I actually thought playbook was the most promising and exciting tablet at ces. The slide from the bezel multitasking coupled with live previews of the running apps is pretty cool as an idea. The battery life was shown to be about five hours running a bunch of apps. Not stellar, but not far behind galaxy tab (which runs a "phone" os).
The only downfall of playbook I see right now is it's name and the fact that there does not seem to be any good native apps to show off. Adobe air is ok for the short term but they better get some developers on board to build native or they will have a tough time compeating with h-comb based devices.
There has been a lot of talk about the PlayBook's ability to multitask and how it is better than the iPad. I'm sure many of us have seen a video showing the PlayBook playing a 1080p movie, running Quake and doing a couple of other mundane tasks simultaneously.
So what?!? How is this useful at all? I understand that it is showing the power of the processor but when would anyone really have a movie and Quake running in the background while checking email (Bridged to their BB)?
Yes, I would like to see (and probably will see) a better processor in the next iPad, but not so I can do silly things simply to brag about the hardware. For example, I'd like to see an iMovie on iPad and more GHz will help in that situation. I love my iPhone 4 but rendering out a movie at HD is not exactly a quick process.
All this PlayBook multitasking talk seems like not much more than hype. Help me see the light...
I saw the video of the PlayBook's multitasking. Basically, instead of pausing one task in order to switch to another, both tasks are happening simultaneously. I can do this on my Mac. It's quite nice.
However, RIM has to make sure that they can deliver good battery life. I am a mechanical engineer and there is a process to design. Before starting the design, the engineer, or team of engineers, has to come up with a set of design criteria. Then, those criteria have to be ranked based on importance in accomplishing required objectives. Battery life is probably one of these criteria, and so is fast response time.
The efficacy of the multitasking has to be evaluated based in the context of the overall design. Yeah, it's cool. But the fact is, is it worth it to have a cool feature at the expense of battery life? As a consumer, I do not want to sacrifice battery life for it. What am I going to do with that multitasking, watch 2 films at once?
The multitasking in iOS is not as cool as it is on the PlayBook. But we, as consumers, have to examine it in the proper context. Until iOS 4.2, the iPad lacked a convenient way of SWITCHING between tasks. That's what the iPad really needed. The way it works is when the user switches to another task, the previous task is paused. Say the user is playing a game and he/she wants to send a text. The multitasking function pauses the game, allows the user to send the text, and get back to where he/she left off.
When people multitask, that's essentially what they do. As I see it, being good at multitasking has to do with the ability to quickly transition between tasks. If a person multitasks, he/she has to stop the current task and switch to something else.
The efficacy of the multitasking has to be evaluated based in the context of the overall design. Yeah, it's cool. But the fact is, is it worth it to have a cool feature at the expense of battery life? As a consumer, I do not want to sacrifice battery life for it. What am I going to do with that multitasking, watch 2 films at once?
The PlayBook has an option to switch to a form of multitasking where it automatically pauses apps. I'm sure that's the mode RIM will be basing its claims for battery life on, while showing the "cool" version in demos.
The PlayBook has an option to switch to a form of multitasking where it automatically pauses apps. I'm sure that's the mode RIM will be basing its claims for battery life on, while showing the "cool" version in demos.
The multitasking in iOS is not as cool as it is on the PlayBook. But we, as consumers, have to examine it in the proper context. Until iOS 4.2, the iPad lacked a convenient way of SWITCHING between tasks. That's what the iPad really needed. The way it works is when the user switches to another task, the previous task is paused. Say the user is playing a game and he/she wants to send a text. The multitasking function pauses the game, allows the user to send the text, and get back to where he/she left off.
When people multitask, that's essentially what they do. As I see it, being good at multitasking has to do with the ability to quickly transition between tasks. If a person multitasks, he/she has to stop the current task and switch to something else.
Actually, it was App Store apps that didn?t have access to Multitasking on iOS 4.0 for iPhone/Touch and 4.2 for iPad. The native apps had it for the services that required it.
I?d argue that Apple?s implementation is ?cool?. It?s intelligent. It?s not an all-or-nothing process that runs in the background for no reason. It requires developers to use the APIs for backgrounding, but that?s the way a device with very limited performance and battery resources needs to work.
The PlayBook is walking the Palm Pre?s ?green mile? almost perfectly. The running of any-and-all apps in the background is just like WebOS. If used the state-of-the-art HW at the time. It used a brand new, untested OS. I wonder how many apps can be run in the background before it does slow down noticeably and weakens the user experience. I really don?t expect the average user to think ?do I need to run this in the background or do I need to kill this app to preserver battery?? before switching any app. If that is how every app is run on the PlayBook they?ve already lost.
I see the iPad leading the way with competitors finding footing by offering alternative experiences/capabilities to consumers that aren't interested in what the iOS interface offers, in minimal fringe ways as well as one or two "honest" competitors. How they go about doing that is anyone's guess, or rather it's yet to be seen what the market will gravitate towards, but this prediction is... sort of the only viable one. I mean, did anyone think either a) Apple would own 100% of the tablet market forever or b) Another company would break out something so unequivocally superior that iPad sales would immediately drop flat and a new breed of rabid fanboy would flock to the banner of... RIM?
Competition is a good thing. Hopefully a few of the multitudinous new tablets stumbled into the fray will be able to hold their own. Most of them won't, but good job there are more than a handful. Why you guys are so excited about other companies making bad products is beyond me.
The efficacy of the multitasking has to be evaluated based in the context of the overall design. Yeah, it's cool. But the fact is, is it worth it to have a cool feature at the expense of battery life? As a consumer, I do not want to sacrifice battery life for it. What am I going to do with that multitasking, watch 2 films at once?
But that is precisely the point though --- it makes no sense to watch 2 films at once, it makes no sense to continue with Quake in the background (and get your character killed in the process) --- so you ain't going to sacrifice battery life in real life.
The difference is that the atrix demo --- multitasking means pausing their video player. The same thing happened to the xoom android 3.0 demo, google was showing multitasking --- and it showed a game which was paused in the background. And both of them use the same dual core cortex A9 setup as the Playbook.
Another aside... although I was not at CES, the info and 'idea' provided for the Motorola Atrix seems like an excellant idea. Ever since the iphone came out, kind of wondered why something like this was not done.
This has been talked about by various talking heads- 'One processor to serve them all(all needs).'
I'm a big fan of this type of setup. I really think Apple should have capitalised on the iPod Touch, not even the iPhone.
That one modular component could be used for every form factor and be inexpensive to the consumer.
iPod + phone case = mobile phone, carrier-independent
iPod + TV dock = Apple TV
iPod + 10" screen = iPad
iPod + Macbook Air shell = ultra-ultra-portable
iPod + Cinema Display = basic desktop
It won't replace a computer for everyone yet but for people who just browse, email, look at pictures like my Mum, it's absolutely perfect. Right now, the iPod isn't a phone, the iPhone is too expensive, the iPad is too expensive and not a phone and the Macs are too expensive. The solution she has is old phone + old laptop.
I'm sure Apple will have to consider this option at some point. When they have dual-core processors and 1GB RAM, it will allow this to be a good setup and if Apple don't do it, other manufacturers will. Right now, the Atrix seemed a bit sluggish but the concept is very well done and proves that you can have a scalable UI on a mobile platform.
What I find most hysterical are people that called it a giant iPod despite the UI and apps being rewritten specifically for the I/O, yet they call the Galaxy Tab running Android 2.x for smartphones and with ½ the display area a better tablet.
You not only hit the nail on the head, you hammered it to oblivion.
What surprises me is they actually believe their own BS.
Comments
The scariest thing is that he was an executive in corporate development with RIM!
Maybe DaHarder will take some time away from slamming anything Apple on Engadget to come justify that list for us.
Please don't inflict him upon us!
Ironically, these 7" tablets are actually closer to being "just a bug iPod Touch." Well, except for the lack of iOS.
kiwi accent?!
kiwi accent?!
Oops. I think I'll leave it "as is" since its kinda funny and maybe will prove to be sentient.
He noted that devices running Google's "Honeycomb" version of the Android operating system do not yet appear "fully baked."
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
hahaha
I actually thought playbook was the most promising and exciting tablet at ces. The slide from the bezel multitasking coupled with live previews of the running apps is pretty cool as an idea. The battery life was shown to be about five hours running a bunch of apps. Not stellar, but not far behind galaxy tab (which runs a "phone" os).
The only downfall of playbook I see right now is it's name and the fact that there does not seem to be any good native apps to show off. Adobe air is ok for the short term but they better get some developers on board to build native or they will have a tough time compeating with h-comb based devices.
I thought the PlayBook?s speed and UI was pretty slick. How that relates to real world usability and longevity is another question.
That was exactly my impression of the Galaxy Tab. Where did you get to play with the RIM?
Please don't inflict him upon us!
It is a lot of fun to say insulting things about other forum posters. Well done, sir!
There has been a lot of talk about the PlayBook's ability to multitask and how it is better than the iPad. I'm sure many of us have seen a video showing the PlayBook playing a 1080p movie, running Quake and doing a couple of other mundane tasks simultaneously.
So what?!? How is this useful at all? I understand that it is showing the power of the processor but when would anyone really have a movie and Quake running in the background while checking email (Bridged to their BB)?
Yes, I would like to see (and probably will see) a better processor in the next iPad, but not so I can do silly things simply to brag about the hardware. For example, I'd like to see an iMovie on iPad and more GHz will help in that situation. I love my iPhone 4 but rendering out a movie at HD is not exactly a quick process.
All this PlayBook multitasking talk seems like not much more than hype. Help me see the light...
I saw the video of the PlayBook's multitasking. Basically, instead of pausing one task in order to switch to another, both tasks are happening simultaneously. I can do this on my Mac. It's quite nice.
However, RIM has to make sure that they can deliver good battery life. I am a mechanical engineer and there is a process to design. Before starting the design, the engineer, or team of engineers, has to come up with a set of design criteria. Then, those criteria have to be ranked based on importance in accomplishing required objectives. Battery life is probably one of these criteria, and so is fast response time.
The efficacy of the multitasking has to be evaluated based in the context of the overall design. Yeah, it's cool. But the fact is, is it worth it to have a cool feature at the expense of battery life? As a consumer, I do not want to sacrifice battery life for it. What am I going to do with that multitasking, watch 2 films at once?
The multitasking in iOS is not as cool as it is on the PlayBook. But we, as consumers, have to examine it in the proper context. Until iOS 4.2, the iPad lacked a convenient way of SWITCHING between tasks. That's what the iPad really needed. The way it works is when the user switches to another task, the previous task is paused. Say the user is playing a game and he/she wants to send a text. The multitasking function pauses the game, allows the user to send the text, and get back to where he/she left off.
When people multitask, that's essentially what they do. As I see it, being good at multitasking has to do with the ability to quickly transition between tasks. If a person multitasks, he/she has to stop the current task and switch to something else.
The efficacy of the multitasking has to be evaluated based in the context of the overall design. Yeah, it's cool. But the fact is, is it worth it to have a cool feature at the expense of battery life? As a consumer, I do not want to sacrifice battery life for it. What am I going to do with that multitasking, watch 2 films at once?
The PlayBook has an option to switch to a form of multitasking where it automatically pauses apps. I'm sure that's the mode RIM will be basing its claims for battery life on, while showing the "cool" version in demos.
The PlayBook has an option to switch to a form of multitasking where it automatically pauses apps. I'm sure that's the mode RIM will be basing its claims for battery life on, while showing the "cool" version in demos.
That is sarcasm, right?
The multitasking in iOS is not as cool as it is on the PlayBook. But we, as consumers, have to examine it in the proper context. Until iOS 4.2, the iPad lacked a convenient way of SWITCHING between tasks. That's what the iPad really needed. The way it works is when the user switches to another task, the previous task is paused. Say the user is playing a game and he/she wants to send a text. The multitasking function pauses the game, allows the user to send the text, and get back to where he/she left off.
When people multitask, that's essentially what they do. As I see it, being good at multitasking has to do with the ability to quickly transition between tasks. If a person multitasks, he/she has to stop the current task and switch to something else.
Actually, it was App Store apps that didn?t have access to Multitasking on iOS 4.0 for iPhone/Touch and 4.2 for iPad. The native apps had it for the services that required it.
I?d argue that Apple?s implementation is ?cool?. It?s intelligent. It?s not an all-or-nothing process that runs in the background for no reason. It requires developers to use the APIs for backgrounding, but that?s the way a device with very limited performance and battery resources needs to work.
The PlayBook is walking the Palm Pre?s ?green mile? almost perfectly. The running of any-and-all apps in the background is just like WebOS. If used the state-of-the-art HW at the time. It used a brand new, untested OS. I wonder how many apps can be run in the background before it does slow down noticeably and weakens the user experience. I really don?t expect the average user to think ?do I need to run this in the background or do I need to kill this app to preserver battery?? before switching any app. If that is how every app is run on the PlayBook they?ve already lost.
I see the iPad leading the way with competitors finding footing by offering alternative experiences/capabilities to consumers that aren't interested in what the iOS interface offers, in minimal fringe ways as well as one or two "honest" competitors. How they go about doing that is anyone's guess, or rather it's yet to be seen what the market will gravitate towards, but this prediction is... sort of the only viable one. I mean, did anyone think either a) Apple would own 100% of the tablet market forever or b) Another company would break out something so unequivocally superior that iPad sales would immediately drop flat and a new breed of rabid fanboy would flock to the banner of... RIM?
Competition is a good thing. Hopefully a few of the multitudinous new tablets stumbled into the fray will be able to hold their own. Most of them won't, but good job there are more than a handful. Why you guys are so excited about other companies making bad products is beyond me.
The scariest thing is that he was an executive in corporate development with RIM!
Nope, BI updated their article to say that he is just an employee AND he DIDN'T say that the Playbook would flop.
The efficacy of the multitasking has to be evaluated based in the context of the overall design. Yeah, it's cool. But the fact is, is it worth it to have a cool feature at the expense of battery life? As a consumer, I do not want to sacrifice battery life for it. What am I going to do with that multitasking, watch 2 films at once?
But that is precisely the point though --- it makes no sense to watch 2 films at once, it makes no sense to continue with Quake in the background (and get your character killed in the process) --- so you ain't going to sacrifice battery life in real life.
Take a look at this video-
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/09/m...r-look-video/#
The difference is that the atrix demo --- multitasking means pausing their video player. The same thing happened to the xoom android 3.0 demo, google was showing multitasking --- and it showed a game which was paused in the background. And both of them use the same dual core cortex A9 setup as the Playbook.
Another aside... although I was not at CES, the info and 'idea' provided for the Motorola Atrix seems like an excellant idea. Ever since the iphone came out, kind of wondered why something like this was not done.
This has been talked about by various talking heads- 'One processor to serve them all(all needs).'
I'm a big fan of this type of setup. I really think Apple should have capitalised on the iPod Touch, not even the iPhone.
That one modular component could be used for every form factor and be inexpensive to the consumer.
iPod + phone case = mobile phone, carrier-independent
iPod + TV dock = Apple TV
iPod + 10" screen = iPad
iPod + Macbook Air shell = ultra-ultra-portable
iPod + Cinema Display = basic desktop
It won't replace a computer for everyone yet but for people who just browse, email, look at pictures like my Mum, it's absolutely perfect. Right now, the iPod isn't a phone, the iPhone is too expensive, the iPad is too expensive and not a phone and the Macs are too expensive. The solution she has is old phone + old laptop.
I'm sure Apple will have to consider this option at some point. When they have dual-core processors and 1GB RAM, it will allow this to be a good setup and if Apple don't do it, other manufacturers will. Right now, the Atrix seemed a bit sluggish but the concept is very well done and proves that you can have a scalable UI on a mobile platform.
What I find most hysterical are people that called it a giant iPod despite the UI and apps being rewritten specifically for the I/O, yet they call the Galaxy Tab running Android 2.x for smartphones and with ½ the display area a better tablet.
You not only hit the nail on the head, you hammered it to oblivion.
What surprises me is they actually believe their own BS.