or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM struggling to fix PlayBook tablet battery issues, analyst says
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM struggling to fix PlayBook tablet battery issues, analyst says - Page 2

post #41 of 86
BTW, I think this rumour is a prime example of underinformed analysts having way too much power. Analysts in general don't impress me because they don't seem to understand the technology and the markets. They tend to focus more on numbers and calculations, which don't always tell the whole story.

In this case, we have a single analyst spouting an unverified claim and suddenly its all over every tech publication on the net. RIM will probably be forced to respond to this in order to avoid a run on the bank, so to speak. Look at Shaw Wu's position on RIM... his target price is basically the current market price and his shipment estimates for probably the lowest of all analysts. Clearly, Shaw is pessimistic on RIM and yet somehow he is in a position to exert significant control over market expectations with just a few key strokes and no evidence.

Just my two cents.
post #42 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Its unfair to blame it on QNX as a whole, but I believe the implementation of QNX on the Playbook could definitely contribute to poor battery life. There are many choices that can be made when implementing the OS that will impact battery life and I have no doubt that the "true" multitasking that RIM is attempting is a big one.

I suppose its a bit of chicken/egg. If RIM decides to have "true" multitasking and QNX burns lots of power as a result then who's fault is it? RIM's for deciding to implement "true" multitasking? Or QNX' for using lots of power when multitasking?

Either way I believe there is some validity to Shaw Wu's claim that making QNX perform on a tablet is a much different implementation that QNX has done in the past and presents challenges that maybe they haven't overcome yet.

I disagree with you because it is QNX themselves that is doing the implementation, not some 3rd party QNX consultant.

Plenty of handheld QNX devices out there --- from the ones I linked previously like the compaq ipaq to full-sized rugged tablets used on the factory floors. Compaq have been gone for like a decade. This rugged tablet article is 7 years old.

http://www.ruggedpcreview.com/3_slates_taxonomy.html

Hell, if you go to the QNX website, they are hiring people to embed QNX for handheld point and shoot cameras.

http://www.qnx.com/company/careers/opportunities/

Just because most people never heard of QNX being embedded inside these things, doesn't mean that they aren't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

I don't think thats quite true. I think RIM has been a bit disingenuous when talking about who has the Playbook in their hands. I think they've got dev models that they're showing around, but I don't think there are many large customers with actual models in their own possession. I know of some very significant launch partners who aren't expecting models for development until a month from now.

All you need is one guy that leaks the news. The website mobilityinsider.com was shut down by RIM because they showed a short video of the RIM Playbook.
post #43 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Well.. I wonder why it has problems depleting the battery so fast...

It's a dual-core CPU?
It runs Flash?
It's a small footprint, meaning smaller battery?

Darn... the reasons are just alluding me! </sarcasm>

These are the same mistakes that everyone else continue to make yet never learn. Can't anyone else besides Apple be more pro-active when developing a long-lasting product? Is it really that difficult to write on a piece of paper, "must run fast, light, and long-lasting" and go from there?

Not to mention...
1. They let the background processes run wild with their Adobe AIR based UI.
2. QNX is probably not fully optimized for small battery operated devices.
3. A gigabyte of RAM using up power.

The Blackberry OS 6 developers were probably not involved in the tablet OS development.

Time will tell.
post #44 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

At the Rogers event, it was clearly stated by QNX that they were only running a single core for the browser for the moment (because it was ported by the Torch browser team, not by QNX themselves).

Shaw Wu has no idea what he was talking about --- because he is blaming it on QNX. Plenty of embedded low-powered battery operated stuff are done with QNX.

If the RIM Playbook does indeed have a battery life issue --- then it is (1) adobe flash and (2) fast dual core cpu --- nothing to do with QNX itself.

Considering how quickly everything was slapped together, anything in the praybook could be a culprit.
post #45 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

QNX used to have alternating CEO's between the two founders. One guy is the CEO and the other guy is the president --- and they flipped the positions every year.

Flipped positions!?!?!
post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Its unfair to blame it on QNX as a whole, but I believe the implementation of QNX on the Playbook could definitely contribute to poor battery life. There are many choices that can be made when implementing the OS that will impact battery life and I have no doubt that the "true" multitasking that RIM is attempting is a big one.

I suppose its a bit of chicken/egg. If RIM decides to have "true" multitasking and QNX burns lots of power as a result then who's fault is it? RIM's for deciding to implement "true" multitasking? Or QNX' for using lots of power when multitasking?

Either way I believe there is some validity to Shaw Wu's claim that making QNX perform on a tablet is a much different implementation that QNX has done in the past and presents challenges that maybe they haven't overcome yet.

This certainly validates Apple's current approach to multitasking - which as been criticized for not being "true" multitasking, but works well within the constraints of a mobile device.
post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

BTW, I think this rumour is a prime example of underinformed analysts having way too much power. Analysts in general don't impress me because they don't seem to understand the technology and the markets. They tend to focus more on numbers and calculations, which don't always tell the whole story.

In this case, we have a single analyst spouting an unverified claim and suddenly its all over every tech publication on the net. RIM will probably be forced to respond to this in order to avoid a run on the bank, so to speak. Look at Shaw Wu's position on RIM... his target price is basically the current market price and his shipment estimates for probably the lowest of all analysts. Clearly, Shaw is pessimistic on RIM and yet somehow he is in a position to exert significant control over market expectations with just a few key strokes and no evidence.

Just my two cents.

Rim can prove him wrong by releasing the playbook q1 2011 - if it's delayed, we know why..
post #48 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

This certainly validates Apple's current approach to multitasking - which as been criticized for not being "true" multitasking, but works well within the constraints of a mobile device.

But even RIM talked about how unlikely it is to play a HD video on the background while running 6-7 apps. You can do it with the Playbook, but it doesn't mean you are actually going to do it in real life.
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

Rim can prove him wrong by releasing the playbook q1 2011 - if it's delayed, we know why..

There are a million items that haven't been shown --- like it was never demonstrated in portrait mode, it never showed universal search, it never showed how you pair it with the blackberry, how it still doesn't have a finished browser.

If it's delayed, it's delayed for a million other reasons that we already know for sure.
post #50 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Uninstall Adobe Air. Who needs a GUI anyway? Real users use a shell.

Yes.. but which shell?
"...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 #51 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onhka View Post

First of all, they are not CEOs but co-CEOs.

Much like many 'family' run limited companies, the man listed at the top may consider himself The CEO. However, it is the wife that really has the final say.

By the way, there are many companies that have three co-CEOs.

Some of the well-known companies that use/have used these power-sharing structures [co-CEOs] include Bed Bath & Beyond, Martha Stewart, Charles Schwab, Golden West Financial, and Neiman Marcus Group. as well as, Citigroup, Daimle.rChrysler, and Bank of America

And considering the financial crisis we are experiencing today, perhaps there should be more co-CEOs. Better yet, make it a capital crime subject to capital punishment for one of them if found guilty of scamming its investors.

I agree

http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/ri...on-scam/101480
"...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 #52 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

I agree

http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/ri...on-scam/101480

Apple also settled with the SEC on backdating --- might as well asked Steve Jobs to step down.
post #53 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Apple also settled with the SEC on backdating --- might as well asked Steve Jobs to step down.

But they didn't... because he was not guilty... just accused!

Even you can understand the difference!
"...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 #54 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by mgl323 View Post

Uninstall Adobe Flash?

Exactly. RIM needs to work very hard to get as many native apps as possible on board.
post #55 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

The difference is that apple spent years to pare back and refine the software to ensure the user experience worked on the iPhone/iPad.

Clearly you don't understand embedded OS'es or the markets they serve.
Quote:
Rim's work on their frankentablet amounted to taking qnx, adobe air, cortex a9, and whatever UI they've cobbled together and throw it all against a wall and see what sticks.

You have no basis for this comment and clearly don't understand the markets Q?NX plays in.
Quote:

If they want to make a competitive product, Rim needs to take their time to produce a solid device that competes with the iPad.

Isn't that pretty much what setting the pushing back of the release date is? Why would you slag RIM so and then state that they need to do the very thing you are giving them a hard time about.
Quote:

One iPad killer's down for the count, let's see how long it takes for HP's iPad killer to bite the dust.

Just how do you justify this point of view. Honestly Playbook looks like the only strong competitor coming.
post #56 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Its unfair to blame it on QNX as a whole, but I believe the implementation of QNX on the Playbook could definitely contribute to poor battery life. There are many choices that can be made when implementing the OS that will impact battery life and I have no doubt that the "true" multitasking that RIM is attempting is a big one.

So you believe that iOS devices don't multitask? Sad. The only thing iOS does is place restrictions on the number of user apps running at any one time. This may be required at this point in the state of the art in micro electronics but is a "feature" that will need to go away even on iOS.
Quote:

I suppose its a bit of chicken/egg. If RIM decides to have "true" multitasking and QNX burns lots of power as a result then who's fault is it? RIM's for deciding to implement "true" multitasking? Or QNX' for using lots of power when multitasking?

Maybe it is the users for running to many apps. Besides all RIM needs to do is benchmark the Playbook running single apps just like the iOS devices do. The reality is lots of things can lead to excessive power usage but blaming the OS isn't really that wise. Flash can be a huge factor here.
Quote:
Either way I believe there is some validity to Shaw Wu's claim that making QNX perform on a tablet is a much different implementation that QNX has done in the past and presents challenges that maybe they haven't overcome yet.

I doubt very much that Wu has any solid info at all as to what is going on with Playbook. All new products have challenges, but unless we have details as to what specifically is causing the delay we really don't know. For all we know the GPU could be burning up a good part of the power if indeed the delay has anything at all to do with power, the possibilities are endless.
post #57 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Clearly you don't understand embedded OS'es or the markets they serve.

You have no basis for this comment and clearly don't understand the markets Q?NX plays in.

Isn't that pretty much what setting the pushing back of the release date is? Why would you slag RIM so and then state that they need to do the very thing you are giving them a hard time about.


Just how do you justify this point of view. Honestly Playbook looks like the only strong competitor coming.

Of course I have a basis for my opinion. I know full well what an embedded OS is capable of, however an embedded OS isn't a magic bullet.

RIM has their teams rushing to get the praybook out - in their mad rush to complete everything, they're missing things. Obviously just because an OS can multitask, doesn't mean it should allow unlimited apps to be fired off and drain the battery in record time.

Battery life is of utmost importance - the fact the iPad can run from 10 - 12 hours doing solid tasks - with excellent standby time - is the killer feature.

RIM is stupid:

- They're talking dual core processors, yet they're only taking advantage of one processor.
- They've added in a host of hardware and software features without taking into consideration power consumption issues, such as

* 1 gig of ram
* hdmi and USB
* adobe air

- Adobe Air is the development tool of choice!?! They've proven Jobs point.

I'm giving RIM a hard time because they were stupid to pre announce it by several months, and make all of these stupid proclamations. Now they have egg on their face.

This needs at least another year of development - in order to refine it and make it a worthy iPad competitor.
post #58 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Maybe it is the users for running to many apps. Besides all RIM needs to do is benchmark the Playbook running single apps just like the iOS devices do. The reality is lots of things can lead to excessive power usage but blaming the OS isn't really that wise. Flash can be a huge

Lol - blame the users for running too many apps!

Of course Flash can be a huge power draw - maybe Those co-ceo's should have done some research nstead of patting each other on the back.
post #59 of 86
I used to own a BB Tour. It is now in a landfill. I cannot imagine why anyone would own anything by RIM.
post #60 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

Considering how quickly everything was slapped together, anything in the praybook could be a culprit.

Which is more likely the culprit?

A) An embedded OS used in a multitude of tiny/constrained environments (including power).
B) Flash

Given that Wu is stating this I'm going to assume he's simply clueless again. QNX sure as hell doesn't require a dual core A9 to run properly...

Where does QNX run with Air as a UI? In a car.
post #61 of 86
Quote:
RIM's PlayBook Stock Rally Is Fizzling
Some industry watchers and Wall Street analysts say that Research In Motion's Playbook tablet will arrive too late to make a dent in the market dominated by the iPad and Android devices

...

The bottom line: Despite an initial surge in optimism, many analysts now doubt that RIM's tablet will bolster the company's competitive standing.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...mpaign_id=yhoo

We here at AI discuss mainly specs. features, usability from a technical perspective.

Financial analysts use different perspectives -- timing, competition, ROI, etc.
"...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 #62 of 86
No. no. He meant that the Playbook is simply far ahead in the future. So wee need another 6 months to catch it.
post #63 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So you believe that iOS devices don't multitask? Sad. The only thing iOS does is place restrictions on the number of user apps running at any one time. This may be required at this point in the state of the art in micro electronics but is a "feature" that will need to go away even on iOS.

Playbook's "true" multitasking allows apps to run at full speed in the background, which is neither necessary nor useful. iOS limits the functions that apps can perform in the background as a compromise between the need to multitask and the need to conserve battery life and CPU capacity for foreground apps. This is what I was referring to. And I put "true" in quotes because its RIM's term that I think is kind of silly.
post #64 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

I disagree with you because it is QNX themselves that is doing the implementation, not some 3rd party QNX consultant.

Yes its QNX, but under the influence of their new RIM leaders. Thats where I think implementation decisions could go either way.

Quote:
Plenty of handheld QNX devices out there --- from the ones I linked previously like the compaq ipaq to full-sized rugged tablets used on the factory floors. Compaq have been gone for like a decade. This rugged tablet article is 7 years old.

http://www.ruggedpcreview.com/3_slates_taxonomy.html

Hell, if you go to the QNX website, they are hiring people to embed QNX for handheld point and shoot cameras.

http://www.qnx.com/company/careers/opportunities/

Just because most people never heard of QNX being embedded inside these things, doesn't mean that they aren't.

However, none of those are examples of what the Playbook is trying to be: a high-powered, high-performance consumer device that is sleek, sexy and offers long battery life in a compact form factor. Its this combination that hasn't been done by QNX before and perhaps offers additional challenges.
post #65 of 86
Face it, RIM bought the wrong company. It's more than apparent they probably actually should have bought Palm, and re-used the webOS as Blackberry 7. But HP got Palm, so RIM picked up the next embedded OS that went on the market.

Huge mistake. Adobe Air is not the kind of environment you want to have to turn to for a mobile device. If that's where you've wound up: you screwed up way back at the beginning.

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply

MacBook Pro 15" | Intel Core2 Duo 2.66GHz | 320GB HDD | OS X v10.8
White iPad (3G) with Wi-Fi | 16GB | Engraved | Blue Polyurethane Smart Cover
White iPhone 5 | 64GB | On 3UK

Reply
post #66 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jensonb View Post

Face it, RIM bought the wrong company. It's more than apparent they probably actually should have bought Palm, and re-used the webOS as Blackberry 7. But HP got Palm, so RIM picked up the next embedded OS that went on the market.

Huge mistake. Adobe Air is not the kind of environment you want to have to turn to for a mobile device. If that's where you've wound up: you screwed up way back at the beginning.

You might as well said that Palm bought the wrong company (Be Inc engineers) years ago --- because that went nowhere. Palm should have bought QNX years ago.
post #67 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Playbook's "true" multitasking allows apps to run at full speed in the background, which is neither necessary nor useful. iOS limits the functions that apps can perform in the background as a compromise between the need to multitask and the need to conserve battery life and CPU capacity for foreground apps. This is what I was referring to. And I put "true" in quotes because its RIM's term that I think is kind of silly.

Not the OS' fault if apps don't behave well in the background. Go to the RIM documentations, they tell you the exact same thing as Apple --- when your app goes to the background, save your state so that resources are not wasted.

Even in the Playbook demo videos, a couple of them talked about the possibility of RIM putting a user preference option on their video player --- allowing the end-user to choose whether to pause the video in the background, reduce the framerate of the video in the background or play the video at full framerate in the background.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TNSF View Post

Yes its QNX, but under the influence of their new RIM leaders. Thats where I think implementation decisions could go either way.

However, none of those are examples of what the Playbook is trying to be: a high-powered, high-performance consumer device that is sleek, sexy and offers long battery life in a compact form factor. Its this combination that hasn't been done by QNX before and perhaps offers additional challenges.

How would you know it's not already been done by QNX? For business reasons, companies don't usually advertise what their RTOS is running inside. I am just showing you stuff we know of and a $200-300 Logitech universal remote is pretty highend. QNX's previous owner is Harman Kardon and they used to sell QNX-based off-market handheld navigation devices under the Harman/Becker brand.

I am not really arguing about your comments. I am arguing about Shaw Wu's comments --- which he got stuck with the original press release when RIM bought QNX and all he thought was cars, cars and cars --- which is totally wrong. Since the dawn of time, handheld devices have struggled with battery life --- and QNX has been in these markets for decades.
post #68 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

You might as well said that Palm bought the wrong company (Be Inc engineers) years ago --- because that went nowhere. Palm should have bought QNX years ago.

samab, I think it's great the way you can reason without the constraints of logic.
post #69 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

samab, I think it's great the way you can reason without the constraints of logic.

There are plenty of logic behind it. A decade ago, people had been comparing BeOS vs. QNX. Palm bought BeOS that runs on x86 vs. QNX was already running on ARM processors at that time.
post #70 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

Rim can prove him wrong by releasing the playbook q1 2011 - if it's delayed, we know why..

RIM will have to say something about its plans at CES. then we'll know ....
post #71 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

RIM will have to say something about its plans at CES. then we'll know ....

Even if it's delayed --- it's delayed for a million other reasons (like how the Playbook was never shown in portrait mode). Shaw Wu got stuck with the original RIM press release in April and all he thought of QNX was cars, cars and cars.
post #72 of 86
nothing indicates that Playbook is the big mess that the Android tablets are. I just see this slagging of Playbook for being a little late as jumping the gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

Of course I have a basis for my opinion. I know full well what an embedded OS is capable of, however an embedded OS isn't a magic bullet.

No it isn't but you seem to dismiss the broad background that QNX has.
Quote:
RIM has their teams rushing to get the praybook out - in their mad rush to complete everything, they're missing things. Obviously just because an OS can multitask, doesn't mean it should allow unlimited apps to be fired off and drain the battery in record time.

You are making an assumption that that is the issue. It might be or it might be that Flash sucks on this platform too! Or it could be any number of other things.
Quote:

Battery life is of utmost importance - the fact the iPad can run from 10 - 12 hours doing solid tasks - with excellent standby time - is the killer feature.

Absolutely!
Quote:
RIM is stupid:

- They're talking dual core processors, yet they're only taking advantage of one processor.

Why is getting your product to market stupid. No one complains about how far Safari trails the WebKit releases that come every night. So why call RIM stupid when Apple is not fully accelerating Safari.
Quote:
- They've added in a host of hardware and software features without taking into consideration power consumption issues, such as

* 1 gig of ram
* hdmi and USB
* adobe air

What will you say when iPad 2 comes out with 1 gig of RAM? Frankly I don't understand HDMI either so that we agree on. USB on the other hand is needed on the iPad too. Given a reasonable set of installed drivers USB would enable some very interesting apps for the iPad.

As to AIR well it is a problem but on the other hand it allows them to get to market quickly.
Quote:

- Adobe Air is the development tool of choice!?! They've proven Jobs point.

I'm giving RIM a hard time because they were stupid to pre announce it by several months, and make all of these stupid proclamations. Now they have egg on their face.

Well Apple has the competition in the crosshairs so they need to say something. No one said boo when Apple dismissed flash based MP3 players even though they where working on one. Some times you have to feed the world a bunch of BS while you catch up.
Quote:

This needs at least another year of development - in order to refine it and make it a worthy iPad competitor.

I don't disagree with that. It needs a native SDK fast and I don't mean an SDK based on JAVA. On the other hand they simply can't afford to stay out of the market for a year, it would be deadly to do so. The reality is they need to deliver something that is at least better than the Android based tablets that are coming.

On a side note iPad was in development for many years, literally. How many set backs do you think they had in that development process? Or look at the long drawn out process to get Copy & Paste to iOS. I just think people need to give RIM the same amount of slack that was given to Apple. Mainly because I believe the market needs a strong competitor and I've yet to see anything that is as promising as the Playbook.

Will RIM screw up Playbook? That is very possible but in the end we need them trying their best.
post #73 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

Lol - blame the users for running too many apps!

When your Mac slows down because you are doing to many things at once do you blame Apple? Mac OS/X? Honestly this is a worthless point of view as it sets up a double standard for desktop computers and tablets.
Quote:
Of course Flash can be a huge power draw - maybe Those co-ceo's should have done some research nstead of patting each other on the back.

It is also the quickest way for them to get a product to market. I don't think anybody thinks Flash is perfect here but frankly it is no different than Apple telling developers to make web apps when iPhone first came out. It gets product to market while the SDK is being built.
post #74 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

So you believe that iOS devices don't multitask? Sad. The only thing iOS does is place restrictions on the number of user apps running at any one time. This may be required at this point in the state of the art in micro electronics but is a "feature" that will need to go away even on iOS.

I agree with this -- needed now, but will need to go away in the future.

Based on the nature of how iDevices are used, I would like a way to:

-- allow a few designated apps to suspend and be resumed by push notification.

-- a "Settings" limit on the number of stopped apps (not the above) that can exist - eliminate a long, multipage task drawer - I would like to have, say, 5-10 stopped apps + 2-3 suspend apps
"...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 #75 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

When your Mac slows down because you are doing to many things at once do you blame Apple? Mac OS/X? Honestly this is a worthless point of view as it sets up a double standard for desktop computers and tablets.

Desktop computing and mobile computing are two different things. There are and should be different standards and expectations.
post #76 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

It is also the quickest way for them to get a product to market. I don't think anybody thinks Flash is perfect here but frankly it is no different than Apple telling developers to make web apps when iPhone first came out. It gets product to market while the SDK is being built.

Ah...except that Apple had cocoa to build on for a native UI SDK.

Blackberry has not a whole lot to use on top of QNX other than Air which it doesn't even own. If Nokia didn't own Trolltech/Qt that would have been a good candidate to purchase.

Or Palm as someone else mentioned and gotten both parts already integrated.

This is a lot different than Apple telling folks to use web apps. BB seems rather screwed if they're dependent on Adobe. You can argue that MS is doing something similar basing their UI on Silverlight but they own Silverlight.
post #77 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

nothing indicates that Playbook is the big mess that the Android tablets are. I just see this slagging of Playbook for being a little late as jumping the gun.

Who said that Android tablets are a mess?

Quote:
What will you say when iPad 2 comes out with 1 gig of RAM?

2" more battery?

Quote:
As to AIR well it is a problem but on the other hand it allows them to get to market quickly.

Getting to market quickly means not shipping a year after the competition. It doesn't do your reputation much good to ship a non-competitive product a year late. The Storm sure didn't help them out much.

Put it this way, if they really thought that QNX/Flash was a winner, they'd go all in with a Tegra 2 based BB Torch instead of a Foleo like Playbook companion device.

So really, it's a rather conservative play that uses Playbook early adopters as guinea pigs to see if the concept is workable for their real product at lower risk.

They really screwed the pooch when they blew the Palm deal.

Quote:
I don't disagree with that. It needs a native SDK fast and I don't mean an SDK based on JAVA. On the other hand they simply can't afford to stay out of the market for a year, it would be deadly to do so. The reality is they need to deliver something that is at least better than the Android based tablets that are coming.

They already stayed out of the market for a year and there is no way the Playbook will be better than Android based tablets. Android has a year's worth of tablet lessons learned and refinement.

In a lot of ways BB would be better off to look at shipping an expensive app on iOS, Android and WP7. Otherwise I see Good eventually getting to the point where BB's key advantages are completely lost. They've been fighting for a decade now and given how weak RIM is and the clamor for secure Android and iOS enterprise services there are a lot of IT departments that are trialing Good again.
post #78 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

nothing indicates that Playbook is the big mess that the Android tablets are. I just see this slagging of Playbook for being a little late as jumping the gun.

No it isn't but you seem to dismiss the broad background that QNX has.

You are making an assumption that that is the issue. It might be or it might be that Flash sucks on this platform too! Or it could be any number of other things.

Absolutely!

Why is getting your product to market stupid. No one complains about how far Safari trails the WebKit releases that come every night. So why call RIM stupid when Apple is not fully accelerating Safari.

What will you say when iPad 2 comes out with 1 gig of RAM? Frankly I don't understand HDMI either so that we agree on. USB on the other hand is needed on the iPad too. Given a reasonable set of installed drivers USB would enable some very interesting apps for the iPad.

As to AIR well it is a problem but on the other hand it allows them to get to market quickly.

Well Apple has the competition in the crosshairs so they need to say something. No one said boo when Apple dismissed flash based MP3 players even though they where working on one. Some times you have to feed the world a bunch of BS while you catch up.


I don't disagree with that. It needs a native SDK fast and I don't mean an SDK based on JAVA. On the other hand they simply can't afford to stay out of the market for a year, it would be deadly to do so. The reality is they need to deliver something that is at least better than the Android based tablets that are coming.

On a side note iPad was in development for many years, literally. How many set backs do you think they had in that development process? Or look at the long drawn out process to get Copy & Paste to iOS. I just think people need to give RIM the same amount of slack that was given to Apple. Mainly because I believe the market needs a strong competitor and I've yet to see anything that is as promising as the Playbook.

Will RIM screw up Playbook? That is very possible but in the end we need them trying their best.

I dismiss qnx's broad background because it's negated by the ball and chain known of as adobe flash.

Rim made a huge mistake relying on 3rd party software - adobe air - for their tablets API as it leaves them beholden to adobe for updates.

True there is "time to market" but RIM should have learned from apple not to rely on a third party software stack.

Apple had everyone write web apps initially, but updates to webkit were under apples control.

If apple had everyone use flash and we had iPhones with 2 hrs. Of battery life, no one would have bought one.

Getting a usable product to market isn't stuoid - a praybook with a few hrs of battery life isn't a usable product.

If an iPad 2 comes with a gig of ram and USB and get less battery life, I'd bitch about that too.

I'd rather see an iPad 2 with a SD slot - USB isn't necessary.
post #79 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Ah...except that Apple had cocoa to build on for a native UI SDK.

Blackberry has not a whole lot to use on top of QNX other than Air which it doesn't even own. If Nokia didn't own Trolltech/Qt that would have been a good candidate to purchase.

Or Palm as someone else mentioned and gotten both parts already integrated.

This is a lot different than Apple telling folks to use web apps. BB seems rather screwed if they're dependent on Adobe. You can argue that MS is doing something similar basing their UI on Silverlight but they own Silverlight.

That's why RIM bought TAT.
post #80 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by jca666us View Post

I dismiss qnx's broad background because it's negated by the ball and chain known of as adobe flash.

Rim made a huge mistake relying on 3rd party software - adobe air - for their tablets API as it leaves them beholden to adobe for updates.

True there is "time to market" but RIM should have learned from apple not to rely on a third party software stack.

Apple had everyone write web apps initially, but updates to webkit were under apples control.

If apple had everyone use flash and we had iPhones with 2 hrs. Of battery life, no one would have bought one.

Getting a usable product to market isn't stuoid - a praybook with a few hrs of battery life isn't a usable product.

If an iPad 2 comes with a gig of ram and USB and get less battery life, I'd bitch about that too.

I'd rather see an iPad 2 with a SD slot - USB isn't necessary.

So far, we have ONE wall street analyst --- who totally misunderstood the whole QNX being required a car battery --- saying that battery life is a problem AND will require major rewriting of the OS. Just because QNX likes to point out that the biggest router in the world uses QNX and that over 200 cars have QNX on their telematics systems --- doesn't mean that QNX isn't in the small battery embedded devices.

So far, Wall Street analysts have been shown to be clueless on the QNX purchase. First they bought that this was about integrating Blackberries with auto dashboards. Then they thought that this was going to take years because the Playbook wasn't demo'ed initially.

The problem may not be much of a problem and it may be eliminated by just having a final build of the browser with both cores turn on. RIM bought the Torch browser team and they are not part of the QNX people --- that's why the browser never was dual-core from the start.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • RIM struggling to fix PlayBook tablet battery issues, analyst says
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › RIM struggling to fix PlayBook tablet battery issues, analyst says