I'm not saying that it's hurting Apples sales, just pointing out that many users prefer a real KB over the virtual one, so no matter how secure Apple make it, many will still choose a RIM product.
As for speed, I had an iPhone for two years, I was pretty used to it, but I would say I am least twice as fast with a BB. Turn off the error correction (which does my head in as I want to use words that Apple haven't gotten in the dictionary) and it's also highly inaccurate. I wouldn't say I'm alone in that statement, except on here of course. I mean in the real world.
Unfortunately Playbook doesn't have physical keyboard.
You missed the point, as it has nothing to do with the desktop OS.
It is about one's conception of going online - is the online experience a Web of interconnected sites accessed via the browser or is the online experience a set of discrete events accessed by different apps.
Apps are designed based on needs, imagine multitasking web apps for switching from tab to other which essentially is what is currently being done in a more intuitive way .
My point I don't see any difference in usage other than the approach to access the app.
Secondly, you always need to be connected to access the web app (I don't know about offline using, but then if it caches up for offline usage how is it different from the app model used by various OS'es).
RIM does understand that the iPad is version one, right? Apple will likely upgrade the iPad come January. So comparing RIM's upcoming product to an Apple product that is at the end of it's life cycle isn't much of a comparison. Apple will undoubtedly increase the processor speed, memory size, and improve the hardware by adding features like a camera. Further, 4.2 will be out before the end of the year.
RIM does understand that the iPad is version one, right? Apple will likely upgrade the iPad come January. So comparing RIM's upcoming product to an Apple product that is at the end of it's life cycle isn't much of a comparison. Apple will undoubtedly increase the processor speed, memory size, and improve the hardware by adding features like a camera. Further, 4.2 will be out before the end of the year.
The problem is that even with ipad2 --- there is still no flash available AND Apple has always been the LAST to update their browser with new webkit core.
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.
The wired article was rightly ridiculed since the data it was based on was completely misinterpreted.
What you've done here is completely misrepresent Apple's position on iOS and web development. Apple constantly stresses that there are 2 development platforms for iOS -- CocoaTouch and HTML5. They've also actively discouraged apps that are nothing more than wrappers for web content. However, a) web apps don't, and never will, perform as well as native apps for some applications, b) native apps provide functionality even when offline (for whatever reason), c) developers can more easily monetize their efforts with native apps, and d) consumers strongly favor native apps over web apps. So, despite the first iPhone being web apps only (other than the built-in apps), and Apple's promotion of HTML5 for web apps, native apps are still what people want on their phones (and tablets, notebooks and desktops, I might add). The web is great for information, but for complex functionality, native apps will always rule.
RIM's "vision" is that they don't have any developer base for writing native apps and aren't going to garner one. So, they are hoping that web apps will fill that void. They won't.
Meanwhile, the web will remain healthy and vibrant, and rumors of it's death are completely fabricated. It just isn't going to become that giant app repository in the cloud that some think it will or should.
Interesting that when Apple introduced the iPhone with a web app model they were roundly jeered for offering a crippled device, but now that they have a robust native app ecosystem that has somehow become a liability-- and worse, a sinister attack on the web itself.
And RIM is cool for offering exactly what for Apple was a lame half-measure. Huh.
That may have also been because until fairly recently Blackberry's didn't come with cameras, which was often a factor when camera's weren't allowed in court rooms.
Things have changed since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulkas
Really, grossly unfair. Lawyers were one of the first groups to really embrace smart phones and they happen to embrace BB more than others. It is telling that Apple is making major inroads into this established BB market. And his comment about some business people hating Apple isn't off the mark. There has been historical resistance to Apple in the corporate world forever, it's a simple fact. Recognizing it doesn't make him clueless.
Have they released the SDK yet. That will decide how much time developers get to create apps if, RIM is is really interested in that (but from comments it doesn't seem to be the case).
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I haven?t read about a specific SDK for the PlayBook, but the UI is Adobe AIR, so wouldn?t that mean they already have a decent sized developer body built-in?
They released an SDK 1-2 weeks ago. You download part of it from RIM and part from Adobe.
I had a brief look and decided not to waste my time.
Don't know if this has been posted here yet. Thought I'd share. Saw it over at Daring Fireball which linked to laughingsquid.com. Pretty spot on, I'd say...
What?!! remember when SJ said developers can create web apps for the original iPhone? I remember and I remember the outcry. Apple didn't force anyone to create apps. Developers are free to either use the web apps or native apps.
I think his point is that whole web should be available from (built-in) browser, instead of having YouTube app, and FaceBook app, and Farmville app, and...
While I don't mind having them separated on my iPhone, there's nothing wrong with idea of tablet being able to copy desktop/laptop approach when it comes to web... and I do miss lack of Flash on my iPhone from time to time.
When RIM has served billions and billions of Apps like Apple, THEN they can disparage Apple's App Strategy.
That is a bit too vague. Maybe you should define exact number of fart apps, light sabre apps, funny sound apps that RIM has to achieve in order to be qualified for disparaging Apple's strategy.
If apps were that important to wide audience, Windows Mobile would never dethrone Palm OS, time ago.
Nor would iOS dethrone any of them (it didn't have more apps allthe time).
Nor would Android be dethroning iOS as we speak (and still not having iOS apps library).
what Quadra means (i think) is that RIM has not shown any 3rd party good apps (not debating that windows mobile or Palm have more good ones then Apple etc.) but the good apps, not the bad ones, help make a phone more successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
RIM's circling the bowl, folks. They've got nothing to compete with Apple or even Android.
Apps are key. RIM has no apps worth discussing. So Jim Ballsilie figures he can pretend apps aren't important and actually get away with it.
what Quadra means (i think) is that RIM has not shown any 3rd party good apps (not debating that windows mobile or Palm have more good ones then Apple etc.) but the good apps, not the bad ones, help make a phone more successful.
Microkernal Madness -- the logical extension...
Notice the small block (bottom, 2nd from right) called "Patient" -- an output only block!
But it is extremely funny to see how the law professor who coined the term net neutrality is basically naming Apple as enemy number 1.
Too bad he's full of it. Apple isn't a monopoly anywhere but the iPod. Certainly not on desktops or phones. Temporarily, with not other competitors, they have dominant position in the iPad but that's with no Google supported Android tablets or Win Phone 7 tablets or RIM tablets on the market.
Comments
Actually, if you watch closely, it isn't very responsive or fluid -- except in special cases.
Again the demo was running a HD video in the background and he was using his thumb to do the swipe --- not the best digit to do the job.
I'm not saying that it's hurting Apples sales, just pointing out that many users prefer a real KB over the virtual one, so no matter how secure Apple make it, many will still choose a RIM product.
As for speed, I had an iPhone for two years, I was pretty used to it, but I would say I am least twice as fast with a BB. Turn off the error correction (which does my head in as I want to use words that Apple haven't gotten in the dictionary) and it's also highly inaccurate. I wouldn't say I'm alone in that statement, except on here of course. I mean in the real world.
Unfortunately Playbook doesn't have physical keyboard.
Unfortunately Playbook doesn't have physical keyboard.
The Foleo'esque feature would mean that you can use the blackberry's physical keyboard.
You missed the point, as it has nothing to do with the desktop OS.
It is about one's conception of going online - is the online experience a Web of interconnected sites accessed via the browser or is the online experience a set of discrete events accessed by different apps.
Apps are designed based on needs, imagine multitasking web apps for switching from tab to other which essentially is what is currently being done in a more intuitive way .
My point I don't see any difference in usage other than the approach to access the app.
Secondly, you always need to be connected to access the web app (I don't know about offline using, but then if it caches up for offline usage how is it different from the app model used by various OS'es).
RIM does understand that the iPad is version one, right? Apple will likely upgrade the iPad come January. So comparing RIM's upcoming product to an Apple product that is at the end of it's life cycle isn't much of a comparison. Apple will undoubtedly increase the processor speed, memory size, and improve the hardware by adding features like a camera. Further, 4.2 will be out before the end of the year.
The problem is that even with ipad2 --- there is still no flash available AND Apple has always been the LAST to update their browser with new webkit core.
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.
The wired article was rightly ridiculed since the data it was based on was completely misinterpreted.
What you've done here is completely misrepresent Apple's position on iOS and web development. Apple constantly stresses that there are 2 development platforms for iOS -- CocoaTouch and HTML5. They've also actively discouraged apps that are nothing more than wrappers for web content. However, a) web apps don't, and never will, perform as well as native apps for some applications, b) native apps provide functionality even when offline (for whatever reason), c) developers can more easily monetize their efforts with native apps, and d) consumers strongly favor native apps over web apps. So, despite the first iPhone being web apps only (other than the built-in apps), and Apple's promotion of HTML5 for web apps, native apps are still what people want on their phones (and tablets, notebooks and desktops, I might add). The web is great for information, but for complex functionality, native apps will always rule.
RIM's "vision" is that they don't have any developer base for writing native apps and aren't going to garner one. So, they are hoping that web apps will fill that void. They won't.
Meanwhile, the web will remain healthy and vibrant, and rumors of it's death are completely fabricated. It just isn't going to become that giant app repository in the cloud that some think it will or should.
And RIM is cool for offering exactly what for Apple was a lame half-measure. Huh.
Things have changed since then.
Really, grossly unfair. Lawyers were one of the first groups to really embrace smart phones and they happen to embrace BB more than others. It is telling that Apple is making major inroads into this established BB market. And his comment about some business people hating Apple isn't off the mark. There has been historical resistance to Apple in the corporate world forever, it's a simple fact. Recognizing it doesn't make him clueless.
Have they released the SDK yet. That will decide how much time developers get to create apps if, RIM is is really interested in that (but from comments it doesn't seem to be the case).
I haven?t read about a specific SDK for the PlayBook, but the UI is Adobe AIR, so wouldn?t that mean they already have a decent sized developer body built-in?
They released an SDK 1-2 weeks ago. You download part of it from RIM and part from Adobe.
I had a brief look and decided not to waste my time.
.
and worse, a sinister attack on the web itself.
But it is extremely funny to see how the law professor who coined the term net neutrality is basically naming Apple as enemy number 1.
But it is extremely funny to see how the law professor who coined the term net neutrality is basically naming Apple as enemy number 1.
Just means he's not always right. Clearly, public enemy #1 is Google, especially now that they've publicly come out against real net neutrality.
Thats nice, but I think Apple is selling more iPhones than Blackberry is selling their own smart phones.
That is not true. Not yet, anyways.
Don't know if this has been posted here yet. Thought I'd share. Saw it over at Daring Fireball which linked to laughingsquid.com. Pretty spot on, I'd say...
Love it!!!
What?!! remember when SJ said developers can create web apps for the original iPhone? I remember and I remember the outcry. Apple didn't force anyone to create apps. Developers are free to either use the web apps or native apps.
I think his point is that whole web should be available from (built-in) browser, instead of having YouTube app, and FaceBook app, and Farmville app, and...
While I don't mind having them separated on my iPhone, there's nothing wrong with idea of tablet being able to copy desktop/laptop approach when it comes to web... and I do miss lack of Flash on my iPhone from time to time.
When RIM has served billions and billions of Apps like Apple, THEN they can disparage Apple's App Strategy.
That is a bit too vague. Maybe you should define exact number of fart apps, light sabre apps, funny sound apps that RIM has to achieve in order to be qualified for disparaging Apple's strategy.
RIM's circling the bowl, folks. They've got nothing to compete with Apple or even Android.
Apps are key. RIM has no apps worth discussing. So Jim Ballsilie figures he can pretend apps aren't important and actually get away with it.
Can't agree with you.
If apps were that important to wide audience, Windows Mobile would never dethrone Palm OS, time ago.
Nor would iOS dethrone any of them (it didn't have more apps allthe time).
Nor would Android be dethroning iOS as we speak (and still not having iOS apps library).
Can't agree with you.
If apps were that important to wide audience, Windows Mobile would never dethrone Palm OS, time ago.
Nor would iOS dethrone any of them (it didn't have more apps allthe time).
Nor would Android be dethroning iOS as we speak (and still not having iOS apps library).
what Quadra means (i think) is that RIM has not shown any 3rd party good apps (not debating that windows mobile or Palm have more good ones then Apple etc.) but the good apps, not the bad ones, help make a phone more successful.
RIM's circling the bowl, folks. They've got nothing to compete with Apple or even Android.
Apps are key. RIM has no apps worth discussing. So Jim Ballsilie figures he can pretend apps aren't important and actually get away with it.
what Quadra means (i think) is that RIM has not shown any 3rd party good apps (not debating that windows mobile or Palm have more good ones then Apple etc.) but the good apps, not the bad ones, help make a phone more successful.
Microkernal Madness -- the logical extension...
Notice the small block (bottom, 2nd from right) called "Patient" -- an output only block!
.
But it is extremely funny to see how the law professor who coined the term net neutrality is basically naming Apple as enemy number 1.
Too bad he's full of it. Apple isn't a monopoly anywhere but the iPod. Certainly not on desktops or phones. Temporarily, with not other competitors, they have dominant position in the iPad but that's with no Google supported Android tablets or Win Phone 7 tablets or RIM tablets on the market.