What about the iPod campaign, which Apple ran for years with images such as these:
... with the product barely even visible?
You are missing that one by a mile. It is those ads that made the iPod white earbuds and cord iconic. The ads played off the high contrast making the most important element, the iPod stand out the most. It never needed to be big, actually being small but still the most visible element reinforces the ease of using it. The rest of the ad told the story of how deeply affected the person in the ad was by what was coming out of that iPod.
The iPod was always about the content, not the specs, not the device. That's why the product and marketing were so brilliant and no other player ever got close to making a reasonable competitor. They all thought it was the device, not the story about the content and what you can do with your content and those white earbuds.
This is also one of the reasons Apple broke their usual rules and pre-announced the iPad, so obviously two can play. I'm not counting days, as that's just a game. I'm also not guessing what RIM's pre-annoucment means in terms of a real shipping date, as that's just a fool's errand. I simply do not understand the position that the video is a "fake" and that the product is like Microsoft's nonexistent Courier. I've challenged people who say this to show me how RIM could be so stupid as to release a video a product that will either never arrive or not look at all like the promotional ad, but I notice nobody has taken me up on it.
What other competitors were Apple trying to dissuade? Literally there were and still are none. Apple utterly defined the product space so resoundingly the only reasonable technical competitor at the time, HP, said we are going back to the drawing board, the tablet project is cancelled.
Apple made the announcement specifically to let the developers into the fold without having the 100% realized risk that an iPad developer would get the message out about the hardware before Apple did.
And I have taken you up on your last little challenge without even knowing you had issued it yet. A couple posts up from here I have that response for you, even though I just got to your quoted post as I wade through the thread.
What about the iPod campaign, which Apple ran for years with images such as these:
... with the product barely even visible?
Adding to what Hiro stated, those ads came out well after the iPod was becoming iconic. Those weren’t teaser ads that had you guessing how an iPod actually works. You could go into a store, ask a friend or google it to find gobs and gobs of photos, video, reviews and tests of the product in action.
If you want me to compare it to the PlayBook, at least these iconic iPod ads actually showed the device being in used in a very mobile way. I have expected to see the PlayBook UI being shown on a melting clock.
As for your previous comment about specs. You should know that you can’t look at the base HW specs and tell which device is effectively faster if they are using disparate OSes. RiM saying the PlayBook has dual-core processor doesn’t mean that it will run the same basic app operations or feel faster from the user’s PoV simply because of the faster CPU and more RAM. There are plenty of reviews of the Nexus One with 1GHz CPU v. iPhone 3GS with 600MHz CPU showing the iPhone doing the same essential tasks faster. Where’s the battery time spec? Apple lists the important features for the typical consumer. I don’t think I’ve seen any other smartphone vendor list so many details about different types of battery usage.
BTW, here are the specs that were up immediately after the keynote demo, along with other pages prominently displaying price points, videos, images, and whole lot of info about why one would want to use it and how they could incorporate into their life. They don’t list RAM, but the average person still doesn’t know what RAM is. Even on these technical forums people confused NAND with RAM often.
i really hate products always saying " full multi-touch " what does that mean !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ipad supports 11 muti-touches, i am sure, no need to ask, this blackpad only supports only 2 touches(baby )... !!!!!!
i really hate products always saying " full multi-touch " what does that mean !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ipad supports 11 muti-touches, i am sure, no need to ask, this blackpad only supports only 2 touches(baby )... !!!!!!
After their Storm smartphones they damn well better be putting “full multi-touch” on all their devices.
Seriously though, Apple does list Multi-Touch as their trademark they own. it’s pretty generic, IMO, but this could be a simple way for RiM to make sure there is no legal issue.
So the Playbook is supposed to be able to display full 1080p?
Playbook resolution: 1024 x 600
1080p resolution: 1920 x 1080
Am I missing something?
1) Yes you are missing something. The built-in display is 1024x600, but it can playback 1080p content and output 1080p content via HDMI which can be displayed on 1080p displays. They all scale to meet their needs.
2) Note that the 1080p resolution you listed is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and the PlayBook is 1.71:1 aspect ratio so the resolution you want could never happen anyway. Also, the PlayBook is 170 ppi, which is more than iPad at 132 ppi. The iPad?s ppi is good and the PlayBook is better.
3) The iPhone 4?s HW can actually playback 1080p but this would cause some issues with battery duration and performance so Apple limited the maximum you can playback content recorded at 720p and even take video in 720p, though the display is 960x640.
Looks solid to me. The lack of 3G isn't a big deal - I've only used it once on my iPad.
I'm more curious about the OS, hard drive capacity, the availability of apps, and performance, of course.
Looks impressive. But for many of us, 3G on the iPad is crucial. It means, wherever you are, mobile phone or not, open your iPad, Boom! Da Internetz ready to go. They didn't mention capacity. I can haz local storage?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonder
Reading the specs and the provided info, it appears that content is not stored on the PlayBook itself, but is passed to it from a BlackBerry phone, or am I missing something?
1GB RAM is that for real? So you need this and a BlackBerry to carry your media around with you?
Why is it that these companies always make a huge mistake in their designs?
And look at the size of the bezel!
It is somewhat chunky for 7", I honestly am hoping this really succeeds, iPad is nowhere to be seen officially outside the few launch countries...!!
Yup, what is the local storage? 32GB? 64? 0? Why is this not mentioned? Did I miss it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chronster
LOL
yeah it's kind of hard to get it wrong when they're just filming an emulator running on much higher spec'd machines. Hell, I don't even know if we're seeing the actual OS, or a computer-generated example of what it will be, you know what I mean? HTC did this plenty of times with their videos on youtube. I mean shit, if you look at the touch pro video, you'd think that thing was as snappy as it could get. WRONG!
It looks impressive, this UI. Though the features, you gotta admit, mostly look iPad-like. I'm liking the sexiness of the UI. How does this translate to real-life use? I hope it does well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
What's "fake" about the video? In fact it looks a lot like something Apple might do. A public demo also doesn't tell you much except that they've got working prototypes. I don't have any idea whether this product will be any good, or whether it will ship in three or six months, or never. But I think it's silly to criticize RIM for pre-announcing the product with a gee-wiz video, when that's exactly the kind of thing Apple does, and does so well.
Apple has a good track record of showing you exactly how the device does. The videos are usually done after the demo of the real device, and the Apple videos are fairly close to actual usage.
BTW. HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR SERIOUS BUSINESS IF IT IS CALLED "PLAYBOOK". Seems weird to me. Unless it's the football reference, but PlayBook sounds like Playschool, Playdough, etc. I guess iPad sounded tampon-ish at the start... they seem to have successfully shaken of that association, I suppose.
The difference is Apple, post Jobs return, always uses the device itself in the ad used to sell the concept. They use the widget to tell a 30 sec story of the things it does and how you can feel cool using it.
RIM used Minority Report graphics completely disassociated from their product. The way cool images that have absolutely no chance of meeting expectations in the reality. The best potential differentiator in the ad, the augmented reality shot in the art gallery, could have been spectacular if it had been done with an actual device. But when you see it the second time you can tell the scene was composited. Badly. With the actual background bleeding through the too transparently composited element inside the picture frame.
The random switching between a 4:3 and 3:2 ratio in the Minority Report graphics are sure to be a bone of contention when the delivered screen doesn't look like most of the commercial. There is a section in the middle that looks most reasonable for a 3:2 display, but unless RIM is getting a custom panel, 1024x600 is shipping everywhere else as essentially 16:9. That means the geometries for content they are visually promising won't be there in reality.
They are also setting themselves up for potential buyer dissatisfaction because a 7" display is relatively small, but they always show it as really big. Yes, it's just advertising, not a literal promise, but RIM didn't put any context in there to mentally prepare buyers for e smallish screen. iPhones have tiny screens in comparison, but Apple always used real hands in the ads, so that phone in the ad on a 52" screen didn't cause any mental conflicts when you got to the store. The hand is an invariant that grounded the screen size despite being radically enlarged in the ads.
It's little stuff like this this that is incredibly important in shaping attitudes when people finally get to see the real thing. RIM is literally overselling the device, unintentionally, and setting themselves up for blogdom panning and overall disappointment when it actually ships.
Based on your comments, I went back and reviewed the video -- with lots of pauses and replays.
The screen aspect ratio (simulated) is all over the place -- using things like manilla folders for masks. The impression is that there is a lot more information on the screen than is practical.
"Oh, you look much taller on TV!"
They showed no apps running or being interfaced -- only simulations some of which looked as if they were run on the iPad simulator. The "multitasking" demo showed a WebOs CoverFlow of cards and a single row of app icons. You see more than that on the iPhone screen at 1/4 the area.
Conclusions:
-- they haven't defined the UI
-- there is no OS
-- there is no SDK or Simulator
Apple pulled OS X experts to work on finalizing the first iOs from a running system (demoed).
It took trained experts 3 months to finalize iOS 1.
There is no way in hell that this will be ready for release before 3Q 2011!
1) Yes you are missing something. The built-in display is 1024x600, but it can playback 1080p content and output 1080p content via HDMI which can be displayed on 1080p displays. They all scale to meet their needs.
2) Note that the 1080p resolution you listed is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and the PlayBook is 1.71:1 aspect ratio so the resolution you want could never happen anyway. Also, the PlayBook is 170 ppi, which is more than iPad at 132 ppi. The iPad?s ppi is good and the PlayBook is better.
3) The iPhone 4?s HW can actually playback 1080p but this would cause some issues with battery duration and performance so Apple limited the maximum you can playback content recorded at 720p and even take video in 720p, though the display is 960x640.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
yes, the PlayBook supports output via HDMI
HDMI output is good. Will it support HDCP? Where do I get the 1080p content, though?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
The difference is Apple, post Jobs return, always uses the device itself in the ad used to sell the concept. They use the widget to tell a 30 sec story of the things it does and how you can feel cool using it.
RIM used Minority Report graphics completely disassociated from their product. The way cool images that have absolutely no chance of meeting expectations in the reality
....Yes, it's just advertising, not a literal promise, but RIM didn't put any context in there to mentally prepare buyers for e smallish screen. iPhones have tiny screens in comparison, but Apple always used real hands in the ads, so that phone in the ad on a 52" screen didn't cause any mental conflicts when you got to the store. The hand is an invariant that grounded the screen size despite being radically enlarged in the ads.
It's little stuff like this this that is incredibly important in shaping attitudes when people finally get to see the real thing. RIM is literally overselling the device, unintentionally, and setting themselves up for blogdom panning and overall disappointment when it actually ships.
Well, I can't blame RIM, they had to make a big splash. The ad is well done for the layman to enjoy. I'm sure you're right on the compositing issues, most people will just look at the ad, and be like, cool, wonder when it will come out, I want to check it out...
I am hoping it doesn't disappoint. It's almost winter and no real iPad competitors, no iPad official launches outside the already-launched countries. I know it sounds like my mantra, but, please, somebody come out with more tablets so everyone doesn't have to just depend on Apple, they can only make so many iPads at one time.
More iphone carriers offering the iphone for free than Blackberry carriers offering BOGO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Ahh.... Yes CNBC! The article did shed some light on why Dual Cores... My guess it's one core for each of the co-CEOs.
Good thing they aren't planning a quad-core..... Or.....
What's that all about?
.
QNX can do 16 cores.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
Looks like they are going to need to work on that ecosystem. PlayBook runs QNX with webkit and BB runs ...whatever and BB browser. A completely new platform seams like it would cause problems with compatibility unless they transition their phone OS too. Wow are they screwed.
Apps for the old BB OS'es are all java apps --- that's how the Playbook can get compatibility (via java).
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
There is a certain irony that phone makers were quick to point out Apple was entering their realm and that Apple knew nothing about phones. I am not saying RIM knows nothing about computers but then again they don't have Apple's experience and know how either. The mobile devices running iOS are far more than phones and I wonder if RIM maybe in for a rough ride taking on iOS and Android based on their success with BBs.
That's why they bought QNX --- which has been in the PC business since the early 80's. As a Canadian, I was using this in high school --- it's a 80186 CPU.
Not that either. After 10 years of bashing Qualcomm --- what have you people learned? GSM side has its own patent troll (Nokia paid InterDigital more than 250 million dollars to settle GSM patent lawsuit in 2006). Qualcomm became the largest mobile technology company in the world. ATT ended up using Qualcomm BREW. LBS became the only 3G killer app --- which Qualcomm was years ahead of the GSM world. And the GSM iphone became the most locked-up phone in the world.
Why didn't they actually go on stage and demo it to an assembled group from the tech press? Just curious. My guess is they are a ways off and this is a PR stunt to bolster their position for investors.
Because there is no working, demonstrable-to-public prototype yet. It's PR, Marketing and Stock Boosting 101. I really do want it to gain traction, I hope the actual product is good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
What do you mean by level?
What about the iPod campaign, which Apple ran for years with images such as these:
... with the product barely even visible?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Huh? Whatever they happen to be advertising, they are both advertisements.
Dude, you're stretching here These are ads which, IIRC, ran after the iPod itself was introduced and demoed. It wasn't a product introduction.
BTW did you guys see Micro-HDMI as the output? Aww yeah, this is definitely out of Apple's playbook. Seriously though, if Apple did this they would be crucified by some on this forum.
BTW did you guys see Micro-HDMI as the output? Aww yeah, this is definitely out of Apple's playbook. Seriously though, if Apple did this they would be crucified by some on this forum.
They probably would. Apple still gets vilified for using the same 30-pin connector for 8 years straight and across 3 different product categories accounting for hundreds of millions of devices sold.
Apple will have to update that connector one day to something smaller and leaner. Maybe they will wait for optical, but then you can have to the majority of PCs to have optical or include an optical to copper convertor. Neither seem ideal.
Note that micro-HDMI is part of the v1.4 spec which is a very good thing for HDMI so in this case there really is no reason for anyone to complain? unless they don?t include the cable.
Comments
What do you mean by level?
What about the iPod campaign, which Apple ran for years with images such as these:
... with the product barely even visible?
You are missing that one by a mile. It is those ads that made the iPod white earbuds and cord iconic. The ads played off the high contrast making the most important element, the iPod stand out the most. It never needed to be big, actually being small but still the most visible element reinforces the ease of using it. The rest of the ad told the story of how deeply affected the person in the ad was by what was coming out of that iPod.
The iPod was always about the content, not the specs, not the device. That's why the product and marketing were so brilliant and no other player ever got close to making a reasonable competitor. They all thought it was the device, not the story about the content and what you can do with your content and those white earbuds.
This is also one of the reasons Apple broke their usual rules and pre-announced the iPad, so obviously two can play. I'm not counting days, as that's just a game. I'm also not guessing what RIM's pre-annoucment means in terms of a real shipping date, as that's just a fool's errand. I simply do not understand the position that the video is a "fake" and that the product is like Microsoft's nonexistent Courier. I've challenged people who say this to show me how RIM could be so stupid as to release a video a product that will either never arrive or not look at all like the promotional ad, but I notice nobody has taken me up on it.
What other competitors were Apple trying to dissuade? Literally there were and still are none. Apple utterly defined the product space so resoundingly the only reasonable technical competitor at the time, HP, said we are going back to the drawing board, the tablet project is cancelled.
Apple made the announcement specifically to let the developers into the fold without having the 100% realized risk that an iPad developer would get the message out about the hardware before Apple did.
And I have taken you up on your last little challenge without even knowing you had issued it yet. A couple posts up from here I have that response for you, even though I just got to your quoted post as I wade through the thread.
What do you mean by level?
What about the iPod campaign, which Apple ran for years with images such as these:
... with the product barely even visible?
Adding to what Hiro stated, those ads came out well after the iPod was becoming iconic. Those weren’t teaser ads that had you guessing how an iPod actually works. You could go into a store, ask a friend or google it to find gobs and gobs of photos, video, reviews and tests of the product in action.
If you want me to compare it to the PlayBook, at least these iconic iPod ads actually showed the device being in used in a very mobile way. I have expected to see the PlayBook UI being shown on a melting clock.
As for your previous comment about specs. You should know that you can’t look at the base HW specs and tell which device is effectively faster if they are using disparate OSes. RiM saying the PlayBook has dual-core processor doesn’t mean that it will run the same basic app operations or feel faster from the user’s PoV simply because of the faster CPU and more RAM. There are plenty of reviews of the Nexus One with 1GHz CPU v. iPhone 3GS with 600MHz CPU showing the iPhone doing the same essential tasks faster. Where’s the battery time spec? Apple lists the important features for the typical consumer. I don’t think I’ve seen any other smartphone vendor list so many details about different types of battery usage.
BTW, here are the specs that were up immediately after the keynote demo, along with other pages prominently displaying price points, videos, images, and whole lot of info about why one would want to use it and how they could incorporate into their life. They don’t list RAM, but the average person still doesn’t know what RAM is. Even on these technical forums people confused NAND with RAM often.
* Note: Android did a very impressive job with the v2.2 update.
i really hate products always saying " full multi-touch " what does that mean !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !! ipad supports 11 muti-touches, i am sure, no need to ask, this blackpad only supports only 2 touches(baby )... !!!!!!
After their Storm smartphones they damn well better be putting “full multi-touch” on all their devices.
Seriously though, Apple does list Multi-Touch as their trademark they own. it’s pretty generic, IMO, but this could be a simple way for RiM to make sure there is no legal issue.
For a lifetime.
After you use Apple, everything else sucks.
Playbook resolution: 1024 x 600
1080p resolution: 1920 x 1080
Am I missing something?
So the Playbook is supposed to be able to display full 1080p?
...
Am I missing something?
yes, the PlayBook supports output via HDMI
So the Playbook is supposed to be able to display full 1080p?
Playbook resolution: 1024 x 600
1080p resolution: 1920 x 1080
Am I missing something?
1) Yes you are missing something. The built-in display is 1024x600, but it can playback 1080p content and output 1080p content via HDMI which can be displayed on 1080p displays. They all scale to meet their needs.
2) Note that the 1080p resolution you listed is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and the PlayBook is 1.71:1 aspect ratio so the resolution you want could never happen anyway. Also, the PlayBook is 170 ppi, which is more than iPad at 132 ppi. The iPad?s ppi is good and the PlayBook is better.
3) The iPhone 4?s HW can actually playback 1080p but this would cause some issues with battery duration and performance so Apple limited the maximum you can playback content recorded at 720p and even take video in 720p, though the display is 960x640.
Oh come on. Enough with the double standards. Apple does this kind of thing all the time.
Oh really? Example please!
Looks solid to me. The lack of 3G isn't a big deal - I've only used it once on my iPad.
I'm more curious about the OS, hard drive capacity, the availability of apps, and performance, of course.
Looks impressive. But for many of us, 3G on the iPad is crucial. It means, wherever you are, mobile phone or not, open your iPad, Boom! Da Internetz ready to go. They didn't mention capacity. I can haz local storage?
Reading the specs and the provided info, it appears that content is not stored on the PlayBook itself, but is passed to it from a BlackBerry phone, or am I missing something?
1GB RAM is that for real? So you need this and a BlackBerry to carry your media around with you?
Why is it that these companies always make a huge mistake in their designs?
And look at the size of the bezel!
It is somewhat chunky for 7", I honestly am hoping this really succeeds, iPad is nowhere to be seen officially outside the few launch countries...!!
Yup, what is the local storage? 32GB? 64? 0? Why is this not mentioned? Did I miss it?
LOL
yeah it's kind of hard to get it wrong when they're just filming an emulator running on much higher spec'd machines. Hell, I don't even know if we're seeing the actual OS, or a computer-generated example of what it will be, you know what I mean? HTC did this plenty of times with their videos on youtube. I mean shit, if you look at the touch pro video, you'd think that thing was as snappy as it could get. WRONG!
It looks impressive, this UI. Though the features, you gotta admit, mostly look iPad-like. I'm liking the sexiness of the UI. How does this translate to real-life use? I hope it does well.
What's "fake" about the video? In fact it looks a lot like something Apple might do. A public demo also doesn't tell you much except that they've got working prototypes. I don't have any idea whether this product will be any good, or whether it will ship in three or six months, or never. But I think it's silly to criticize RIM for pre-announcing the product with a gee-wiz video, when that's exactly the kind of thing Apple does, and does so well.
Apple has a good track record of showing you exactly how the device does. The videos are usually done after the demo of the real device, and the Apple videos are fairly close to actual usage.
BTW. HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR SERIOUS BUSINESS IF IT IS CALLED "PLAYBOOK". Seems weird to me. Unless it's the football reference, but PlayBook sounds like Playschool, Playdough, etc. I guess iPad sounded tampon-ish at the start... they seem to have successfully shaken of that association, I suppose.
The difference is Apple, post Jobs return, always uses the device itself in the ad used to sell the concept. They use the widget to tell a 30 sec story of the things it does and how you can feel cool using it.
RIM used Minority Report graphics completely disassociated from their product. The way cool images that have absolutely no chance of meeting expectations in the reality. The best potential differentiator in the ad, the augmented reality shot in the art gallery, could have been spectacular if it had been done with an actual device. But when you see it the second time you can tell the scene was composited. Badly. With the actual background bleeding through the too transparently composited element inside the picture frame.
The random switching between a 4:3 and 3:2 ratio in the Minority Report graphics are sure to be a bone of contention when the delivered screen doesn't look like most of the commercial. There is a section in the middle that looks most reasonable for a 3:2 display, but unless RIM is getting a custom panel, 1024x600 is shipping everywhere else as essentially 16:9. That means the geometries for content they are visually promising won't be there in reality.
They are also setting themselves up for potential buyer dissatisfaction because a 7" display is relatively small, but they always show it as really big. Yes, it's just advertising, not a literal promise, but RIM didn't put any context in there to mentally prepare buyers for e smallish screen. iPhones have tiny screens in comparison, but Apple always used real hands in the ads, so that phone in the ad on a 52" screen didn't cause any mental conflicts when you got to the store. The hand is an invariant that grounded the screen size despite being radically enlarged in the ads.
It's little stuff like this this that is incredibly important in shaping attitudes when people finally get to see the real thing. RIM is literally overselling the device, unintentionally, and setting themselves up for blogdom panning and overall disappointment when it actually ships.
Based on your comments, I went back and reviewed the video -- with lots of pauses and replays.
The screen aspect ratio (simulated) is all over the place -- using things like manilla folders for masks. The impression is that there is a lot more information on the screen than is practical.
"Oh, you look much taller on TV!"
They showed no apps running or being interfaced -- only simulations some of which looked as if they were run on the iPad simulator. The "multitasking" demo showed a WebOs CoverFlow of cards and a single row of app icons. You see more than that on the iPhone screen at 1/4 the area.
Conclusions:
-- they haven't defined the UI
-- there is no OS
-- there is no SDK or Simulator
Apple pulled OS X experts to work on finalizing the first iOs from a running system (demoed).
It took trained experts 3 months to finalize iOS 1.
There is no way in hell that this will be ready for release before 3Q 2011!
.
1) Yes you are missing something. The built-in display is 1024x600, but it can playback 1080p content and output 1080p content via HDMI which can be displayed on 1080p displays. They all scale to meet their needs.
2) Note that the 1080p resolution you listed is 1.78:1 aspect ratio and the PlayBook is 1.71:1 aspect ratio so the resolution you want could never happen anyway. Also, the PlayBook is 170 ppi, which is more than iPad at 132 ppi. The iPad?s ppi is good and the PlayBook is better.
3) The iPhone 4?s HW can actually playback 1080p but this would cause some issues with battery duration and performance so Apple limited the maximum you can playback content recorded at 720p and even take video in 720p, though the display is 960x640.
yes, the PlayBook supports output via HDMI
HDMI output is good. Will it support HDCP? Where do I get the 1080p content, though?
The difference is Apple, post Jobs return, always uses the device itself in the ad used to sell the concept. They use the widget to tell a 30 sec story of the things it does and how you can feel cool using it.
RIM used Minority Report graphics completely disassociated from their product. The way cool images that have absolutely no chance of meeting expectations in the reality
....Yes, it's just advertising, not a literal promise, but RIM didn't put any context in there to mentally prepare buyers for e smallish screen. iPhones have tiny screens in comparison, but Apple always used real hands in the ads, so that phone in the ad on a 52" screen didn't cause any mental conflicts when you got to the store. The hand is an invariant that grounded the screen size despite being radically enlarged in the ads.
It's little stuff like this this that is incredibly important in shaping attitudes when people finally get to see the real thing. RIM is literally overselling the device, unintentionally, and setting themselves up for blogdom panning and overall disappointment when it actually ships.
Well, I can't blame RIM, they had to make a big splash. The ad is well done for the layman to enjoy. I'm sure you're right on the compositing issues, most people will just look at the ad, and be like, cool, wonder when it will come out, I want to check it out...
I am hoping it doesn't disappoint. It's almost winter and no real iPad competitors, no iPad official launches outside the already-launched countries. I know it sounds like my mantra, but, please, somebody come out with more tablets so everyone doesn't have to just depend on Apple, they can only make so many iPads at one time.
Few not Every.
More iphone carriers offering the iphone for free than Blackberry carriers offering BOGO.
Ahh.... Yes CNBC! The article did shed some light on why Dual Cores... My guess it's one core for each of the co-CEOs.
Good thing they aren't planning a quad-core..... Or.....
What's that all about?
.
QNX can do 16 cores.
Looks like they are going to need to work on that ecosystem. PlayBook runs QNX with webkit and BB runs ...whatever and BB browser. A completely new platform seams like it would cause problems with compatibility unless they transition their phone OS too. Wow are they screwed.
Apps for the old BB OS'es are all java apps --- that's how the Playbook can get compatibility (via java).
There is a certain irony that phone makers were quick to point out Apple was entering their realm and that Apple knew nothing about phones. I am not saying RIM knows nothing about computers but then again they don't have Apple's experience and know how either. The mobile devices running iOS are far more than phones and I wonder if RIM maybe in for a rough ride taking on iOS and Android based on their success with BBs.
That's why they bought QNX --- which has been in the PC business since the early 80's. As a Canadian, I was using this in high school --- it's a 80186 CPU.
http://www.old-computers.com/MUSEUM/...asp?st=1&c=971
Right, you're a Qualcomm shill.
Not that either. After 10 years of bashing Qualcomm --- what have you people learned? GSM side has its own patent troll (Nokia paid InterDigital more than 250 million dollars to settle GSM patent lawsuit in 2006). Qualcomm became the largest mobile technology company in the world. ATT ended up using Qualcomm BREW. LBS became the only 3G killer app --- which Qualcomm was years ahead of the GSM world. And the GSM iphone became the most locked-up phone in the world.
No need to shill at all.
Why didn't they actually go on stage and demo it to an assembled group from the tech press? Just curious. My guess is they are a ways off and this is a PR stunt to bolster their position for investors.
Because there is no working, demonstrable-to-public prototype yet. It's PR, Marketing and Stock Boosting 101. I really do want it to gain traction, I hope the actual product is good.
What do you mean by level?
What about the iPod campaign, which Apple ran for years with images such as these:
... with the product barely even visible?
Huh? Whatever they happen to be advertising, they are both advertisements.
Dude, you're stretching here
Conclusions:
-- they haven't defined the UI
-- there is no OS
-- there is no SDK or Simulator
Apple pulled OS X experts to work on finalizing the first iOs from a running system (demoed).
It took trained experts 3 months to finalize iOS 1.
There is no way in hell that this will be ready for release before 3Q 2011!
.
As the CNBC article stated, they are shipping it to partners in the next month for testing.
RIM just bought 200 software engineers on the QNX deal.
BTW did you guys see Micro-HDMI as the output? Aww yeah, this is definitely out of Apple's playbook. Seriously though, if Apple did this they would be crucified by some on this forum.
Apple will have to update that connector one day to something smaller and leaner. Maybe they will wait for optical, but then you can have to the majority of PCs to have optical or include an optical to copper convertor. Neither seem ideal.
Note that micro-HDMI is part of the v1.4 spec which is a very good thing for HDMI so in this case there really is no reason for anyone to complain? unless they don?t include the cable.