starting with a "bona-fide mobile computing platform" for tablets, he asserted.

Translation: My pals at Adobe tell me Adobe Air and Flash is part of a real bona-fide mobile computing platform. What's this Unix stuff? Is that the same as QNX? It ends with an "X".


Referencing the iPad's lack of Adobe Flash compatibility, Lazaridis asked, "Why would you limit yourself?"

Translation: Again, my pals at Adobe told me that Flash is the future. Never mind most Blackberries can't even display web content, Flash is the future. And tablets. And somehow that's going to take our smartphones, into the future. Somehow.


In October Apple CEO Steve Jobs asserted that many 7-inch tablets would be dead on arrival. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie responded, claiming that "many customers are getting tired of being told what to think by Apple."

Translation: Geez... I sure hope someone is listening to me telling them that Blackberry tablets are the future... of smartphones...
post #64 of 132
that's hilarious considering RIM will be irrelevant in 5 years
post #65 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

My biggest doubts regarding the Playbook aren't specs, size, cores, OS, etc. I derive the most concern from the people I've seen demonstrating and talking about the Playbook. The people at RIM are the problem.

The demo given at Rogers Tablife was done by a stodgy old intellectual. Undoubtably very smart and successful, but apparently lacking any understanding of the world outside of RIM's traditionally successful niche. And when asked why someone should choose the Playbook his first answer was that it has two cameras. His first answer was a technical specification (not a benefit) that every other tablet will have by the time Playbook is on the market.

Then Mike gets up at D and does the exact same thing (but less coherently). Portrays himself as a stodgy old man who only seems to know RIM's history and is predicting the future based on their isolated history. Poor MIke didn't have a chance to explain why people should choose Playbook because he couldn't get past the basic questions on what it was and how it fit into RIM's product portfolio.

There does not seem to be any outward acknowledgment that the smartphone and tablet markets have changed. There is no acknowledgement that the methods RIM used to achieve success 10 years ago are in need of a revamp over the next 10 years. RIM really needs to show that they have a vision, and a passion for that vision. Right now they have a piece of hardware and an OS (or at least half an OS).

Except that Mike is younger than Steve Jobs --- and both are university dropouts.
post #66 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by extremeskater View Post

Some feel the that not having the option of installing Flash is limiting. If many didn't feel that way it wouldn't be used as a selling point. With my one Android device I can simply make Flash content "on demand".

I love my iPad, I use it all the time but the reality is for many of us there are just certain sites that we use daily that are flash only. There is no alternative. I would like not to have to pull out my MBP everytime I want to use one of those sites to stream video.

Flash 10.1 does not come on Android you decide if you want to install it or not.

Just like you have the right to keep it disabled on your other devices to save battery, I should have the right to enable and if I am fine with having the battery drain faster then fine.

For others wanting to jump all over this comment I am not going to get into a stupid Flash debate because most on this site are insane about the subject.

yet your whole comment was about Flash.

and what VALUABLE sites that you can not get to that has flash as the main page? navigation? all greatly entertaining but rather useless UI.... you missing the TRON Disney site? oh flash installed, I can play input device flash games with...a..multitouch input w/o rewritten onClick code?
post #67 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samban View Post

Optimized is deceptive term, The reality is that most stuff are written for single processor & made SMP safe so that they don't behave worse in the SMP environment. What's the point in putting the H/W if the framework is not there to take advantage of.

You have to remember that these are separate teams that RIM bought individually in the last year.

Whatever codes QNX wrote --- from day 1 that's going to be highly optimized for dual core embedded devices. Then there is Torch Mobile, who were bought out by RIM last year, that is making the browser part of the Playbook --- and that's still running on single core.

For the last 30 YEARS, software has been lagging hardware in the computer industry. What's the point of buying a 64 bit desktop CPU when your OS is only half running in 64 bit mode.
post #68 of 132
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #69 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

TI can claim whatever they want --- but if you look at the Playbook demo video from last Friday and freeze frame the video (as Crackberry.com had done), you would have found out that the Playbook demo unit is running on OMAP4430 (not 4440).

So? the OMAP4430 is up to 1Ghz vs 1.5 Ghz for the 4440 and has less 3D playback. WTF does that have to do with using a 4430 in a phone? Nothing.

Quote:
And the Playbook comes with a huge battery --- which isn't suitable for cell phones.

This is a seriously dumb point. The A4 is used in both iPad and iPhone at different clock rates. What on earth makes you think you can't run a 4430 at 720Mhz?

The power performance of the 4430 is targeted to be 600mW to 100uW.

http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc2...t-OMAP4430.pdf

What is Anand's assessment"

"Id expect the 4440 to be used in tablets while the 4430 seems more like a smartphone SKU."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4053/t...-14-3d-1080p60

Quote:
I never said that Apple can't do it --- I said if TI can't do it in that time frame (and they have been in the mobile CPU business forever), then it is very unlikely that Apple can do it.

Except that Ti has done it.
post #70 of 132
.

...these devices are only good for content consumption...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9XNf...yer_embedded#!

Feliz Navidad
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #71 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

So? the OMAP4430 is up to 1Ghz vs 1.5 Ghz for the 4440 and has less 3D playback. WTF does that have to do with using a 4430 in a phone? Nothing.

This is a seriously dumb point. The A4 is used in both iPad and iPhone at different clock rates. What on earth makes you think you can't run a 4430 at 720Mhz?

The power performance of the 4430 is targeted to be 600mW to 100uW.

http://www.hotchips.org/archives/hc2...t-OMAP4430.pdf

What is Anand's assessment"

"Id expect the 4440 to be used in tablets while the 4430 seems more like a smartphone SKU."

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4053/t...-14-3d-1080p60

Except that Ti has done it.

TI can say whatever they want in their sales brochure, but the fact is that the 4430 in the Playbook needs a 5300 mah battery.

And we haven't seen any dual core cortex a9 cellphones yet.
post #72 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

TI can say whatever they want in their sales brochure, but the fact is that the 4430 in the Playbook needs a 5300 mah battery.

And the fact is that the iPad has a 6613 mAh battery so obviously the A4 can't be used in a phone.

What a completely stupid conclusion.

Quote:
And we haven't seen any dual core cortex a9 cellphones yet.

It ain't middle of 2011 yet is it? The iPhone 5 isn't due until Julyish. LG announced 4Q2010 launch for Optimus Series Tegra 2 phones back in September.

http://www.lg.com/global/press-relea...-processor.jsp
post #73 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

As RIM's smartphones begin to include multi-core processors, "they'll all be running the Playbook platform," said Lazaridis, who believes the PlayBook OS will help RIM "jump into the next decade of mobile computing."

Promises, promises...

Quote:
Lazaridis also claimed during the interview that the BlackBerry began appealing to consumers by itself. "We didn't go out and try to make BlackBerry a consumer device. It crossed over on its own," he said.

A strange claim considering it's not even out yet. On the other hand, the iPad was not designed or marketed as an enterprise product, but it seems to be embraced by enterprise.

Quote:
RIM and Apple's strategies differ, according to Lazaridis.

Yes. Apple takes the long view, spends years in R&D, and puts out a product they're proud to put out.

Quote:
The competition between Apple and RIM has increased as RIM prepares to enter the tablet market, in which Apple has taken a substantial early lead.

??? How is a product that's not yet for sale competitive with a product that's been out for the better part of a year?

Quote:
In October Apple CEO Steve Jobs asserted that many 7-inch tablets would be dead on arrival. RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie responded, claiming that "many customers are getting tired of being told what to think by Apple."

What a strange statement!
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
post #74 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

And the fact is that the iPad has a 6613 mAh battery so obviously the A4 can't be used in a phone.

What a completely stupid conclusion.

It ain't middle of 2011 yet is it? The iPhone 5 isn't due until Julyish. LG announced 4Q2010 launch for Optimus Series Tegra 2 phones back in September.

http://www.lg.com/global/press-relea...-processor.jsp

Of course it can, but I am mainly talking about timing. There had been cortex a8 based smartphones available months and months before Apple launched A4 based ipad and iphone.
post #75 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Your argument is basically that function ought to follow form. My argument is that form, which includes screen size, ought to follow function. Sure, you can make a UI that is "useable" on almost any screen size, but to what purpose? A 7" screen completely changes what the device is all about, gives you none of the convenience of a phone, and none of the purpose of a 10" tablet. You are basically arguing that there are an infinite number of screen sizes that are optimal, which might be true if we qualify it with, "for particular niche applications," but it isn't true for general purpose devices.

Is an ebook better on a 7" device? What if you want to read in landscape/2-page mode? Not so much. However, if all you want is an ebook reader, then, quite seriously, you are probably better off with a Kindle. As a general purpose tablet computing device, a larger screen opens the device to a greater range of possible applications and functions, and a smaller screen restricts it. Too large and it becomes unwieldy. Too small and it becomes less generally useful. A 7" tablet still doesn't fit in your jeans pocket, but it's also not very useful for editing a word processing document; yeah, you can do it, but you can't do it with the same ease.

A 7" tablet is going to be an exercise in frustration. Barely more functional than a phone, much less easy to carry around. Everything is a compromise to some extent, but the key to success is to make the right compromises, not assuming that all compromises are equal. The 7" tablet form factor makes all the wrong compromises.

You're telling me all the reasons why a 10" device is THE SIZE. You're kind of doing what Jobs did, in telling people what to think, what they want.

But ...

Did you hear me say "I had an iPad".

10" format did not work for me.

The compromises were wrong.

I'd prefer a smaller one.

I may be the only one who thinks this way.

But ... I don't think so.

We'll see in the coming months whether the 7" tablets are DOA or not. But I predict they will sell. Probably not outsell the iPad. But they'll carve out such a hole that, not anytime soon (the iPad2 will be 10"), but say in about a year, Apple will introduce a 7" version. My guess, anyway.
post #76 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Of course it can, but I am mainly talking about timing. There had been cortex a8 based smartphones available months and months before Apple launched A4 based ipad and iphone.

You do realize that the 3GS used a Cortex A8 right? And it was what? The 2nd phone to use it? Apple doesn't lag much.

The Cortex A9 wasn't ready for early 2010/late 2009 so the A4 had to be a Cortex A8. Do you REALLY think Apple has been ignoring the Cortex A9 for a year? WTF do you think the Intrinsity folks have been doing since April? The PA Semi folks have been with Apple even longer. Do you seriously believe Apple hasn't been the first to sample the Orion?

The timing is just right for the Cortex A9 based A5 (or whatever) to appear in time for the iPad 2 much less for the iPhone 5. Everyone has been sampling for months and getting set to start production early 2011.
post #77 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevt View Post

You're telling me all the reasons why a 10" device is THE SIZE. You're kind of doing what Jobs did, in telling people what to think, what they want.

...

We'll see in the coming months whether the 7" tablets are DOA or not. But I predict they will sell. Probably not outsell the iPad. But they'll carve out such a hole that, not anytime soon (the iPad2 will be 10"), but say in about a year, Apple will introduce a 7" version. My guess, anyway.

No, I'm telling you all the reasons,

* why your view, a single data point, is not representative,
* why Apple is unlikely to make a 7-inch tablet,
* why they haven't made a 4-5" iPhone, and
* why a 7" iPad isn't an iPad, it's an entirely different user experience.

And, sorry, this bullshit about Jobs telling people what to think is just that. He tells people what he thinks, or what "Apple thinks" and they agree with him or not. I know, when you don't have a real argument, it's comforting to resort to that sort of rhetoric, but it just draws attention to your lack of sound reasoning and your emotional bias.
post #78 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

A 7" screen completely changes what the device is all about, gives you none of the convenience of a phone, and none of the purpose of a 10" tablet.

I'm sorry but that line of argument is nonsense. What magically different things are people doing on an iPhone vs. an iPad? They're still playing games, consuming media, browsing the web, etc.

Quote:
A 7" tablet is going to be an exercise in frustration. Barely more functional than a phone, much less easy to carry around. Everything is a compromise to some extent, but the key to success is to make the right compromises, not assuming that all compromises are equal. The 7" tablet form factor makes all the wrong compromises.

Barely more functional than a phone? A 7" tablet has roughly 4.5 times as much screen real estate than the iPhone. Maybe you lack the imagination to figure out to make proper use of that space, but others probably can. Browsing the web, watching videos, editing documents and more are all going to be better overall experiences on a tablet rather than a phone.

And having read your paranoid ramblings about Google I really don't thing you should be complaining to anyone about their "lack of sound reasoning" and their "emotional bias."
post #79 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

I'm sorry but that line of argument is nonsense. What magically different things are people doing on an iPhone vs. an iPad? They're still playing games, consuming media, browsing the web, etc.

Check out a 7 tablet with a 16:9 aspect ratio. Its to be big to be a phone and its too small and wonky to be a good eReader. I am sure there are plenty of uses that each display size and resolution are most ideal for, but I dont think that a 7 16:9 display is small enough to be a phone or pocketable PMP replacement, or large enough to be a good eReader.

Personally, Im not fond of using my iPad for web browsing because I almost always have my 13 MBP with me (which I find superior in that regard) or Im highly mobile so the iPad is less likely to come with me but Im likely to have my iPhone in hand or pocket so I cant comment on my experience in that regard, but I have heard many state how they do like the iPads browser experience.
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 #80 of 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

You do realize that the 3GS used a Cortex A8 right? And it was what? The 2nd phone to use it? Apple doesn't lag much.

The Cortex A9 wasn't ready for early 2010/late 2009 so the A4 had to be a Cortex A8. Do you REALLY think Apple has been ignoring the Cortex A9 for a year? WTF do you think the Intrinsity folks have been doing since April? The PA Semi folks have been with Apple even longer. Do you seriously believe Apple hasn't been the first to sample the Orion?

The timing is just right for the Cortex A9 based A5 (or whatever) to appear in time for the iPad 2 much less for the iPhone 5. Everyone has been sampling for months and getting set to start production early 2011.

That's what I am saying --- Samsung produced a cortex a8 chip a year ahead of Apple.

The dual core cortex a9 isn't even ready yet ---- RIGHT NOW --- from the big silicon companies. You are assigning mythical abilities to the PA Semi and Intrinsity teams.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM sees PlayBook OS as 10-year future for smartphones, tablets