or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM posts impressive earnings, co-CEO says PlayBook "way ahead" of iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM posts impressive earnings, co-CEO says PlayBook "way ahead" of iPad - Page 4

post #121 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

So, not totally scientific, but a 40% increase in sales has yielded only 14% increase in profit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

RIM says it will no longer report subscriber growth in future quarters.

At least there are a few people paying attention to what really matters!
post #122 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by bettieblue View Post

hat is real news and points to the fact that the smartphone market is really up in the air.

But really that is misleading since Apple is selling every iPhone they can make and they aren't on all carriers. Apple is the limiting factor to their growth right now.

And I've said it before but I'll say it again, I don't think Apple is overly concerned about taking over the world. It would bring unwanted and unneeded attention from overly zealous regulatory hacks. The iOS ecosystem is still growing and changing quickly - Apple needs the flexibility to try things out and adapt to new models as they appear - they can smoke Google and everyone else later when their ecosystem is a little more mature
post #123 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

Reminds me of the title of a movie from the 80s: Say Anything.

At least that movie was entertaining. With one of the more memorable movie moments. Unlike the train wreck that was this fiasco.
post #124 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Instead, the user adapts -- and carefully positions his fingers over the surface, then makes very deliberate touches to the surface.

The user has to think about what he wants to do, then take 2 specific actions (position, then touch) to accomplish the task -- never quite sure of what will happen. It is rather stilted.

I can guarantee you RIM would have no problem shipping a POS like that. Their first touchscreen blackberry - the bold or whatever was horrible! We did a mail migration and had to re-activate all of our BlackBerries. The touchscreen ones were a nightmare since the touch interface was pretty inaccurate near the edge of the screen. The admins had picked the letter q as the activation password to keep things simple - I had to have them change it to the letter g in the middle of they keyboard because we had so many failed activations from trying to pick q and getting something else instead

Within a month or two the iPhone will be certified in our environment, and I expect all but 10% of the die hard blackberry hold outs to move en-masse. I mean, I enjoy my iPhone but as a long time Mac user I'm used to being in the minority. But the amount of people who have expressed impatience at getting an iPhone to replace their BlackBerry still amazes me. We have several organizations who are actively developing mobile apps for vertical niches. I think the iPad could be even more popular once it gets established and people get their hands on it.
post #125 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alladdinn View Post

Wouldn't RIM's presence and expertise in serving IT/Enterprise be an advantage over iPad/iPad2?

In what way? Remote management? Apple really beefed it up in 4.2, and for the equivalent cost overhead with RIM (server, support, CALs) you can run a third party management suite on top of the iPhone to give you even more management.

As far as enterprise Apps, the iPhone/iPad will probably work with your more modern corporate apps today. Stuff that is IE dependent is finally being targeted by pretty much everyone as the wrong way to go. And development environments - Xcode and Apple's API's vs. Adobe Air?

Seriously?

I see nothing compelling in the Playbook other than the vain hope for "no one got fired for buying RIM" and I don't think that's going to carry them very far in todays market. It's too new and growing, and they aren't that entrenched (the growth numbers for smartphones and tablets both show that).
post #126 of 152
Is Balsillie attempting reality distortion field? LOL!
post #127 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

This is just hilarious!!

Someone remind this guy that he sold zero tablets!

I was planning to compare the iPad2 with a playbook to see which I liked better, but it looks like I will be sh!t out of luck, since the playbook doesn't appear to have the required mass or inertial to get out before the iPad.
post #128 of 152
Nice post. Not so much as we should write RIM off but at this stage they really are at least a year behind the curve compared to Apple and Android.

I was thinking, BB Messenger is their core, core strength and I really wish Apple at some stage addresses this dead on. MobileMe is convenient but not quite the cake yet.

What is inescapable nonetheless is that Apple can't make enough iPhone and iPad at the moment, that's one of their major "weaknesses".


Quote:
Originally Posted by stottm View Post

You don't go and buy a Unix real time OS company like QNX and a user interface design company unless you have decided you don't have the internal talent to compete and you need fresh new folks and already built technology. RIM just did what Apple did when they bought NeXT. They admit they have no good OS and they are buying a company to get one. However, NeXT's claim to fame was their development environment. We are talking the most advanced devkit ever devised in computing history. Literally, decades ahead of it's time when it was originally released with NeXTStep. This is one reason by Apple's App Store is kicking so much butt. The development environment on the Mac is extremely good and it just keeps getting better. The dev environment on BlackBerry has been Java based which is, uh, Bleh...

RIM's hardware is under powered and their OS is slow, only the latest Torch have I noticed it running a little better. Their OS is Java based and it takes forever to reboot a BlackBerry and you end up having to do that quite a bit until there are enough OS updates to fix the bugs. Plus you have to wait for the slow carrier to even release the updates, unlike Apple who put's out an update and everyone can load it regardless of carrier. Many times, I have witnessed people pirating the OS for their BlackBerry because AT&T, Verizon, etc. won't release the update. The carrier wants you to buy a new phone. So you get to hear about it being released overseas but you will never see that version on your device! This is what the CEO meant about being carrier friendly....

The apps available for BlackBerry are terrible and they are expensive too. Everything feels like a hack on the BlackBerry. The Torch made some serious strides but the touch screen is so bad, I have to flip the keyboard out just to type on it. I am on my forth iPhone and iPad and I don't have any trouble typing on them. Why can't RIM make a touch screen sensitive enough to actually be useful? Android based touch is better than RIM but still not quite as good as Apple's.

The PlayBook is running QNX which is a commercial real time Unix suitable for running nuclear power plants, etc. It is fantastic tech! However, iOS is also Unix based. When iPhoneOS shipped on the first iPhone there was no development kit. Developers were told to do things web based. This didn't fly, developers wanted a full blown development environment and API. As soon as Apple released that devkit and the App Store, development exploded! What is RIM's development plan on the PlayBook? Why, Adobe AIR! Gee that sounds familiar! Air is nothing but HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Flash all thrown together. RIM is likely working on a C/C++ based devkit on QNX but they are years away from a decent API. Sure you've got the Unix development env on QNX already but it's not good enough and they need to add a whole new GUI layer with new widgets, etc. to give developers something like the iPhone dev env. Not like they are going to run X11 as a Window manager on the PlayBook. So they whipped up a quick and dirty interface that can multi-task and run AIR apps. Nothing but a fancy browser with sliding screens instead of browser tabs.

So yeah, no CEO is going to walk out and say, "We're 5 years away from being competitive". Nope, they are going out there and they are going to try to do the best they can....

It's all smoke and mirrors until they pull off the impossible, stay alive long enough to get the QNX dev kit up-to-speed. Get multi-core CPU's into your BlackBerry's. Write a whole new playbook on your user interface. Try to do all this before Apple simply pulls out advanced tech they have been sitting on and keeping secret. I bet Apple's two or three generations ahead of what's actually shipping today. I think there is an iPhone 5 and maybe 6 or seven in development as well as an iPad 2 or 3. I would not be surprised if there was a Dual Core custom A9 MIPS processor with advanced GPU being tested out with iOS. RIM doesn't have a chance in hell... They fell asleep at the switch and didn't wake until the 4th generation iPhone and iPad hit the street.
post #129 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by stottm View Post

You don't go and buy a Unix real time OS company like QNX and a user interface design company unless you have decided you don't have the internal talent to compete and you need fresh new folks and already built technology. RIM just did what Apple did when they bought NeXT. They admit they have no good OS and they are buying a company to get one. However, NeXT's claim to fame was their development environment. We are talking the most advanced devkit ever devised in computing history. Literally, decades ahead of it's time when it was originally released with NeXTStep. This is one reason by Apple's App Store is kicking so much butt. The development environment on the Mac is extremely good and it just keeps getting better. The dev environment on BlackBerry has been Java based which is, uh, Bleh...

RIM's hardware is under powered and their OS is slow, only the latest Torch have I noticed it running a little better. Their OS is Java based and it takes forever to reboot a BlackBerry and you end up having to do that quite a bit until there are enough OS updates to fix the bugs. Plus you have to wait for the slow carrier to even release the updates, unlike Apple who put's out an update and everyone can load it regardless of carrier. Many times, I have witnessed people pirating the OS for their BlackBerry because AT&T, Verizon, etc. won't release the update. The carrier wants you to buy a new phone. So you get to hear about it being released overseas but you will never see that version on your device! This is what the CEO meant about being carrier friendly....

The apps available for BlackBerry are terrible and they are expensive too. Everything feels like a hack on the BlackBerry. The Torch made some serious strides but the touch screen is so bad, I have to flip the keyboard out just to type on it. I am on my forth iPhone and iPad and I don't have any trouble typing on them. Why can't RIM make a touch screen sensitive enough to actually be useful? Android based touch is better than RIM but still not quite as good as Apple's.

The PlayBook is running QNX which is a commercial real time Unix suitable for running nuclear power plants, etc. It is fantastic tech! However, iOS is also Unix based. When iPhoneOS shipped on the first iPhone there was no development kit. Developers were told to do things web based. This didn't fly, developers wanted a full blown development environment and API. As soon as Apple released that devkit and the App Store, development exploded! What is RIM's development plan on the PlayBook? Why, Adobe AIR! Gee that sounds familiar! Air is nothing but HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and Flash all thrown together. RIM is likely working on a C/C++ based devkit on QNX but they are years away from a decent API. Sure you've got the Unix development env on QNX already but it's not good enough and they need to add a whole new GUI layer with new widgets, etc. to give developers something like the iPhone dev env. Not like they are going to run X11 as a Window manager on the PlayBook. So they whipped up a quick and dirty interface that can multi-task and run AIR apps. Nothing but a fancy browser with sliding screens instead of browser tabs.

So yeah, no CEO is going to walk out and say, "We're 5 years away from being competitive". Nope, they are going out there and they are going to try to do the best they can....

It's all smoke and mirrors until they pull off the impossible, stay alive long enough to get the QNX dev kit up-to-speed. Get multi-core CPU's into your BlackBerry's. Write a whole new playbook on your user interface. Try to do all this before Apple simply pulls out advanced tech they have been sitting on and keeping secret. I bet Apple's two or three generations ahead of what's actually shipping today. I think there is an iPhone 5 and maybe 6 or seven in development as well as an iPad 2 or 3. I would not be surprised if there was a Dual Core custom A9 MIPS processor with advanced GPU being tested out with iOS. RIM doesn't have a chance in hell... They fell asleep at the switch and didn't wake until the 4th generation iPhone and iPad hit the street.

The big difference between Next/Apple and QNX/RIM, it appears to me, is that Apple provided a clear and seamless migration path for its legacy users into the new environment. Classic and Rosetta didn't run every app at full speed, but it made the transition pretty painless, for the most part. It's easy to forget what an engineering feat this really was.

RIM hasn't said a word about the relationship of their installed user base to the new hotness. They're still selling only RIM OS devices with the (not very well articulated) understanding that presently they will bring forth their new flagship hardware on a new OS which has nothing to do with and has no backwards compatibility with those devices. And that then, as soon as sufficiently robust handset hardware is available, they will commence making phones which also have nothing to do with what they are selling now.

Given RIMs vaunted status as sober-minded business vendors, doesn't this seem crazy? What's the roadmap? Will the BB handsets I buy today just get summarily shoved aside in a year when RIM is ready to go the full QNX?

Of course, RIM does have one advantage over Apple when it comes to moving their installed base over to a new OS-- their preeminent "app" is their system of off device email servers, which can talk to the new hardware as easily as the current.
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 #130 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

It's so they can use the term "Dual-Core" CEO since RIM seems to be obsessed with dual core processors.
post #131 of 152
Great post, stottm.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stottm View Post

You don't go and buy a Unix real time OS company like QNX and a user interface design company unless you have decided you don't have the internal talent to compete and you need fresh new folks and already built technology.

This is an intensely clear demonstration that they were technologically screwed, and they knew it. Apple did a similar thing and now look where they are... a decade later. The big difference was that NeXT had a much vaunted GUI and a robust desktop OS, and Apple already had a great deal of in-house GUI expertise.


Quote:
The PlayBook is running QNX which is a commercial real time Unix suitable for running nuclear power plants, etc. It is fantastic tech!

QNX has been around since the '80s, and is definitely an excellent real-time OS. The requirements of such an OS, however, are not the same as the requirements for a mobile, tablet or desktop OS. And while RIM is touting their multi-core capabilities, they have yet to prove they can actually ship any such thing. Apple has been shipping multi-core systems for over a decade, their OS (both iOS and MacOSX) has been aggressively optimized for a multi-processor environment -- including OpenCL. Apple's dev tools and OS in this area are second to none, and in the hands of developers for ages.

The OS is one component of delivering a highly parallel solution. The apps are another. RIM isn't even pushing the apps, and their proposed solution to functionality squanders huge amounts of performance and efficiency when compared to native apps implemented in C/C++/ObjC and using technologies like GCD and OpenCL. And before dismissing OpenCL as a desktop technology, consider that from the outset it was designed to consider embedded devices... and for mobile applications, GPUs are some of the most power efficient devices available.


Quote:
RIM is likely working on a C/C++ based devkit on QNX but they are years away from a decent API. Sure you've got the Unix development env on QNX already but it's not good enough and they need to add a whole new GUI layer with new widgets, etc. to give developers something like the iPhone dev env.

QNX is not something you lightly hand to app developers. It is not designed for mobile networked user apps. Given RIM's previous attempts at apps, this is a disaster in the offing.

The worst thing about this is the loss of QNX to the real-time control industry when RIM finally shrivels and dies after failing to repurpose these technologies.


Quote:
Try to do all this before Apple simply pulls out advanced tech they have been sitting on and keeping secret. I bet Apple's two or three generations ahead of what's actually shipping today. I think there is an iPhone 5 and maybe 6 or seven in development as well as an iPad 2 or 3. I would not be surprised if there was a Dual Core custom A9 MIPS processor with advanced GPU being tested out with iOS. RIM doesn't have a chance in hell... They fell asleep at the switch and didn't wake until the 4th generation iPhone and iPad hit the street.

The key silicon design firms that Apple acquired years ago are going to start bearing fruit soon. The A4 is just the beginning, and it just looks like a warm-up project. Rumourmills are notoriously premature in their pronouncements, but it doesn't mean the leaks are inaccurate. Outside the hardware business people are oblivious to how long the development schedules are...

"Next year's model" contained the single core A4, but that doesn't mean the chip described isn't exactly what is coming next year or the year after. And the next GPU core (OpenCL capable) came available a year ago.


RIM's CEO is spouting in desperation. He doesn't have a choice. They don't have the resources to keep competing for long, and their new product is a dramatic "last chance" maneuver. The other thing Apple got in the purchase of NeXT, what really saved their bacon... was Steve Jobs.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #132 of 152
The above is a great post and very succinct on all the points made!

The only thing I would add would be to the first point:


Quote:
Originally Posted by stottm

You don't go and buy a Unix real time OS company like QNX and a user interface design company unless you have decided you don't have the internal talent to compete and you need fresh new folks and already built technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

This is an intensely clear demonstration that they were technologically screwed, and they knew it. Apple did a similar thing and now look where they are... a decade later. The big difference was that NeXT had a much vaunted GUI and a robust desktop OS, and Apple already had a great deal of in-house GUI expertise.

The organization, work ethic and people that Apple got when it purchased NeXT were highly-compatible with their counterparts at Apple. It's as if NeXT had been an autonomous division of Apple.

And the recombination of the two entities was more of: a return of a prodigal son -- or, rather the return of a prodigal father.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #133 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The organization, work ethic and people that Apple got when it purchased NeXT were highly-compatible with their counterparts at Apple. It's as if NeXT had been an autonomous division of Apple.

And the recombination of the two entities was more of: a return of a prodigal son -- or, rather the return of a prodigal father.

"The greatest trick Steve Job ever pulled was convincing Apple to pay NeXT to take over their brand-name."
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 #134 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

"The greatest trick Steve Job ever pulled was convincing Apple to pay NeXT to take over their brand-name."

IMO, the 3 top things Steve Jobs ever did:

-- co-founded Apple with Woz and Mike Markkula
-- quit Apple to found NeXT
-- rejoined Apple with NeXT

You rate them!


Edit: Meant to include the following -- an interesting read at the time:

http://news.cnet.com/Apple-acquires-..._3-256914.html
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #135 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

The big difference between Next/Apple and QNX/RIM, it appears to me, is that Apple provided a clear and seamless migration path for its legacy users into the new environment. Classic and Rosetta didn't run every app at full speed, but it made the transition pretty painless, for the most part. It's easy to forget what an engineering feat this really was.

Given RIMs vaunted status as sober-minded business vendors, doesn't this seem crazy? What's the roadmap? Will the BB handsets I buy today just get summarily shoved aside in a year when RIM is ready to go the full QNX?

But the advantage is that cell phone is a "disposable" item. You sign a new contract, they give you a free phone.
post #136 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But the advantage is that cell phone is a "disposable" item. You sign a new contract, they give you a free phone.

Au contraire...

A good smartphone, in the US, costs around $200 (with 2-year subsidy).

A good smartphone will last 3-5 years.

A good smartphone has an ecosystem of content and apps.

a good smartphone can be repurposed as a PMP, a PGP, or other,


We have 3 iPhones gen-1, 1 iPhone 3G, 1 iPhone 3GS, and 1 iPhone 44.

2 Are used as smart phones (iP4 and 3G)

The 3GS was recently broken and awaiting replacement (granddaughter's allowance) -- in the meantime the granddaughter's 3G (was used as PGP) is now used as a phone

2 gen-1 used as PGPs (2 grandsons)

1 gen-1 with bottom of screen dead after 3 years.

All models are used for app development deployment and testing.


It is far more practical and far less-expensive to repurpose an iPhone as a PGP hand-me-down to children. There are more games, games are better, cost much less and can be played on several devices concurrently.


Ya' know...

I just realized something. The 3 grandkids also have feature phones, in addition to their repurposed iPhones.

They all are on the same family plan with the 2 iPhones used as phones.

The only reason for separate feature phones is because ATT would require a data plan ($30/mo) for each phone.

None of the grandkids have Internet (data) on their feature phones.


Wouldn't it be interesting if the carrier allowed the older iPhones to be used as feature phones (no data) -- or the carrier could offer a reduced data rate subsidy (in lieu of a new feature phone) to encourage new contracts.

Mmm.....
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #137 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Nice post. Not so much as we should write RIM off but at this stage they really are at least a year behind the curve compared to Apple and Android.

OS make big difference. Apple selected Next for Job, but the other good choice would be BeOS (wouldn't say it is inferior than Next at the time, however, it does not have the Job flare. The combination of Next with Job's name possibly won the game). Let's see what OS will do this time for both companies.
post #138 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st View Post

OS make big difference. Apple selected Next for Job, but the other good choice would be BeOS (wouldn't say it is inferior than Next at the time, however, it does not have the Job flare. The combination of Next with Job's name possibly won the game). Let's see what OS will do this time for both companies.

BeOS was far inferior. BeOS only looked good because it was compared with Windows 95/98 --- which wasn't saying much.
post #139 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

BeOS was far inferior. BeOS only looked good because it was compared with Windows 95/98 --- which wasn't saying much.

http://lowendmac.com/backnforth/010416.html

History re-written by the winners usually--- wasn't saying Much indeed.
post #140 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st View Post

http://lowendmac.com/backnforth/010416.html

History re-written by the winners usually--- wasn't saying Much indeed.

What I meant to say was that quite a lot of people had a larger than life memory of BeOS --- because most were comparing it with Windows 95/98. Windows XP came out about a month before Be Inc. closed down --- and XP came out with preemptive multitasking, multithreading and NTFS which is also a journal filing system.
post #141 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

What I meant to say was that quite a lot of people had a larger than life memory of BeOS --- because most were comparing it with Windows 95/98. Windows XP came out about a month before Be Inc. closed down --- and XP came out with preemptive multitasking, multithreading and NTFS which is also a journal filing system.

And Microsoft did pay the BeOS share holder money to settle the lawsuit. Check the fact and which one is "Larger"?
post #142 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer

........ Apple has been shipping multi-core systems for over a decade, their OS (both iOS and MacOSX) has been aggressively optimized for a multi-processor environment -- including OpenCL. Apple's dev tools and OS in this area are second to none, and in the hands of developers for ages.

The OS is one component of delivering a highly parallel solution. The apps are another. RIM isn't even pushing the apps, and their proposed solution to functionality squanders huge amounts of performance and efficiency when compared to native apps implemented in C/C++/ObjC and using technologies like GCD and OpenCL. And before dismissing OpenCL as a desktop technology, consider that from the outset it was designed to consider embedded devices... and for mobile applications........

Sad to think the IPad may get an OCL capable gpu before the MBA and other Macs that rely on Intel IGPs.
post #143 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st View Post

And Microsoft did pay the BeOS share holder money to settle the lawsuit. Check the fact and which one is "Larger"?

Check the settlement --- $23 million, not a lot of money.
post #144 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Programmer View Post

The OS is one component of delivering a highly parallel solution. The apps are another. RIM isn't even pushing the apps, and their proposed solution to functionality squanders huge amounts of performance and efficiency when compared to native apps implemented in C/C++/ObjC and using technologies like GCD and OpenCL. And before dismissing OpenCL as a desktop technology, consider that from the outset it was designed to consider embedded devices... and for mobile applications, GPUs are some of the most power efficient devices available.

It really depends on what is really "native". When normal regular RIM Playbook AIR apps goes to the background when deactivate, the framerate drops to 4 frames per second (from the regular default framerate of 24 frames per second). The Playbook's video player still plays at full speed in the background in the demos --- because it's really a native QNX app in C/C++ with AIR just being a "windows manager". And regular QNX apps will work at full speed in the background in the Playbook --- until the developer explicitly reduces its speed. RIM hyped it as an "AIR" app because they were showing it at an Adobe event.
post #145 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It really depends on what is really "native". When normal regular RIM Playbook AIR apps goes to the background when deactivate, the framerate drops to 4 frames per second (from the regular default framerate of 24 frames per second). The Playbook's video player still plays at full speed in the background in the demos --- because it's really a native QNX app in C/C++ with AIR just being a "windows manager". And regular QNX apps will work at full speed in the background in the Playbook --- until the developer explicitly reduces its speed. RIM hyped it as an "AIR" app because they were showing it at an Adobe event.

Are you saying that a bg AIR app will continuously consume resources (cycling) even when it is not doing anything? Isn't that a drain on resources and the battery?

Shouldn't the system participate in determinating the speed at which deacitivated apps can run? Say a bg app is compressing and uploading a video, and a fg app is capturing and/or playing a video. Would you want a bg app acting as a co-equal -- reducing the performance of a fg app and the GUI interaction?

What I am asking is:

-- don't the apps, including system apps like the browser, need the intelligence to request full or reduced services determined by whether they are running bg or fg?

-- If yes, how does an app do this?

-- doesn't the OS need to govern the resources that bg apps get based on what else is going on the system?

If, not, why wouldn't each app assume full resources are available and try to monopolize them -- as the PlayBook browser appesrs to do...
... And because of the above (all apps are equal) that resources are proportionately divided among bg and fg apps
... Or the apps, like the browser are designed to run on a single core

The easy thing to do is to design each app to run on a single core with all resources available and let the system control the resource usage by controlling the individual cores.

The PlayBook has 2 cores and a GPU. How/what does QNX do to handle, say, 3 or 4 bg apps competing for a single core?

Does QNX have the capability to utilize the GPU cores and any on board DSPs to distribute processes among apps running bg or fg?

If yes, how are these capabilities exposed to the developers -- certainly not through AIR!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #146 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Are you saying that a bg AIR app will continuously consume resources (cycling) even when it is not doing anything? Isn't that a drain on resources and the battery?

Shouldn't the system participate in determinating the speed at which deacitivated apps can run? Say a bg app is compressing and uploading a video, and a fg app is capturing and/or playing a video. Would you want a bg app acting as a co-equal -- reducing the performance of a fg app and the GUI interaction?

What I am asking is:

-- don't the apps, including system apps like the browser, need the intelligence to request full or reduced services determined by whether they are running bg or fg?

-- If yes, how does an app do this?

-- doesn't the OS need to govern the resources that bg apps get based on what else is going on the system?

If, not, why wouldn't each app assume full resources are available and try to monopolize them -- as the PlayBook browser appesrs to do...
... And because of the above (all apps are equal) that resources are proportionately divided among bg and fg apps
... Or the apps, like the browser are designed to run on a single core

The easy thing to do is to design each app to run on a single core with all resources available and let the system control the resource usage by controlling the individual cores.

The PlayBook has 2 cores and a GPU. How/what does QNX do to handle, say, 3 or 4 bg apps competing for a single core?

Does QNX have the capability to utilize the GPU cores and any on board DSPs to distribute processes among apps running bg or fg?

If yes, how are these capabilities exposed to the developers -- certainly not through AIR!

It depends on what kind of apps you are making. RIM/QNX recommends that if your apps don't have to use resources, then save your state and get the hell out of the way so that other apps can use the resources. The OS can still kill your app.

With respect to background apps, I may have worded my comments too loosely. Remember QNX is a hard realtime OS, there is never going to be co-equals. Your foreground app will never eat too much resources so that people can still make a phone call. The background app will never eat too much resources so that the GUI will still operate smoothly.

Developers who attended the "meet the playbook" events in the last few days just found out about AIR apps' access to native c++ extensions (and it is not based on Adobe's Alchemy).
post #147 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

It depends on what kind of apps you are making. RIM/QNX recommends that if your apps don't have to use resources, then save your state and get the hell out of the way so that other apps can use the resources. The OS can still kill your app.

That sounds similar to the current implementation in iOS... Don't know about Android.
Quote:
With respect to background apps, I may have worded my comments too loosely. Remember QNX is a hard realtime OS, there is never going to be co-equals. Your foreground app will never eat too much resources so that people can still make a phone call. The background app will never eat too much resources so that the GUI will still operate smoothly.

Unfortunately, the demos shown: HD video player in the bg plus a few others; browser dominating a core; give the impression that QNX handles all this seamlessly -- when, in fact they are contrived demos that don't represent real-world operation.
Quote:
Developers who attended the "meet the playbook" events in the last few days just found out about AIR apps' access to native c++ extensions (and it is not based on Adobe's Alchemy).

Do rhese extensions use anything like OpenCL to maximize usage of the multiple cores, GPU and DSPs?

Is an OpenCL facility available to native QNX apps.

I ask for 2 reasons:

1) RIM appears to have addressed perfornmance concerns by throwing hardware at the problems... At least initially.

2) It appears * likely that Apple's next iPad will have similar, or better, hardware -- with support for OpenCL to allow the system and apps to better exploit the hardware.

* Many recent iOS SDK additions appear to support more robust hardware with support for OpenCL

At the same time, the next iPhone, may not require the same level of hardware -- single-core CPU, 512 MB RAM, lesser GPU.

Then the fact that the co-CEO of RIM says that the Blakberry migration to QNX depends on PlayBook class, dual-core CPU, etc. This is disturbing because current smartphones do a lot more with a lot less hardware -- and the BB app set is basicly a browser, special mail and messaging apps, and a few others. This implies that the QNX implementation has a very high minimum hardware spec.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -
"He who laughs, lasts!" - Mary Pettibone Poole -
Reply
post #148 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Check the settlement --- $23 million, not a lot of money.

try to get any bill out of gate is not easy. More on the fact someone is admit at fault. BeOS did have advantages that competitor willing to risk "wrong doing" to copy it. (settlements are few years back after Be is gone... not much string can pull at the time.. However, just want to point it out: technology superiority may never be recognized with someone like you around to trash it, when nobody around to defend them.... Sad. Move on. Got big fish to catch now.)
post #149 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1st View Post

try to get any bill out of gate is not easy. More on the fact someone is admit at fault. BeOS did have advantages that competitor willing to risk "wrong doing" to copy it. (settlements are few years back after Be is gone... not much string can pull at the time.. However, just want to point it out: technology superiority may never be recognized with someone like you around to trash it, when nobody around to defend them.... Sad. Move on. Got big fish to catch now.)

I wasn't trashing Be at all. But the fact is that most people had a over-nostalgic view of BeOS --- because they were comparing it with Windows 95/98. Of course, BeOS looked super cool when they compare it with an OS with a Windows 3.1 kernel.

When BeOS 5 came out for x86, Microsoft already launched Windows 2000 --- with the NT kernel, NTFS and everything else. Windows XP came out a year after that.

And in the dying days of the internet bubble, Sony spent about 18 months developing the BeIA-based eVilla. 3Com started their internet appliance development much later than Sony, 3Com just hired some QNX consultant (who mostly embed QNX on medical instruments) --- launched the Audrey within 6 months time. The funny thing was that 3Com already discontinued the Audrey by the time Sony launched the evilla. And the Audrey was able to use a slower CPU, fewer ROM memory, and fewer RAM memory than the evilla. That's real technology superiority that QNX was never recognized.

In a parallel universe where Apple bought BeOS and Amiga had the money to make a new OS based on the QNX Neutrino kernel --- Amiga would have kicked Apple's ass.
post #150 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

That sounds similar to the current implementation in iOS... Don't know about Android.

Unfortunately, the demos shown: HD video player in the bg plus a few others; browser dominating a core; give the impression that QNX handles all this seamlessly -- when, in fact they are contrived demos that don't represent real-world operation.

It is a contrived demo --- because RIM/QNX already stated that they are most likely going to give end-users the options in the video player to either reduce the frame-rate for the background video or to pause the video all together. The RIM VP even joked about it in the Rogers TabLife demo --- by saying that this is not how normal people operate (i.e. playing the video in the background).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Do rhese extensions use anything like OpenCL to maximize usage of the multiple cores, GPU and DSPs?

Is an OpenCL facility available to native QNX apps.

QNX is a member of the OpenCL group at khronos, don't know if it's going to be available for the Playbook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Then the fact that the co-CEO of RIM says that the Blakberry migration to QNX depends on PlayBook class, dual-core CPU, etc. This is disturbing because current smartphones do a lot more with a lot less hardware -- and the BB app set is basicly a browser, special mail and messaging apps, and a few others. This implies that the QNX implementation has a very high minimum hardware spec.

With the 1 GHz androids with slow flash performance, Steve Jobs is right on that point. RIM decides to have a "full" internet experience of their next gen stuff, nothing to do with QNX requiring high minimum hardware spec.

RIM also gave a very subtle hint on their OS path when they said that they want a dual-core baseband. This is going to be an integrated application/baseband CPU --- which Marvell and Qualcomm are the only real choice. Cost less money --- just look at the iphone 4 teardown, the baseband processor has its own RAM that is separate from the application processor's RAM. Have better battery life --- anytime the signal has to travel through the circuit board to another physical chip, you are spending electricity.

Android with Qualcomm integrated application/baseband --- uses the OKL4 microkernel as an hypervisor. Then on top of the hypervisor, sits 2 OS --- the Android OS and the Qualcomm one which handles the radio. That's 3 operating systems for Quadroid vs. 1 QNX OS handling the same function for the Blackberry.
post #151 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

In a parallel universe where Apple bought BeOS and Amiga had the money to make a new OS based on the QNX Neutrino kernel --- Amiga would have kicked Apple's ass.

Now, Amiga, I have been told, made nice enough computers, but given that it is not so much about technology prowess but about user experience, I would say that whatever the choice, an Apple with SJ at the helm would probably have won based on Jobs' extreme focus on user experience.
post #152 of 152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alladdinn View Post

Wouldn't RIM's presence and expertise in serving IT/Enterprise be an advantage over iPad/iPad2?

RIM has a strong presence in IT/Enterprise. However, I bet that pressure from employees has forced IT/Enterprise to explore other smartphones besides BlackBerry devices. Compared to three years ago, there is a lot more interest in the iPhone from IT departments.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • RIM posts impressive earnings, co-CEO says PlayBook "way ahead" of iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM posts impressive earnings, co-CEO says PlayBook "way ahead" of iPad