I'm not sure what all of you do for a living, but in my office of attorneys, all sole practitioners, 1/2 still have opted for a blackberry. There are 3 of them, 2 iphones, one android, and one flip phone.
So, I really don't think they're circling the bowl just yet. And if any of the speed claims of that video turn out to be true, there will be many people who will line up for a 7" tablet.
Also, in the business world there are a lot of people who just hate Apple.
I can't remember the last time I attended a business meeting where there was not at least one iPad.
Eh, maybe. Not at Stanford Hospital though. My doctor and his intern both had iPads and they were taking notes and issuing orders. The doctor told me they are set up with an intranet and can access client's files, film, lab results etc. My whole case could be seen with the iPad.
He said it was a whole lot easier than having to sit down at a workstation. Pretty nifty, eh?
I would like to add to this if I may. The company I work for is solely Blackberry. I have one. The company gave it to me, and it's free so I have a hard time going out and getting my own iPhone at $100 plus per month even though I would really love one. Our phones and computers are all controlled by an IT person who does not like apple. He's a control freak. He even has it to the point of what we can do with our computers at work. So we, a company of 300+ will never see the iPhone just because of him.
I also think he was unpopular in high school and now he's found a way to force people to talk to him.
He's also in charge of security by the way. Who has what key and because he's bring the doors up to date, who's door card can access what part of the building.
So as long as there are people like this out there, RIM doesn't have to provide a better user experience. They just have to supply a product. The more complicated it is on the implementation side of it, the more they will sell...
I'm not sure what all of you do for a living, but in my office of attorneys, all sole practitioners, 1/2 still have opted for a blackberry. There are 3 of them, 2 iphones, one android, and one flip phone.
So, I really don't think they're circling the bowl just yet. And if any of the speed claims of that video turn out to be true, there will be many people who will line up for a 7" tablet.
Also, in the business world there are a lot of people who just hate Apple.
I totally know what you mean. My office was half BlackBerry last year. Only two years ago we only had two iPhones in the whole organization. This year, we are getting ready to shut down our BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) because everyone whose contract came up for renewal chose an iPhone. Just wait. It will happen. And many of us geeks, myself included, are changing our tune about Apple. Only the most closed minded hate Apple anymore. Even the one guy at my business who is constantly bashing Apple has an iPod he uses more than any other device he owns and he chose and paid for it with his own money. I even heard him mention the other day that his next phone would be an iPhone because he's tired of borrowing his daughter's iPhone when they are out to find a place to eat and all the other things apps do for you so easily.
They aren?t dying either. They aren?t growing as growing as fast as Apple or the smartphone market, but they are still growing and are still a well managed company.
unlike Apple, they don't have huge margins, nor do they have the rate of growth of Android.
not debating that they are well managed, but there recent "breakthrough" products like the "torch" have been a slump (i will make no personal comment, having never used one).
their marketshare is being eroded.
RIM is dying slowly, very slowly, if Apple and Android keep growing, i could see RIM forced into an Apple like state (like early 2000's).
having a company being forced into that state COULD not saying it will, spark another supreme innovation, like Apple and the Ipod.
that being said, i am not an analyst. Yet, my point that they are slowly losing revenue (to my knowledge, please correct me if i am wrong), marketshare and have an OS that is generally considered (no personal use, therefor i will not make a personal statement) to be worse than Android and iOS
They used to have profit margins that exceed Apple?s. The iPhone put a damper on that, but they still make profit margins that exceed the industry.
Yup, we are talking about Nokia with something like a 12% profit margin --- RIM's profit margin is huge (only second to apple and much higher than Motorola/HTC with their androids).
The most important part is that enterprise customers received their playbook for testing yesterday (that's why we are seeing third party hands-on video on youtube).
unlike Apple, they don't have huge margins, nor do they have the rate of growth of Android.
not debating that they are well managed, but there recent "breakthrough" products like the "torch" have been a slump (i will make no personal comment, having never used one).
their marketshare is being eroded.
RIM is dying slowly, very slowly, if Apple and Android keep growing, i could see RIM forced into an Apple like state (like early 2000's).
having a company being forced into that state COULD not saying it will, spark another supreme innovation, like Apple and the Ipod.
that being said, i am not an analyst. Yet, my point that they are slowly losing revenue (to my knowledge, please correct me if i am wrong), marketshare and have an OS that is generally considered (no personal use, therefor i will not make a personal statement) to be worse than Android and iOS
]
As others have said, they have good margins. Last quarter they sold almost 12 million handsets, which is a record for them, and some analysts have said they will outsell Apple next quarter, because Apple always has a great 3rd quarter with the release of the new iPhone model.
OTOH, if you read the "analysts" everyone is dead except Android, with Apple eventually a distant second.
Here is a little video of PlayBook that isn?t an ad from RiM. It seems responsive and fluid in this short demo. This is a good thing. OF course, that is only one small aspect one would need to measure if they are interested in buying. Still, so far so good for RiM and I?m very glad they?ve realized the limitations of their BB OS moving forward.
Here is a little video of PlayBook that isn?t an ad from RiM. It seems responsive and fluid in this short demo. This is a good thing. OF course, that is only one small aspect one would need to measure if they are interested in buying. Still, so far so good for RiM and I?m very glad they?ve realized the limitations of their BB OS moving forward.
...Balsillie claimed that "you don't need an app for the Web." That claim, however, is misleading, since, presumably, the PlayBook will itself require a Web browser application to take advantage of 'the web without limits' as advertised.
It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web." He is rightly criticizing the plethora of apps which provide little more than a bunch of information which is already available on the web via a browser.
We get that you have to criticise RIM in every article, but try and keep the complaints real.
It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web." He is rightly criticizing the plethora of apps which provide little more than a bunch of information which is already available on the web via a browser.
We get that you have to criticise RIM in every article, but try and keep the complaints real.
It is interesting that you mentioned this. Wired had an article awhile back about the death of the web, which was ridiculed here.
However, Apple and RIM have two different visions.
With Apple's app approach, the web is dead (not the internet, but the web). The idea of the web is one of a set of interconnected sites, where you can jump from one site to another. So you go the NYT site, and then jump somewhere else.
However, with apps, this is not really the case. You open an app to go to a site for a specific set of information. Or you open the youtube app. With the app approach, things are more discrete and disconnected. So, with this approach, you need lots of apps to do "discrete" events, and you need lots of developers.
For RIM, the idea is fewer apps, and use the web and the browser to do things. Hence, you do not need as large an app store or as many developers.
Here is a little video of PlayBook that isn?t an ad from RiM. It seems responsive and fluid in this short demo. This is a good thing. OF course, that is only one small aspect one would need to measure if they are interested in buying. Still, so far so good for RiM and I?m very glad they?ve realized the limitations of their BB OS moving forward.
Actually, if you watch closely, it isn't very responsive or fluid -- except in special cases.
-- a single tap (touch and immediately lift) is responsive - the start of the gesture is quickly followed by the end of the gesture. The OS recognizes this and quickly opens/closes the app.
-- a flick or swipe gesture (several examples at about 33 seconds in) is not fluid or responsive - the start of the gesture is followed by a slight delay (the gesture, itself) then the end of gesture. The OS does not recognize the gesture until the gesture has ended. Then the screen changes to reflect the gesture. It is a "wait, then catch up" effect and it is unsettling because you don't immediately know if the gesture is recognized. You can see this at about 1:06 and 1:07 where he repeats the flick gesture
We're looking at the OS and the GUI at the "system level", here -- not some poorly-coded app.
By contrast, take the iPad home screen and flick or drag it to the left or right -- the screen content moves along with, and in synchronization with, the gesture as you expect it to. You can even wiggle your finger back and forth and the screen content wiggles too --- as expected.
The iPad tracks 11 separate, concurrent touch events -- games, musical instruments, collaboration, etc.
I have not seen any information on how many events the PlayBook can track -- based on what I've seen so far, it has difficulty tracking a single event.
Balsillie quickly fired back, asserting that Jobs' comments were irrelevant to people "who live outside of Apple's distortion field." "We think many customers are getting tired of being told what to think by Apple," wrote Balsillie on the official BlackBerry blog.
...Balsillie claimed that "you don't need an app for the Web." That claim, however, is misleading, since, presumably, the PlayBook will itself require a Web browser application to take advantage of 'the web without limits' as advertised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knightlie
It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web." He is rightly criticizing the plethora of apps which provide little more than a bunch of information which is already available on the web via a browser.
We get that you have to criticise RIM in every article, but try and keep the complaints real.
Balsillie claimed that "you don't need an app for the Web."
You say: It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web."
Neither one of you know what you are talking about.
You ever hear of web services? You ever hear of screen scraping/harvesting? You ever hear of AOL? You ever hear of a web search? You ever hear of an RSS reader? NetFlix?...
None of those things require a browser.
You ever hear of an aggregator app?
Isn't it amazing that the device's Maps app can find your location, then locate all the Starbucks nearby, without you or it needing to:
-- leave the app
-- open a browser
-- search for nearby Starbucks
-- meticulously copy the info phone, geoLocation, coordinates, address, etc. of each Starbucks.
-- return to the maps app
-- individually search and flag each location based on the info copied from the web search
-- then select the one you want
-- copy the phone number
-- leave the maps app
-- open the phone app
-- paste the phone number
-- call the number
Ain't no browser involved in none o' that -- just an intelligent app that knows how to access information from the web.
Something that RIM far exceeds Apple in is easily enterprise encryption. I am sure many top companies or government contractors value that. However if Apple can match that level, provided they care to, then RIM is muerto.
BS. iPhones support several enterprise encryption methods since the 3GS. What are you specifically talking about? The Super expensive, proprietary, RIM BES server which routes all your confidential email through RIMs central servers where governments and other eavesdroppers can intercept it?
Comments
I'm not sure what all of you do for a living, but in my office of attorneys, all sole practitioners, 1/2 still have opted for a blackberry. There are 3 of them, 2 iphones, one android, and one flip phone.
So, I really don't think they're circling the bowl just yet. And if any of the speed claims of that video turn out to be true, there will be many people who will line up for a 7" tablet.
Also, in the business world there are a lot of people who just hate Apple.
I can't remember the last time I attended a business meeting where there was not at least one iPad.
Eh, maybe. Not at Stanford Hospital though. My doctor and his intern both had iPads and they were taking notes and issuing orders. The doctor told me they are set up with an intranet and can access client's files, film, lab results etc. My whole case could be seen with the iPad.
He said it was a whole lot easier than having to sit down at a workstation. Pretty nifty, eh?
I would like to add to this if I may. The company I work for is solely Blackberry. I have one. The company gave it to me, and it's free so I have a hard time going out and getting my own iPhone at $100 plus per month even though I would really love one. Our phones and computers are all controlled by an IT person who does not like apple. He's a control freak. He even has it to the point of what we can do with our computers at work. So we, a company of 300+ will never see the iPhone just because of him.
I also think he was unpopular in high school and now he's found a way to force people to talk to him.
He's also in charge of security by the way. Who has what key and because he's bring the doors up to date, who's door card can access what part of the building.
So as long as there are people like this out there, RIM doesn't have to provide a better user experience. They just have to supply a product. The more complicated it is on the implementation side of it, the more they will sell...
Just my very, very humble opinion.
I'm not sure what all of you do for a living, but in my office of attorneys, all sole practitioners, 1/2 still have opted for a blackberry. There are 3 of them, 2 iphones, one android, and one flip phone.
So, I really don't think they're circling the bowl just yet. And if any of the speed claims of that video turn out to be true, there will be many people who will line up for a 7" tablet.
Also, in the business world there are a lot of people who just hate Apple.
I totally know what you mean. My office was half BlackBerry last year. Only two years ago we only had two iPhones in the whole organization. This year, we are getting ready to shut down our BES (BlackBerry Enterprise Server) because everyone whose contract came up for renewal chose an iPhone. Just wait. It will happen. And many of us geeks, myself included, are changing our tune about Apple. Only the most closed minded hate Apple anymore. Even the one guy at my business who is constantly bashing Apple has an iPod he uses more than any other device he owns and he chose and paid for it with his own money. I even heard him mention the other day that his next phone would be an iPhone because he's tired of borrowing his daughter's iPhone when they are out to find a place to eat and all the other things apps do for you so easily.
They aren?t dying either. They aren?t growing as growing as fast as Apple or the smartphone market, but they are still growing and are still a well managed company.
unlike Apple, they don't have huge margins, nor do they have the rate of growth of Android.
not debating that they are well managed, but there recent "breakthrough" products like the "torch" have been a slump (i will make no personal comment, having never used one).
their marketshare is being eroded.
RIM is dying slowly, very slowly, if Apple and Android keep growing, i could see RIM forced into an Apple like state (like early 2000's).
having a company being forced into that state COULD not saying it will, spark another supreme innovation, like Apple and the Ipod.
that being said, i am not an analyst. Yet, my point that they are slowly losing revenue (to my knowledge, please correct me if i am wrong), marketshare and have an OS that is generally considered (no personal use, therefor i will not make a personal statement) to be worse than Android and iOS
unlike Apple, they don't have huge margins, nor do they have the rate of growth of Android.
They used to have profit margins that exceed Apple?s. The iPhone put a damper on that, but they still make profit margins that exceed the industry.
They used to have profit margins that exceed Apple?s. The iPhone put a damper on that, but they still make profit margins that exceed the industry.
Yup, we are talking about Nokia with something like a 12% profit margin --- RIM's profit margin is huge (only second to apple and much higher than Motorola/HTC with their androids).
They used to have profit margins that exceed Apple?s. The iPhone put a damper on that, but they still make profit margins that exceed the industry.
It's a huge market ... Plenty of room for everybody
unlike Apple, they don't have huge margins, nor do they have the rate of growth of Android.
not debating that they are well managed, but there recent "breakthrough" products like the "torch" have been a slump (i will make no personal comment, having never used one).
their marketshare is being eroded.
RIM is dying slowly, very slowly, if Apple and Android keep growing, i could see RIM forced into an Apple like state (like early 2000's).
having a company being forced into that state COULD not saying it will, spark another supreme innovation, like Apple and the Ipod.
that being said, i am not an analyst. Yet, my point that they are slowly losing revenue (to my knowledge, please correct me if i am wrong), marketshare and have an OS that is generally considered (no personal use, therefor i will not make a personal statement) to be worse than Android and iOS
]
As others have said, they have good margins. Last quarter they sold almost 12 million handsets, which is a record for them, and some analysts have said they will outsell Apple next quarter, because Apple always has a great 3rd quarter with the release of the new iPhone model.
OTOH, if you read the "analysts" everyone is dead except Android, with Apple eventually a distant second.
Here is a little video of PlayBook that isn?t an ad from RiM. It seems responsive and fluid in this short demo. This is a good thing. OF course, that is only one small aspect one would need to measure if they are interested in buying. Still, so far so good for RiM and I?m very glad they?ve realized the limitations of their BB OS moving forward.
Wise words. It will be interesting to see how they adapt QNX to their mobile phones. It should be interesting, especially if they do it quickly.
...Balsillie claimed that "you don't need an app for the Web." That claim, however, is misleading, since, presumably, the PlayBook will itself require a Web browser application to take advantage of 'the web without limits' as advertised.
It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web." He is rightly criticizing the plethora of apps which provide little more than a bunch of information which is already available on the web via a browser.
We get that you have to criticise RIM in every article, but try and keep the complaints real.
I can't remember the last time I attended a business meeting where there was not at least one iPad.
Probably one of the ones held before it was released would be a good bet.
It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web." He is rightly criticizing the plethora of apps which provide little more than a bunch of information which is already available on the web via a browser.
We get that you have to criticise RIM in every article, but try and keep the complaints real.
It is interesting that you mentioned this. Wired had an article awhile back about the death of the web, which was ridiculed here.
However, Apple and RIM have two different visions.
With Apple's app approach, the web is dead (not the internet, but the web). The idea of the web is one of a set of interconnected sites, where you can jump from one site to another. So you go the NYT site, and then jump somewhere else.
However, with apps, this is not really the case. You open an app to go to a site for a specific set of information. Or you open the youtube app. With the app approach, things are more discrete and disconnected. So, with this approach, you need lots of apps to do "discrete" events, and you need lots of developers.
For RIM, the idea is fewer apps, and use the web and the browser to do things. Hence, you do not need as large an app store or as many developers.
We shall see what happens.
I can't remember the last time I attended a business meeting where there was not at least one iPad.
Anecdotally, I can't recall being in a business meeting where there was an iPad.
Here is a little video of PlayBook that isn?t an ad from RiM. It seems responsive and fluid in this short demo. This is a good thing. OF course, that is only one small aspect one would need to measure if they are interested in buying. Still, so far so good for RiM and I?m very glad they?ve realized the limitations of their BB OS moving forward.
Actually, if you watch closely, it isn't very responsive or fluid -- except in special cases.
-- a single tap (touch and immediately lift) is responsive - the start of the gesture is quickly followed by the end of the gesture. The OS recognizes this and quickly opens/closes the app.
-- a flick or swipe gesture (several examples at about 33 seconds in) is not fluid or responsive - the start of the gesture is followed by a slight delay (the gesture, itself) then the end of gesture. The OS does not recognize the gesture until the gesture has ended. Then the screen changes to reflect the gesture. It is a "wait, then catch up" effect and it is unsettling because you don't immediately know if the gesture is recognized. You can see this at about 1:06 and 1:07 where he repeats the flick gesture
We're looking at the OS and the GUI at the "system level", here -- not some poorly-coded app.
By contrast, take the iPad home screen and flick or drag it to the left or right -- the screen content moves along with, and in synchronization with, the gesture as you expect it to. You can even wiggle your finger back and forth and the screen content wiggles too --- as expected.
The iPad tracks 11 separate, concurrent touch events -- games, musical instruments, collaboration, etc.
I have not seen any information on how many events the PlayBook can track -- based on what I've seen so far, it has difficulty tracking a single event.
.
I'm glad Blackberry won't tell me how to think
Balsillie quickly fired back, asserting that Jobs' comments were irrelevant to people "who live outside of Apple's distortion field." "We think many customers are getting tired of being told what to think by Apple," wrote Balsillie on the official BlackBerry blog.
...Balsillie claimed that "you don't need an app for the Web." That claim, however, is misleading, since, presumably, the PlayBook will itself require a Web browser application to take advantage of 'the web without limits' as advertised.
It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web." He is rightly criticizing the plethora of apps which provide little more than a bunch of information which is already available on the web via a browser.
We get that you have to criticise RIM in every article, but try and keep the complaints real.
Balsillie claimed that "you don't need an app for the Web."
You say: It's not misleading at all. No device can access the web without a browser, so for the purposes of his discussion the browser is "the web."
Neither one of you know what you are talking about.
You ever hear of web services? You ever hear of screen scraping/harvesting? You ever hear of AOL? You ever hear of a web search? You ever hear of an RSS reader? NetFlix?...
None of those things require a browser.
You ever hear of an aggregator app?
Isn't it amazing that the device's Maps app can find your location, then locate all the Starbucks nearby, without you or it needing to:
-- leave the app
-- open a browser
-- search for nearby Starbucks
-- meticulously copy the info phone, geoLocation, coordinates, address, etc. of each Starbucks.
-- return to the maps app
-- individually search and flag each location based on the info copied from the web search
-- then select the one you want
-- copy the phone number
-- leave the maps app
-- open the phone app
-- paste the phone number
-- call the number
Ain't no browser involved in none o' that -- just an intelligent app that knows how to access information from the web.
Sheesh.
.
Something that RIM far exceeds Apple in is easily enterprise encryption. I am sure many top companies or government contractors value that. However if Apple can match that level, provided they care to, then RIM is muerto.
BS. iPhones support several enterprise encryption methods since the 3GS. What are you specifically talking about? The Super expensive, proprietary, RIM BES server which routes all your confidential email through RIMs central servers where governments and other eavesdroppers can intercept it?