Hey, can't blame RIM for marketing their strengths. Obviously it doesn't tell the whole story, plus it is not independent. I am bias toward Apple, but I think most people could agree you couldn't conclude anything from this video other than the RIM product seems better at these SPECIFIC tests under CONTROLLED conditions. And yet you still see the iPad and its much bigger screen looking nice in this video in which RIM wants the playbook to look like the better product... If I were working for RIM to make this video I would of tried to make the size difference less noticeable.
And yes, RIM is touting a product and its abilities that are not on the market yet. In 2 or 3 months (or more) when it is out, it will not seem as amazing as it does today, nor will the price. Add to that Apple will most likely have its 2nd generation iPad with a significant update to design/specs/features just around the corner. Maybe we should start looking for Apple employees with "security clearance" in bars with iPads that look or behave oddly...
Plus, rendering speed doesn't tell the whole story. Small nuances in the experience are totally unaccounted for until you try them for yourself or at least have independent uncompensated reviewers tell you what they honestly think in large numbers. Battery life for example is excellent on the 1st generation iPad, and I can't see it getting worse in the 2nd generation. Touch responsiveness in iOS is EXTREMELY consistent and I always give Apple credit on just how predictable a touch is on their iOS devices. The touch screen and software accuracy is amazing when you compare it to other tablets or mobile phones.
Apple often delays features that other products have such as copy and paste, but at the same time, I think Apple holds back features that they think are not up to Apple standards of quality. Apple in my opinion rarely makes a frustrating main feature in a device. I am reminded of when they introduced visual voicemail with the original iPhone. Before this, voicemail was a HORRENDOUS experience that has heard much foul language directed at it. The same goes for video on early iPhones. Cycorder was able to 'unlock' video recording, but it was never great quality. On the 3GS, Apple introduced video recording and at the time, it was great quality for what it was.
I do agree Apple is very controlling of what is and isn't allowed, and sometimes should offer choice, but sometimes this control keeps their users from making bad or unproductive decisions that keep them more or less happy or satisfied using Apple products. Overall, Apple does a great job.
Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
Even if they could simply make a larger display and have it not cost too much more (which i don?t think is possible), I don?t think the GPU attached to those ARM processors could being to feasibly push data to that many pixels.
Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
These don't seem like significant issues.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
I like QNX's design because of its 'modularity' (best word to describe it?). However, in comparison to iOS, I don't see very many large benefits. iOS's kernel has been highly optimized to run on a mobile device with specific hardware and the same thing would have to be done with QNX in order for it to be efficient, since it requires and creates tight integration with the CPU and its "technique" can cause issues beyond the messaging system (which can cause problems up the programming stack later if not maintained correctly) - At least from what I know about it, which is older knowledge; I'm not a pro.
I'd be interested to see what RIM has done behind the scenes and the performance comparison as well.
If you remember the stories on jailbreaking/unlocking iphone 4 --- it is that Apple swtiched the baseband OS from Nucleus to Threadx. So it is kind of like running Threadx as a hypervisor and iOS runs on top of it.
When RIM migrates their blackberries to QNX, it will be just one OS running the whole show --- that the baseband is just going to be just another QNX program.
RIM also talked about going quad-core --- again another benefit of going with QNX.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
Why is it that iPad competitors are unable to compete with a similarly sized device? The cost of touch screens, to a great extent. Add "retina-esque" dpi to a 9.7" screen, no way can apple sell that for the current price and margin.
Why is it that iPad competitors are unable to compete with a similarly sized device? The cost of touch screens, to a great extent. Add "retina-esque" dpi to a 9.7" screen, no way can apple sell that for the current price and margin.
Probably right...but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to say, that in the not too distant future, Apple will put Retina displays in their iPads and perhaps MBP and MBA's.
Apple seems like it has an "in" with the suppliers!
If you remember the stories on jailbreaking/unlocking iphone 4 --- it is that Apple swtiched the baseband OS from Nucleus to Threadx. So it is kind of like running Threadx as a hypervisor and iOS runs on top of it.
When RIM migrates their blackberries to QNX, it will be just one OS running the whole show --- that the baseband is just going to be just another QNX program.
RIM also talked about going quad-core --- again another benefit of going with QNX.
The fact that it would be another QNX segment doesn't make it necessarily better or worse. QNX would need to be tightly integrated an optimized to balance its "own" baseband to prevent it from interfering with other parts of the top layer (I think you get what I am getting at) in the OS. As you add more into it, it becomes more complicated. I'm not the biggest fan of microkernels due to the fact that they aren't great at managing the OS as a whole. In embedded systems, this is less of a problem but in a more complicated OS, this can get hairy.
In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So? how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7? 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12? away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
The fact that it would be another QNX segment doesn't make it necessarily better or worse. QNX would need to be tightly integrated an optimized to balance its "own" baseband to prevent it from interfering with other parts of the top layer (I think you get what I am getting at) in the OS. As you add more into it, it becomes more complicated. I'm not the biggest fan of microkernels due to the fact that they aren't great at managing the OS as a whole. In embedded systems, this is less of a problem but in a more complicated OS, this can get hairy.
But we are talking about embedded systems. QNX has the the OS and the expertise to optimize it. Apple is trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a phone.
What QNX is doing --- is what they have been doing for the last 30 years. They make sure the UI doesn't interfere with the software that runs the nuclear reactor.
Don't get me wrong... I LOVE my iPad. I use it every night and have to share it with my wife (who also loves it). That said, we'd both love it a lot more if it played Flash. There are reasons for it not to.. I get that it decreases battery life and whatever else, but I'm cool with that. Just do like Macs do and release it without Flash... and then let me download it if I want it. Maybe even pop up a message that says "We at Apple don't recommend installing Flash because it's been known to eat into battery life and doesn't use open web standards". And then put an install button there. They could even put a dedicated Uninstall Flash button in the System Preferences.
Not a lot of sites I go to use Flash. I mostly visit blogs, but it's nice if I can go to a Flash page and have it render out properly. I like iPad despite missing Flash, but I'd send Apple a love letter if they software updated the option.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
Let's not forget that the iPhone 4 us using the same chip as the iPad, which still has MORE pixels. So yes retina was easy to implement. What type of chip would be needed to animate a retina iPad?
You could probably cook eggs on your iPad if you put those chip(s) in there.
In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So? how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7? 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12? away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
From what I'm researching you are right. This will be very tricky. I'd say 15 to 17 inches from eyes is an acceptable guess. Some are claiming 2 feet which I think is a stretch. 326 is asking a lot of 9" plus. I wonder if its feasable if apple claims double the pixels instead of 4x for the next generation?
Let's not forget that the iPhone 4 us using the same chip as the iPad, which still has MORE pixels. So yes retina was easy to implement. What type of chip would be needed to animate a retina iPad?
You could probably cook eggs on your iPad if you put those chip(s) in there.
What about all that CUSTOM silicon that apple brags about
I'm living in fantasy land aren't I?
But I tell you I never load iBooks on the iPad since I got the iPhone 4
so iOS 4.2 is vaporware? it is no more real than the Playbook, nor is it shipping, and its innovation is unknown, as it is not publicly available (only in the friendly hands of Apple engineers and beta testers). So by your definition it is vaporware, or does Apple get a special pass?
People don't understand vapourware. Vapourware is not something that isn't shipping. It's something that has past reasonable amount of time to ship and people doubt that it's a real product at all. iOS4.2 obviously isn't vapourware, and the Playbook obviously isn't vapourware. Unless you don't believe it will be a real product, or you don't believe it will ship this spring.
In the video, notice on the iPad there is a delay and then all of a sudden it renders the page - much faster than the playbook. This looks like a DNS response delay more than rendering speed. So either the test was rigged so that their DNS server served the iPad slower (doubtful), they used different DNS servers and the Playbook used a faster one(possible, but unlikely), or that they cleared the web browser cache on both machines, but the Playbook still had the DNS addresses cached.
Comments
And yes, RIM is touting a product and its abilities that are not on the market yet. In 2 or 3 months (or more) when it is out, it will not seem as amazing as it does today, nor will the price. Add to that Apple will most likely have its 2nd generation iPad with a significant update to design/specs/features just around the corner. Maybe we should start looking for Apple employees with "security clearance" in bars with iPads that look or behave oddly...
Plus, rendering speed doesn't tell the whole story. Small nuances in the experience are totally unaccounted for until you try them for yourself or at least have independent uncompensated reviewers tell you what they honestly think in large numbers. Battery life for example is excellent on the 1st generation iPad, and I can't see it getting worse in the 2nd generation. Touch responsiveness in iOS is EXTREMELY consistent and I always give Apple credit on just how predictable a touch is on their iOS devices. The touch screen and software accuracy is amazing when you compare it to other tablets or mobile phones.
Apple often delays features that other products have such as copy and paste, but at the same time, I think Apple holds back features that they think are not up to Apple standards of quality. Apple in my opinion rarely makes a frustrating main feature in a device. I am reminded of when they introduced visual voicemail with the original iPhone. Before this, voicemail was a HORRENDOUS experience that has heard much foul language directed at it. The same goes for video on early iPhones. Cycorder was able to 'unlock' video recording, but it was never great quality. On the 3GS, Apple introduced video recording and at the time, it was great quality for what it was.
I do agree Apple is very controlling of what is and isn't allowed, and sometimes should offer choice, but sometimes this control keeps their users from making bad or unproductive decisions that keep them more or less happy or satisfied using Apple products. Overall, Apple does a great job.
Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
Even if they could simply make a larger display and have it not cost too much more (which i don?t think is possible), I don?t think the GPU attached to those ARM processors could being to feasibly push data to that many pixels.
Cost, power/battery life for starters. Then there's the issue of apps requiring re-writing - as mentioned elsewhere many times, an iPad screen with the same dpi as an iPhone 4 would be higher resolution than the 27" iMac.
These don't seem like significant issues.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
I like QNX's design because of its 'modularity' (best word to describe it?). However, in comparison to iOS, I don't see very many large benefits. iOS's kernel has been highly optimized to run on a mobile device with specific hardware and the same thing would have to be done with QNX in order for it to be efficient, since it requires and creates tight integration with the CPU and its "technique" can cause issues beyond the messaging system (which can cause problems up the programming stack later if not maintained correctly) - At least from what I know about it, which is older knowledge; I'm not a pro.
I'd be interested to see what RIM has done behind the scenes and the performance comparison as well.
If you remember the stories on jailbreaking/unlocking iphone 4 --- it is that Apple swtiched the baseband OS from Nucleus to Threadx. So it is kind of like running Threadx as a hypervisor and iOS runs on top of it.
When RIM migrates their blackberries to QNX, it will be just one OS running the whole show --- that the baseband is just going to be just another QNX program.
RIM also talked about going quad-core --- again another benefit of going with QNX.
http://erictric.com/2010/11/16/black...e-near-future/
This is a RIM Job!
That's hysterical
These don't seem like significant issues.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
Are having a laugh? The display on the iPad is 8x the size of the iPhone.
These don't seem like significant issues.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
Why is it that iPad competitors are unable to compete with a similarly sized device? The cost of touch screens, to a great extent. Add "retina-esque" dpi to a 9.7" screen, no way can apple sell that for the current price and margin.
Are having a laugh? The display on the iPad is 8x the size of the iPhone.
This article says the system architecture is in place for more res. Maybe not as much as retina , but looks like something is in the works.
http://www.9to5mac.com/17896/is-the-ipad-going-retina
Why is it that iPad competitors are unable to compete with a similarly sized device? The cost of touch screens, to a great extent. Add "retina-esque" dpi to a 9.7" screen, no way can apple sell that for the current price and margin.
Probably right...but I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility to say, that in the not too distant future, Apple will put Retina displays in their iPads and perhaps MBP and MBA's.
Apple seems like it has an "in" with the suppliers!
Best
If you remember the stories on jailbreaking/unlocking iphone 4 --- it is that Apple swtiched the baseband OS from Nucleus to Threadx. So it is kind of like running Threadx as a hypervisor and iOS runs on top of it.
When RIM migrates their blackberries to QNX, it will be just one OS running the whole show --- that the baseband is just going to be just another QNX program.
RIM also talked about going quad-core --- again another benefit of going with QNX.
The fact that it would be another QNX segment doesn't make it necessarily better or worse. QNX would need to be tightly integrated an optimized to balance its "own" baseband to prevent it from interfering with other parts of the top layer (I think you get what I am getting at) in the OS. As you add more into it, it becomes more complicated. I'm not the biggest fan of microkernels due to the fact that they aren't great at managing the OS as a whole. In embedded systems, this is less of a problem but in a more complicated OS, this can get hairy.
This article says the system architecture is in place for more res. Maybe not as much as retina , but looks like something is in the works.
http://www.9to5mac.com/17896/is-the-ipad-going-retina
In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So? how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7? 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12? away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
The fact that it would be another QNX segment doesn't make it necessarily better or worse. QNX would need to be tightly integrated an optimized to balance its "own" baseband to prevent it from interfering with other parts of the top layer (I think you get what I am getting at) in the OS. As you add more into it, it becomes more complicated. I'm not the biggest fan of microkernels due to the fact that they aren't great at managing the OS as a whole. In embedded systems, this is less of a problem but in a more complicated OS, this can get hairy.
But we are talking about embedded systems. QNX has the the OS and the expertise to optimize it. Apple is trying to shoehorn a desktop OS into a phone.
What QNX is doing --- is what they have been doing for the last 30 years. They make sure the UI doesn't interfere with the software that runs the nuclear reactor.
Not a lot of sites I go to use Flash. I mostly visit blogs, but it's nice if I can go to a Flash page and have it render out properly. I like iPad despite missing Flash, but I'd send Apple a love letter if they software updated the option.
These don't seem like significant issues.
Cost: iPhone 4 gets retina without the need of price increase.
Power: iPhone 4 battery with 4x resolution lasts longer than 3G.
App upgrades: upgrades are optional not necessary. I have not upgraded any of my apps on the store for retina yet.
Let's not forget that the iPhone 4 us using the same chip as the iPad, which still has MORE pixels. So yes retina was easy to implement. What type of chip would be needed to animate a retina iPad?
You could probably cook eggs on your iPad if you put those chip(s) in there.
Of course RIM's 'Playbook' is faster it only has 45% of a screen to fill up!
That's the "benefit" of a 7" tablet!
</sarcasm>
QFT .... look at 1.02 timeframe in clip .... approx. bottom 1/3 of the webpage is "missing from playbook. .... FAIL !
In all this talk of retina displays you have still failed to define what a retina display is. I thought I opened that up with my previous comment, but I guess not. So? how do you define a retina display. 326ppi like the iPhone 4? Have you figured out the resolution for a 9.7? 4:3 display with 326ppi? 276 ppi, the minimum for 20/20 vision at 12? away from your eyes? Have you figured out that resolution? Have you figured what GPU from Imagination Tech can feasibly push that many pixels?
From what I'm researching you are right. This will be very tricky. I'd say 15 to 17 inches from eyes is an acceptable guess. Some are claiming 2 feet which I think is a stretch. 326 is asking a lot of 9" plus. I wonder if its feasable if apple claims double the pixels instead of 4x for the next generation?
Let's not forget that the iPhone 4 us using the same chip as the iPad, which still has MORE pixels. So yes retina was easy to implement. What type of chip would be needed to animate a retina iPad?
You could probably cook eggs on your iPad if you put those chip(s) in there.
What about all that CUSTOM silicon that apple brags about
I'm living in fantasy land aren't I?
But I tell you I never load iBooks on the iPad since I got the iPhone 4
so iOS 4.2 is vaporware? it is no more real than the Playbook, nor is it shipping, and its innovation is unknown, as it is not publicly available (only in the friendly hands of Apple engineers and beta testers). So by your definition it is vaporware, or does Apple get a special pass?
People don't understand vapourware. Vapourware is not something that isn't shipping. It's something that has past reasonable amount of time to ship and people doubt that it's a real product at all. iOS4.2 obviously isn't vapourware, and the Playbook obviously isn't vapourware. Unless you don't believe it will be a real product, or you don't believe it will ship this spring.
I think the latter is what we are seeing.