RIM shows PlayBook tablet, will not undercut iPad in price

245

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 88
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    How long is very subjective. They are trying to do it in months while historic exsamples have been in years.



    I guess we'll see if RIM fumbled this by announcing and showing a tablet too early. If they can't deliver, if they have to start announcing shipping delays, it's just going to add to the sense that RIM is a company mired in the past that can't execute in the new market.



    That's not a given, maybe they waited until they were sure they had something solid before going public, but the weirdly muddled pronouncements of their management doesn't make me very optimistic on that count. I mean, you can sort of imagine the decision being made to buy QNX, the QNX engineers showing up before a largely uncomprehending RIM management going "Oh hell yes, we got this!" and RIM management rushing out to tell everyone about the super cool new tech that they've just been assured can get the job done, without really understanding much about it.
  • Reply 22 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    ...while transitioning itself from its familiar territory as the vendor of mobile terminals tethered to an enterprise server infrastructure into an entirely new and unfamiliar mobile PC market, using an OS kernel it just acquired less than a year ago, a browser code base it bought last fall, and developing an entirely new platform it hasn't ever pulled off before as a basic JavaME licensee...



    You really have to weed through all the insanely biased and somewhat childish commentary, but within most articles on this site AppleInsider really delivers an excellent nugget or two of great observations and analysis.
  • Reply 23 of 88
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    I guess we'll see if RIM fumbled this by announcing and showing a tablet too early. If they can't deliver, if they have to start announcing shipping delays, it's just going to add to the sense that RIM is a company mired in the past that can't execute in the new market.



    But even if they announce any delay --- it would still be in months instead of years (as in historic examples like the Copland or webos).
  • Reply 24 of 88
    nagrommenagromme Posts: 2,834member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by enohpI View Post


    They chose the wrong screen size. The thing will be DOA. We know that already.



    Everything else is frosting on the cake.



    I was skeptical that the iPad screen is “more than twice” as large, but I did the math. By area, it is:



    iPad: 1024x768

    7.76” x 6.82”

    45.2 square inches



    PlayBook: 1024x600

    3.54” x 6.04”

    21.4 square inches



    So when Steve Jobs said a 7” screen is like taking the iPad screen and cutting it in half, he was being generous. It’s not even as big as that.



    The PlayBook also has a narrow format (like a 16:9 movie), which means the landscape keyboard would take up most of the screen, while the portrait keyboard would be extra small. Since these devices are for all kinds of general use, not movies above all else, I think the iPad’s less extreme shape makes good sense.



    P.S. iPhone/iPod for comparison: 960x640

    2.91” x 1.94”

    5.65 square inches (about 1/4 of the PlayBook or 1/8 the iPad)



    (Those inch dimensions come from the known diagonals and pixel sizes and our friend Pythagoras.)
  • Reply 25 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But for the first time in history, we have a real embedded RTOS that is going to run on a smartphone.



    Economies of scale means that Apple can have a higher profit margin. RIM already has the second highest profit margin in the industry.



    I understand the advantages of a RTOS... what I don't understand is what user benefits it will bring to a smart phone or even today's tablets.



    Please amplify.
  • Reply 26 of 88
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I understand the advantages of a RTOS... what I don't understand is what user benefits it will bring to a smart phone or even today's tablets.



    Please amplify.



    Users benefit from having a system that has a smaller footprint from the start.
  • Reply 27 of 88
    sennensennen Posts: 1,465member
    Nice to see iGenius is back.
  • Reply 28 of 88
    PlayBook is nothing more than a repackage of the QNX + Adobe Air embedded platform, originally intended for vertical applications in the automotive, industrial, medical and other industries --i.e. inside limited purpose devices.



    QNX Automotive PDF



    No wonder they can be showing all these demos so early. Definitely a forte of Flash.



    But the big question remains whether the QNX embedded platform is suitable as a general purpose computing device.



    With what we've seen in those demos, I don't think we have an answer. \
  • Reply 29 of 88
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Users benefit from having a system that has a smaller footprint from the start.



    What range are we talking about? Half? A tenth? A hundredth? Is the OS footprint a constraining factor in today's smartphones?
  • Reply 30 of 88
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But even if they announce any delay --- it would still be in months instead of years (as in historic examples like the Copland or webos).



    Well, we don't know that. We've seen demos of very limited functionality from a device that's not interacting at all with a larger ecosystem. From what I've seen, they could have gotten that far just by putting a tablet around one of the existing QNX embedded application environments.



    So there's no real way to tell, at this point, what hurdles still RIM still faces in order to make this, not just a general purpose computing device, but one that has some relevancy to their existing business.
  • Reply 31 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    Users benefit from having a system that has a smaller footprint from the start.



    Isn't that a spec rather than a benefit?



    Also, doesn't the smaller footprint result, to a large degree, from: a) the ARM architecture; b) unneeded hardware removed (drivers, HDD, OD); c) economies of SOC packaging (ala the A4); d) optimization and packaging of the OS for the target devices (ala iOS).



    I am serious here -- A RTOS has advantages/benefits when monitoring/managing a lot of rapid realtime activity in an automobile, router, etc. But, what does that capability bring to an iPhone or a tablet?



    Specifically, what can be done better, faster with a RTOS on the kinds of things a smart phone or a tablet can practically perform?
  • Reply 32 of 88
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Isn't that a spec rather than a benefit?



    Also, doesn't the smaller footprint result, to a large degree, from: a) the ARM architecture; b) unneeded hardware removed (drivers, HDD, OD); c) economies of SOC packaging (ala the A4); d) optimization and packaging of the OS for the target devices (ala iOS).



    I am serious here -- A RTOS has advantages/benefits when monitoring/managing a lot of rapid realtime activity in an automobile, router, etc. But, what does that capability bring to an iPhone or a tablet?



    Specifically, what can be done better, faster with a RTOS on the kinds of things a smart phone or a tablet can practically perform?



    We are talking about resource constraint environment with limited RAM and CPU speed. A couple of megabytes saved here and there may not mean much on the desktop, but on a cell phone that may be a lot.
  • Reply 33 of 88
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,580member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    But what took Palm years to do, RIM is trying to do it in months.



    You mean, commit corporate suicide?
  • Reply 34 of 88
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jz1492 View Post


    But the big question remains whether the QNX embedded platform is suitable as a general purpose computing device.



    QNX has always been the odd dog in the embedded space --- because they can self-host on a x86 PC as a development system.
  • Reply 35 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Well, we don't know that. We've seen demos of very limited functionality from a device that's not interacting at all with a larger ecosystem. From what I've seen, they could have gotten that far just by putting a tablet around one of the existing QNX embedded application environments.



    So there's no real way to tell, at this point, what hurdles still RIM still faces in order to make this, not just a general purpose computing device, but one that has some relevancy to their existing business.





    As I posted in another thread, the hurdles may not be entirely technical:



    RIMs 3Q FY2011 earnings call is on the 16th of this month.



    Their 4Q FY2011 closing is the end of Feb 2011.



    I think that RIM needs to show some pretty good numbers!



    I also believe that RIM needs to get a Technical SVP, who is well-spoken and can think on his feet -- to act as the single executive/spokesman for the PlayBook related activities. (Muzzle the co-CEOs, other than to introduce the SVP).





    Lacking that, the PlayBook will surely fail, IMO.





    If it fails, who will pick up the crown jewels (QNX, TAT, etc.) ?



    .
  • Reply 36 of 88
    samabsamab Posts: 1,953member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


    You mean, commit corporate suicide?



    The demos are showing a promising start so far.
  • Reply 37 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by samab View Post


    We are talking about resource constraint environment with limited RAM and CPU speed. A couple of megabytes saved here and there may not mean much on the desktop, but on a cell phone that may be a lot.



    I agree with saving a couple of megabytes of RAM and SSD!



    But iOS and Android run with 256 MB RAM -- a lot less than the 1 GB RAM (minimum apparently required) on the PlayBook and future QNX-based BB replacement phones.



    Where, exactly, is the smaller footprint of QNX RTOS? How much smaller than iOS? Than Android?
  • Reply 38 of 88
    dreyfus2dreyfus2 Posts: 1,071member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I am serious here -- A RTOS has advantages/benefits when monitoring/managing a lot of rapid realtime activity in an automobile, router, etc. But, what does that capability bring to an iPhone or a tablet?



    Specifically, what can be done better, faster with a RTOS on the kinds of things a smart phone or a tablet can practically perform?



    None and nothing. Because this assumption is based on the unproven premise that iOS contains things it does not need. It is not OS X, it is much lighter (e.g. lacks tons of drivers and interfaces). There is zero difference between a RTOS and an non-realtime OS on a tablet or phone, if the regular OS has been slimmed down to only support the functionality required on a device. There is also no general speed advantage (with e.g. processing messages) when comparing a process on a RTOS with one scheduled to run with the highest priority under a regular OS.



    The only real benefit (a theoretical one and one that does not affect the user at all) is that RTOSs can switch off unneeded parts of themselves dynamically, e.g. you could deploy the very same version of an OS to different devices with different capabilities and the system could optimize itself for each of them. Apple has to do this the hard way by providing different downloads for different devices.
  • Reply 39 of 88
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


    None and nothing. Because this assumption is based on the unproven premise that iOS contains things it does not need. It is not OS X, it is much lighter (e.g. lacks tons of drivers and interfaces). There is zero difference between a RTOS and an non-realtime OS on a tablet or phone, if the regular OS has been slimmed down to only support the functionality required on a device. There is also no general speed advantage (with e.g. processing messages) when comparing a process on a RTOS with one scheduled to run with the highest priority under a regular OS.



    The only real benefit (a theoretical one and one that does not affect the user at all) is that RTOSs can switch off unneeded parts of themselves dynamically, e.g. you could deploy the very same version of an OS to different devices with different capabilities and the system could optimize itself for each of them. Apple has to do this the hard way by providing different downloads for different devices.



    Thank you! I understand! Someone like Apple who makes an universal OS for a wide range of hardware would benefit from a RTOS that could scale itself to its environment (rather than being manually scaled and deployed).



    .
  • Reply 40 of 88
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 1,876member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


    None and nothing. Because this assumption is based on the unproven premise that iOS contains things it does not need. It is not OS X, it is much lighter (e.g. lacks tons of drivers and interfaces).



    iOS is in fact OS X, it is NOT Mac OS X. Operating systems are not defined by drivers or interfaces, but rather architecture. It is a lot smaller in footprint, because all the hardware support can be trimmed down to just several components and remain fixed.
Sign In or Register to comment.