RIM's PlayBook may undercut Apple iPad at $399 - report

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post


    Hm, any details on this "free tethering with Blackberries" mentioned in the article? It would surprise me quite a bit, if this turns out to be true. With some carriers / in some countries BBs were getting cheaper plans than real smart phones, because they are mainly used for email. Tethering a Playbook to the phone will cause data transfer to go through the roof. I do not see carriers doing that for free at all. Just look at the horrendous rates Verizon tagged to the MS KIN-non-m 1 and 2... and this was not even a tablet, just a feature phone with some video uploading and a social platform refresh every 15 minutes. Playbook users might even end up paying a lot more than iPad users, if they need an add-on contract, and they might not even get the opportunity to opt out of additional data charges on a monthly basis.



    It will be interesting to see the effect on battery life of this approach. I expect both, Blackberry and Playbook, will be depleted by the time an iPad approaches 80%...



    They won't have to worry about bandwidth until their web presence becomes significant. For that to happen, blackberry users really need to use a lot more web and the playbook has to sell significantly well. The absence of that happening is being counted on by the cell providers, and a little bit by rim as well
  • Reply 62 of 166
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by xSamplex View Post


    Anything that forces Apple to drop their premium pricing. Excellent!



    What premium pricing? Pretty much everyone in the business has said that the iPad pricing is too low for other companies to match given equal specs. We see that with the Samsung. We don't even know what the specs of this are for the screen, other than it will be a lot smaller and cheaper. The CPU will not cost more than a couple of bucks more, and don't forget that this, the Samsung and others will have to contend with Apple's next model, as this one is nearing the end of it's life, with just four months to go at most, while the RIM, and most others aren't even out yet, except for the HP, which is $800 without 3G.



    And if Apple does have the current 16GB model for $399 when the new ones come out, it will make it difficult for better spec'd models to get a foothold.
  • Reply 63 of 166
    .



    First impression: RIM is going to offer a special promotion -- BNGO (pronounced BINGO), stands for Buy None Get One
  • Reply 64 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Povilas View Post


    7 inch display with 16 GB will be 499? Good luck selling.



    Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.
  • Reply 65 of 166
    shobizshobiz Posts: 207member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kube View Post


    I've had the 32 gigabyte ipad since April. Its now more than half full (with no movies). About 1/3rd music, half apps (and documents) and assorted other stuff like photos.



    On initial purchase I hadn't a clue about how much space it needed. Now 32 gigs seems about right. At 16 gigs I'd making difficult choices. It may turn out that I should have gone for 64 gigs.



    But, judging from the iPad use of memory, 8 gigs would be very difficult to use. I'd lose about half of the functionality that I now have. Assuming similar memory use with the RIM device, the entry model seems dysfunctional.





    How quickly they forget how much memory the first iPhone had and there was no App store in sight. Even the mighty Apple increased specs rather quickly as more people financed the development with the purchase of the older devices.
  • Reply 66 of 166
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by easy288 View Post


    Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.



    SAP. Can they afford to? They just lost their case with Oracle, and owe them $1.3 billion.
  • Reply 67 of 166
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SHOBIZ View Post


    How quickly they forget how much memory the first iPhone had and there was no App store in sight. Even the mighty Apple increased specs rather quickly as more people financed the development with the purchase of the older devices.



    Times have changed.
  • Reply 68 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by addabox View Post


    Fine, but that's an entirely different conversation. I'll just say that I totally disagree that web site rendering is somehow the main differentiator of experience on devices of differing size. Since, one, the rendering differences are likely to be slight, and two, the iPad does a great many things beyond rendering web pages.



    Yes, but the point is the PlayBook does little beyond rendering web pages -- RIM has said that apps are overrated.



    @samab's trying to make a weakness/disadvantage into a strength/advantage. Sometimes less is more -- but comparing content/capability on a 7" screen to content/capability on a 10", less is less (anyway you look at it).



    .
  • Reply 69 of 166
    nhtnht Posts: 4,522member
    I think it depends on how well/easily enterprise apps can be built on the platform. Almost every (large) IT shop deploys BB servers so most companies have a fairly large install base of BB phones deployed.



    We didn't do BB simply because we were waiting for the Playbook. I guess I need to start playing with the SDK soon but I probably will do a legacy BB phone app first (gak...java ME). Almost all of our data and business logic is available via REST/JSON so it's mostly UI code anyway and we already have flash version that just needs to get converted to AIR for the playbook.



    Meh...not my cup of tea, I prefer iDevices over BB but enterprise deploys what enterprise deploys.
  • Reply 70 of 166
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    And if Apple does have the current 16GB model for $399 when the new ones come out, it will make it difficult for better spec'd models to get a foothold.



    Based on the interest and mindshare the iPad had all year, its dominance in the tablet market, the way it?s redefined the tablet market, the excessive sales as a 1st generation product, and the fact that most are trying to compete with Apple?s pricing with half the display area and a fraction of internal storage I can?t make a good argument for Apple lowering the pricing of the next iPad.



    CES 2011 will show us what is on the horizon now that everyone has had a year to go back to the drawing board, but from the limited info I have I?d $499 as the entry price is most likely for the 2nd generation device.
  • Reply 71 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by easy288 View Post


    Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.



    Jury is still out on Galaxy tab. Sold decent in the first month worldwide, but not exactly to iPad standards.
  • Reply 72 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nht View Post


    I think it depends on how well/easily enterprise apps can be built on the platform. Almost every (large) IT shop deploys BB servers so most companies have a fairly large install base of BB phones deployed.



    We didn't do BB simply because we were waiting for the Playbook. I guess I need to start playing with the SDK soon but I probably will do a legacy BB phone app first (gak...java ME). Almost all of our data and business logic is available via REST/JSON so it's mostly UI code anyway and we already have flash version that just needs to get converted to AIR for the playbook.



    Meh...not my cup of tea, I prefer iDevices over BB but enterprise deploys what enterprise deploys.



    Last I remember, BB's marketshare was 37% and dropping among US enterprises. That is a lot by any measure, but I wouldn't quite use the terms "almost every" and "most companies".



    Enterprises today have many more choices that can do without the expensive BB server infrastructure and from what I have seen in a survey of 1200 IT professionals last week, 73% of them said that they will deploy iPads to their employees within the next 12 months.



    I would not count on BB's stronghold in the enterprise Email market to relate to tablets.
  • Reply 73 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by easy288 View Post


    Plenty of people said the Samsung Tab was fail. But it apparently is selling just fine. I predict plenty of IT customers will want the Playbook if there is compelling corporate centric software. SAP is already working on some.



    Well, I'm now working with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab - because I had to. Can't neglect Android Tabs as a software developer, and the Galaxy Tab seems to be a reasonable representative for (upcoming) Android Tabs.



    Well, better than expected, but doesn't stand a real comparison to the iPad. UI is sluggish, screen somehow too small - even so the resolution difference doesn't suggest it (iPad: 1024 × 768, Galaxy Tab: 1024 × 600), display looks cheap. Current Android version really seems to be optimized for phones and wastes bigger screen sizes.



    And I really have to state that without the iPad as some sort of "reference tablet" my ratings would range from "good" to "great". But for example rating the browser scrolling experience on the iPad as smooth to acceptable gives the Galaxy Tab a rating from sluggish to unacceptable.



    Apple set the reference bar. Not everybody may need or require that level. But hell, I paid more bugs for the Galaxy Tab than for the iPad with a smaller display (cheaper to manufacture) and the Galaxy Tab battery live time is less than half of that of the iPad.



    Good to have some competition, but the iPad deserves a better competitor.
  • Reply 74 of 166
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by clochard42 View Post


    Well, I'm now working with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab - because I had to. Can't neglect Android Tabs as a software developer, and the Galaxy Tab seems to be a reasonable representative for (upcoming) Android Tabs.



    [?]



    Good to have some competition, but the iPad deserves a better competitor.



    I don?t expect to see a real competitor to iOS for iPad until Android 3.0. Apple went to a lot of trouble to redesign iOS for a 9.7? device and Android 3.0, which is expected to tackle the tablet I/O, will need to focus on this instead of the current offerings using Android v2.x that are simply a poor UI to get to market ASAP. RiM seems to have done a pretty good job on the UI, but I have yet to see how well it actually performs in the real world.
  • Reply 75 of 166
    shobizshobiz Posts: 207member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Times have changed.



    Yep, everyone else is supposed to magically just come up with a device despite Apple growing thier products from what was aguably a limited product initially compared to todays Apple products.

    It's Okay, I know I am not allowed to say anything that is not glowing of Apple or negative of anyone else. RIM and others are not doing anything different that what Apple did, they put out a product, determined true interest and then went with expanding it if applicable. Pretty normal practice in all segments over the entire planet for many, many years...
  • Reply 76 of 166
    oops.
  • Reply 77 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    I don?t expect to see a real competitor to iOS for iPad until Android 3.0. Apple went to a lot of trouble to redesign iOS for a 9.7? device and Android 3.0, which is expected to tackle the tablet I/O, will need to focus on this instead of the current offerings using Android v2.x that are simply a poor UI to get to market ASAP. RiM seems to have done a pretty good job on the UI, but I have yet to see how well it actually performs in the real world.



    Yep, let's hope for the best. I like the accomplishments of Apple - and buy Apple products for that reason, but I hate monopoly. Apple does a good job, but this isn't magic. Blackberry OS, MS Phone 7, Palm (HP) WebOS and Android please stand up and fight! What I've seen so far is "honorable" at best.
  • Reply 78 of 166
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by solipsism View Post


    Based on the interest and mindshare the iPad had all year, its dominance in the tablet market, the way it?s redefined the tablet market, the excessive sales as a 1st generation product, and the fact that most are trying to compete with Apple?s pricing with half the display area and a fraction of internal storage I can?t make a good argument for Apple lowering the pricing of the next iPad.



    CES 2011 will show us what is on the horizon now that everyone has had a year to go back to the drawing board, but from the limited info I have I?d $499 as the entry price is most likely for the 2nd generation device.



    I think Apple will keep the same pricing, unless they lower the GPS/3G upgrade price somewhat, and give a better spec'd device as they usually do.It would be interesting if they did offer the current 16GB model for $399.
  • Reply 79 of 166
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by clochard42 View Post


    Well, I'm now working with an iPad and a Galaxy Tab - because I had to. Can't neglect Android Tabs as a software developer, and the Galaxy Tab seems to be a reasonable representative for (upcoming) Android Tabs.



    Well, better than expected, but doesn't stand a real comparison to the iPad. UI is sluggish, screen somehow too small - even so the resolution difference doesn't suggest it (iPad: 1024 × 768, Galaxy Tab: 1024 × 600), display looks cheap. Current Android version really seems to be optimized for phones and wastes bigger screen sizes.



    And I really have to state that without the iPad as some sort of "reference tablet" my ratings would range from "good" to "great". But for example rating the browser scrolling experience on the iPad as smooth to acceptable gives the Galaxy Tab a rating from sluggish to unacceptable.



    Apple set the reference bar. Not everybody may need or require that level. But hell, I paid more bugs for the Galaxy Tab than for the iPad with a smaller display (cheaper to manufacture) and the Galaxy Tab battery live time is less than half of that of the iPad.



    Good to have some competition, but the iPad deserves a better competitor.



    The point you made bout having the iPad to compare it to is an important one. We often go through life thinking something is great, or horrible because we have nothing to compare it to. Many people will be buying one or the other without ever having tried anything else. If it's slow, well, then maybe that's the way it has to be.
  • Reply 80 of 166
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I think Apple will keep the same pricing, unless they lower the GPS/3G upgrade price somewhat, and give a better spec'd device as they usually do.It would be interesting if they did offer the current 16GB model for $399.



    The cellular plus GPS pricing isn?t as extreme as people think it is. I think the Samsung Galaxy fluctuates between $100 and $150 for that addition. I recall paying around $300 only a few years ago for a 3G cellular USB for Mac from AT&T.



    On top of that, it?s not the cost of the components, but other costs that drive it up, as you are well aware And we have to look at it as a premium feature that any smart company will try to make a higher profit on since they will sell less of because they are premium options. We can look at it from the entry level iPad?s price but it?s possible Apple has decided to take a much profit margin specifically to draw customers in. This isn?t only common, but good business.





    On an unrelated matter, the TJ Maxx/Marshalls pricing is confusing. First of all, I thought official retailers had contracts that regulated how much below retail they could sell items for. Secondly, why so low when even at, say, $480 I think they would have sold out about as quickly.
Sign In or Register to comment.