Of the 3, which do you think provides the most objective analysis of QNX/Playbook.
My vote goes with Wu!
Shaw Wu --- may be the most objective --- but still be wrong if he never understood the subject.
You might as well count both you and me out --- because we are opinionated with an agenda.
I am not even saying that the RIM Playbook might not be delayed. It might delay to May for all I care. But as I stated repeatedly --- that there are a million things that are not done yet --- from portrait mode to universal search to the latest power management.
If the Playbook is delay to May, then it is because of all these million other things combined. Not Shaw's conclusion that it is going to delay to May because QNX is ill-suited for the handheld world and that requires massive tinkering to the core of the OS.
Which one of the three is more balance and more objective?
Why don't you file a freedom of information act request to DoD and see if they will give you the required information?
My, my... isn't that helpful!
I ask you to support your assertions and you can't.
In my career, I worked for Consolidted Elctro-Dynamics (Invented the Burroughs Computer), Bell and Howell, Lockheed, Hoffman Electronics, and IBM. Then, I owned my own business (Computer Stores) and won government contracts, including a $1 million bid for Computers and LANS for military training control, U.S. Army Command College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. *
* Ft. Leavenworth was the home of the famous Jr. Jr. High School among other things
I have worked on both sides of military contracts -- and realize that many specs/requirements go into a military procurement.
The fact that QNX was included in a ruggedized handheld phone -- means just that: QNX was included in a ruggedized handheld phone.
Without knowing the specs, I would assume that it had a small display, an oversize battery with a use life of, say, 5 hours full usage and 10 hours standby, was ruggedized and weighed 3-4 lbs.
Neptec, long time QNX user who did the shuttle visioning system, has just been selected to build the next gen Moon rover. Yea, somehow operating in 200 below and using a small solar power panel --- and QNX knows nothing about power management.
So, if ONE analyst asserts something about a competing product, it's taken by AI and the Apple community as pure fact. But if an analyst says something negative about an Apple product, AI will go all out to disparage that analyst and just gloss over what that analyst might have said...I'm pretty sure at this point, AI runs it's original stories through Apple's PR department for approval before posting them...
For a community that is the #1 leader in the tablet area right now, why do we constantly feel the need to try and take shots at competitors? I don't walk around shoving my iPad in people's faces to show it off and this constant bashing of competitors is getting a little tiring. I for one, hope the Play Book is every bit as good as the iPad...Not that there is a good chance of that but I want a real competitor out there so Apple is forced to look ahead, and move ahead instead of sitting on it's ass until some real competition does catch up....
Because some of us in addition to loving the company and its products are stockholders. And we faithful who held our stock when it was virtually worthless are gloating daily and want to ensure that the stock keeps moving in the right direction. That's why people are crazy stupid about knocking any possible competitors. Of course the fact is that Apple is an incredible company. So...that's the story.
Shaw Wu --- may be the most objective --- but still be wrong if he never understood the subject.
You might as well count both you and me out --- because we are opinionated with an agenda.
I am not even saying that the RIM Playbook might not be delayed. It might delay to May for all I care. But as I stated repeatedly --- that there are a million things that are not done yet --- from portrait mode to universal search to the latest power management.
If the Playbook is delay to May, then it is because of all these million other things combined. Not Shaw's conclusion that it is going to delay to May because QNX is ill-suited for the handheld world and that requires massive tinkering to the core of the OS.
Which one of the three is more balance and more objective?
Here is the meat of what you seem to take issue:
Analyst Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros. issued a note to investors Tuesday warning that engineering issues with the BlackBerry PlayBook's battery life could be the cause of delays. According to Wu, the PlayBook's "relatively poor battery life of a few hours" needs improvement.
...
According to Wu, these battery problems have arisen partly because "QNX wasn't originally designed for mobile environments
Just what specifc information can you cite that refutes this and supports the assertions you make above?
Here's the full quote with a link to the article:
Quote:
Analyst Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros. issued a note to investors Tuesday warning that engineering issues with the BlackBerry PlayBook's battery life could be the cause of delays. According to Wu, the PlayBook's "relatively poor battery life of a few hours" needs improvement. By comparison, Apple's iPad gets 10 hours of battery life and the Android-based Samsung Galaxy Tab gets 6 hours.
The battery issue could "require a bit of re-engineering," said Wu, and is "likely why RIMM pushed out its launch to the May 2011 quarter." RIM had promised a first quarter 2011 launch for the PlayBook, but left the tablet off its projected revenues for its next fiscal quarter, which ends Feb. 26.
According to Wu, these battery problems have arisen partly because "QNX wasn't originally designed for mobile environments." RIM bought QNX, which makes operating systems for everything from "cars to nuclear reactors," earlier this year.
Neptec, long time QNX user who did the shuttle visioning system, has just been selected to build the next gen Moon rover. Yea, somehow operating in 200 below and using a small solar power panel --- and QNX knows nothing about power management.
I understand that words can have more than one meaning, but I don?t think it?s possible that you misunderstood the usage of ?mobile? in this context as to suggest the Space Shuttle as a your example of a mobile device.
I guess when I refer to the iPad as a ?satellite computer? I need to clarify that I?m not actually including all artificial satellites. \
I understand that words can have more than one meaning, but I don?t think it?s possible that you misunderstood the usage of ?mobile? in this context as to suggest the Space Shuttle as a your example of a mobile device.
I guess when I refer to the iPad as a ?satellite computer? I need to clarify that I?m not actually including all artificial satellites. \
We are also talking about smart autonomous rovers that operate in extreme environment with tiny solar panels --- in which most of the power is going to either driving the wheels of the rover or the heater within the body of rover to keep the electronics from freezing.
If the rover uses too much power at night --- then it won't wake up in the morning and you just wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That's called power management.
And that's precisely I am disagreeing with --- because Shaw never knew about the handheld military radios and the next gen moon rovers.
Right!
Why don't you provide us with the "power management" and "battery performance" requirements of the handheld radios and next genii moon rovers -- and how QNX addresses these items?
BTW, in another life I worked for companies that made solar cells (Hoffman Electronics Corporation) and made all sorts of specialized military equipment and vehicles (Lockheed Corporation) and the "Suitcase computer" for the 1st Moon landing (IBM).
As I mentioned before there is nothing special about those military handhelds -- Hell I had some military surplus walkie-talkies from WWII that ca 1950 that were ruggedized and gave great performance for several blocks away -- that's 60 years ago. BTW, they used a hand-trigger generator for power!
As to the military moon rover vehicle:
Likely that is a battery driven vehicle with several large capacity batteries. It also contains solar cells that can be deployed continuously (or as needed )to recharge the batteries. The solar cells, likely, reposition themselves to always point at the sun. The efficiency of solar cells in the moon's thin atmosphere is, likely, many times greater than what we have on earth.
The operating environment is, largely, a function of the hardware (heating an cooling components to work within a given temperature range. Certainly an OS like QNX could monitor sensors and adjust controls to maintain the operating environment -- as could any modern OS. QNX may be better designed for these. specific tasks, though, than a Linux or OSX derivative.
However, when push comes to shove, a moon rover with separate power source (Battery & Solar-generator) is just a special case of the automobile (battery & gasoline-powered generator) operating in a tough neighborhood.
The link you provided (like your other links) gave no specific specs or even an assertion that QNX was being used for power management.
So, while you, I and Shaw Wu may find these interesting and supportive of popularity and utility QNX -- they do nothing to refute his assertions, and nothing to support your assertions.
Do you actually believe:
1) that Shaw Wu doesn't know about these uses of QNX?
2) that, even if he did know about them, it would have changed his research and conclusions?
3) that he would willfully hide specific information from his (and his company's) investor clients?
4) To what end?
Hey, I've got some liquidity right now -- and I am considering buying more APPL in anticipation of a run up to $400.
Give me a reason, based on some facts, why I should by RIMM instead?
1) that Shaw Wu doesn't know about these uses of QNX?
2) that, even if he did know about them, it would have changed his research and conclusions?
The whole Wall Street doesn't know anything about QNX --- that's why they bought the integration with cars argument in April when RIM bought QNX. NOT a single analyst even talked about the possibility of RIM totally migrating to QNX.
What "conclusion" are you talking about? The conclusion that the Playbook may be delayed to May. Well, even I have talked about the possibility of delay --- but at the very least I came to my conclusion with real facts --- like a million things not being finished.
As for you saying that military radios and moon rover are not that out of the ordinary, QNX is saying the exact opposite --- that conventional power management in laptops and PDA's is the fairly ordinary kind of power management and that QNX is going beyond it.
We are also talking about smart autonomous rovers that operate in extreme environment with tiny solar panels --- in which most of the power is going to either driving the wheels of the rover or the heater within the body of rover to keep the electronics from freezing.
If the rover uses too much power at night --- then it won't wake up in the morning and you just wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That's called power management.
I don't think so! These are battery driven. The solar panels are recharging the batteries. The solar panels are much more efficient in the moon's thin atmosphere!
I don't think so! These are battery driven. The solar panels are recharging the batteries. The solar panels are much more efficient in the moon's thin atmosphere!
They also have to keep the rover heated at night from 200 below so that the electronics don't freeze while getting no power from the solar panel and still keep enough power to wake up in the morning. All the while, there is zero human input.
The whole Wall Street doesn't know anything about QNX --- that's why they bought the integration with cars argument in April when RIM bought QNX. NOT a single analyst even talked about the possibility of RIM totally migrating to QNX.
What "conclusion" are you talking about? The conclusion that the Playbook may be delayed to May. Well, even I have talked about the possibility of delay --- but at the very least I came to my conclusion with real facts --- like a million things not being finished.
Why are your assertions facts? Because you say so?
Why are Shaw Wu's assertions not facts? Because you say so?
I'll tell you what I think, based on 54 years of computer experience -- and what I have read and seen:
The PlayBook, as we know it now, will not be available in any quantity or state-of-completion until July 2011.
By then, it will be an also-ran among several competitive products.
I don't really care why -- whether it is QNX, AIR/Flash, Battery, Price, co-incompetance...
They also have to keep the rover heated at night from 200 below so that the electronics don't freeze while getting no power from the solar panel and still keep enough power to wake up in the morning. All the while, there is zero human input.
I would expect that terrific power management for the lunar rover is no small task. It seems from RIMs statements that early prototypes were not tweaked for power management. Okay, I'll buy that.
Let's see a Playbook that is finished ? fully finished and ready to ship. RIM have been doing an awful lot of smack-talk and boasting with little to back it up. I think that's what bothers most of us. The Playbook looks as though it might have some promise "if" it does what they say it does and costs what they say it'll cost and even then they have a fully stocked Apple AppStore to compete with.
I'm not saying that the Playbook will fail, I simply saying that this is going to be an uphill battle for sure.
Personally I don't want to hear anymore statements from RIM on this thing until they have the device finished and ready-to-ship. They've been boasting for months about a product that doesn't appear to be nearly finished or ready to ship. Enough already!
They also have to keep the rover heated at night from 200 below so that the electronics don't freeze while getting no power from the solar panel and still keep enough power to wake up in the morning. All the while, there is zero human input.
That's called "making hay while the sun shines"
Some of the battery power will certainly go to maintaining the temperature.
There are also some electronics that are temperature-compensated in they are designed to operate with the same characteristics across a wide temperature range.
But there is also a thing called insulation. When I worked for Lockheed in 1960-61, they had developed insulated panels used to create instant housing for harsh environments (Think South Pole). AIR, it was made in wall-sized panels 1-2" thick -- LockPaq, or somesuch. Lockheed did a lot of top-secret stuff -- the blackbird SST, a lot of space-related stuff -- they claimed that 1/3 of the satellites in space were made by Lockheed.
So, I suspect, with efficient solar cells, efficient battery storage, efficient insulation, they can maintain operating temperature for critical components for weeks -- if I know anything about mil-specs.
Neptec, long time QNX user who did the shuttle visioning system, has just been selected to build the next gen Moon rover. Yea, somehow operating in 200 below and using a small solar power panel --- and QNX knows nothing about power management.
Do you agree that power management in a motorized robot, a solar powered calculator, a desktop computer, a laptop, a central air-conditioning system are all different? They all use different power sources and do different things.
For devices like iPhones and iPads, power management optimization begins at the hardware design and CPU/GPU design and memory bus design level and then the OS + Frameworks + Software are again optimized for the specific hardware. That sort of optimization takes much time and effort.
You can't just slap Adobe Flash and Adobe Air on top of an embedded OS with wild and uncontrolled multithreading on a dual core processor and a gig of RAM and expect to get the same results. It is a well known fact that Adobe Flash / Air are battery hogs, the entire QNX UI is based on Flash / AIR.
I do not know for certain but I think RIM screwed up big time. For what they are looking to do, QNX + Flash + AIR is not going to help much.
Nor is it a black science that only Apple understands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007
Do you agree that power management in a motorized robot, a solar powered calculator, a desktop computer, a laptop, a central air-conditioning system are all different? They all use different power sources and do different things.
And just what does that have to do with the cost of a slice of bread?
Quote:
For devices like iPhones and iPads, power management optimization begins at the hardware design and CPU/GPU design and memory bus design level and then the OS + Frameworks + Software are again optimized for the specific hardware. That sort of optimization takes much time and effort.
And you think only Apple is capable of doing this?
Besides much of that design effort is not taken care of buy the SoC design process and the package on package construction of the processors going into these machines.
Quote:
You can't just slap Adobe Flash and Adobe Air on top of an embedded OS with wild and uncontrolled multithreading on a dual core processor and a gig of RAM and expect to get the same results.
You blew it right there. The implication that things are going wild on the Playbook is joke and you have no basis for stating such.
Flash is a problem but that should surprise absolutely no body.
Quote:
It is a well known fact that Adobe Flash / Air are battery hogs, the entire QNX UI is based on Flash / AIR.
I do not know for certain but I think RIM screwed up big time. For what they are looking to do, QNX + Flash + AIR is not going to help much.
Time will tell.
Sure Flash isn't a big help with respect to long term performance but it gets product to market and people here mis the importance of doing this. Playbooks long term success will be built around the coming SDK just as the SDK lead to an explosion of apps on the iPhone which then had an additive impact on iPhone sales.
You see what bothers me here is that Apple shoved iPhone out the door with just web app support when it first debuted. After a good long while we eventually got the SDK. Why when RIM is about to do the same thing, it gets no respect is beyond me. Sure they could fail, but they need to try. Especially if you are a die hard Apple iPad owner as it means pressure on Apple to upgrade.
QNX has always been a small company that HAS to cater to all kinds of potential customers --- whether they are big router companies or rugged tablets on the factory floor. QNX put their OS into the Compaq ipaq like 10 years ago as a demonstration to potential clients.
They are an embedded OS --- by definition they are designed to occupy a smaller footprint, and use fewer CPU cycles from the start. They are in handheld military radios --- don't you think that they have done both power management AND robustness/reliability.
I've held way too many of those "handheld" radios. The batteries are IMMENSE! (compared to anything in the consume mobile space) And you have to carry extras for just in case.
I'll give QNX props for energy management. Embedded operating systems that can be used for remote sensors do not suck power for their own benefit. (The radios tend to ignore that in my estimation.) Shawn Wu is talking out his arse when he says what QNX is and isn't designed to do. I can believe the basic facts on PlayBook battery life he reports, but have to completely filter out anything he says when it comes to technical explanations.
Also @Dick, in the QNX context "application" means "device" rather than software "app".
What I'll call BS with on RIM though is that an embedded OS that does do remote sensor in other applications is suddenly not implementing power management in beta hardware? WTF, are they going to ship an Alpha implementation?
To make that comment at all is incredibly telling. Power management isn't just something you slap on after the fact. It's inherent in both the hardware components and the software drivers. If power management isn't implemented yet it either means they are going to be shipping VERY new drivers, or different hardware than they are developing and testing on now. I highly doubt both of those last two possibilities.
That leaves me with one nasty little suspicion that a senior manager of engineers has pulled a good old "Debug Code"-class excuse out his little arse and the non-technical half of the dual core CEOs ate it up. Fully.
Comments
Of the 3, which do you think provides the most objective analysis of QNX/Playbook.
My vote goes with Wu!
Shaw Wu --- may be the most objective --- but still be wrong if he never understood the subject.
You might as well count both you and me out --- because we are opinionated with an agenda.
I am not even saying that the RIM Playbook might not be delayed. It might delay to May for all I care. But as I stated repeatedly --- that there are a million things that are not done yet --- from portrait mode to universal search to the latest power management.
If the Playbook is delay to May, then it is because of all these million other things combined. Not Shaw's conclusion that it is going to delay to May because QNX is ill-suited for the handheld world and that requires massive tinkering to the core of the OS.
Which one of the three is more balance and more objective?
Why don't you file a freedom of information act request to DoD and see if they will give you the required information?
My, my... isn't that helpful!
I ask you to support your assertions and you can't.
In my career, I worked for Consolidted Elctro-Dynamics (Invented the Burroughs Computer), Bell and Howell, Lockheed, Hoffman Electronics, and IBM. Then, I owned my own business (Computer Stores) and won government contracts, including a $1 million bid for Computers and LANS for military training control, U.S. Army Command College, Ft. Leavenworth, KS. *
* Ft. Leavenworth was the home of the famous Jr. Jr. High School among other things
http://ftlvn.schoolfusion.us/modules...9a18b77fa86c71
I have worked on both sides of military contracts -- and realize that many specs/requirements go into a military procurement.
The fact that QNX was included in a ruggedized handheld phone -- means just that: QNX was included in a ruggedized handheld phone.
Without knowing the specs, I would assume that it had a small display, an oversize battery with a use life of, say, 5 hours full usage and 10 hours standby, was ruggedized and weighed 3-4 lbs.
The iPad specs (partial):
Size and weight
Height: 9.56 inches (242.8 mm)
Width: 7.47 inches (189.7 mm)
Depth: 0.5 inch (13.4 mm)
Weight:
1.5 pounds (0.68 kg) Wi-Fi model;
1.6 pounds (0.73 kg) Wi-Fi + 3G model
Battery and power
Built-in 25-watt-hour rechargeable lithium-polymer battery
Up to 10 hours of surfing the web on Wi-Fi, watching video, or listening to music
Up to 9 hours of surfing the web using 3G data network
Charging via power adapter or USB to computer system
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
According to reviewers, the battery specs have proven to be conservative.
These are the specs that were released during the product announcement -- firm specs, not "on track to be competitive" (paraphrased).
All I can say to you and the co-CEOs -- If you have it, flaunt it! *
* competitive, or even reasonable battery specs.
http://onqpl.blogspot.com/2010/11/ne...velop-new.html
So, if ONE analyst asserts something about a competing product, it's taken by AI and the Apple community as pure fact. But if an analyst says something negative about an Apple product, AI will go all out to disparage that analyst and just gloss over what that analyst might have said...I'm pretty sure at this point, AI runs it's original stories through Apple's PR department for approval before posting them...
For a community that is the #1 leader in the tablet area right now, why do we constantly feel the need to try and take shots at competitors? I don't walk around shoving my iPad in people's faces to show it off and this constant bashing of competitors is getting a little tiring. I for one, hope the Play Book is every bit as good as the iPad...Not that there is a good chance of that but I want a real competitor out there so Apple is forced to look ahead, and move ahead instead of sitting on it's ass until some real competition does catch up....
Because some of us in addition to loving the company and its products are stockholders. And we faithful who held our stock when it was virtually worthless are gloating daily and want to ensure that the stock keeps moving in the right direction. That's why people are crazy stupid about knocking any possible competitors. Of course the fact is that Apple is an incredible company. So...that's the story.
A Healthy and Happy 2011 to All
Shaw Wu --- may be the most objective --- but still be wrong if he never understood the subject.
You might as well count both you and me out --- because we are opinionated with an agenda.
I am not even saying that the RIM Playbook might not be delayed. It might delay to May for all I care. But as I stated repeatedly --- that there are a million things that are not done yet --- from portrait mode to universal search to the latest power management.
If the Playbook is delay to May, then it is because of all these million other things combined. Not Shaw's conclusion that it is going to delay to May because QNX is ill-suited for the handheld world and that requires massive tinkering to the core of the OS.
Which one of the three is more balance and more objective?
Here is the meat of what you seem to take issue:
Analyst Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros. issued a note to investors Tuesday warning that engineering issues with the BlackBerry PlayBook's battery life could be the cause of delays. According to Wu, the PlayBook's "relatively poor battery life of a few hours" needs improvement.
...
According to Wu, these battery problems have arisen partly because "QNX wasn't originally designed for mobile environments
Just what specifc information can you cite that refutes this and supports the assertions you make above?
Here's the full quote with a link to the article:
Analyst Shaw Wu of Kaufman Bros. issued a note to investors Tuesday warning that engineering issues with the BlackBerry PlayBook's battery life could be the cause of delays. According to Wu, the PlayBook's "relatively poor battery life of a few hours" needs improvement. By comparison, Apple's iPad gets 10 hours of battery life and the Android-based Samsung Galaxy Tab gets 6 hours.
The battery issue could "require a bit of re-engineering," said Wu, and is "likely why RIMM pushed out its launch to the May 2011 quarter." RIM had promised a first quarter 2011 launch for the PlayBook, but left the tablet off its projected revenues for its next fiscal quarter, which ends Feb. 26.
According to Wu, these battery problems have arisen partly because "QNX wasn't originally designed for mobile environments." RIM bought QNX, which makes operating systems for everything from "cars to nuclear reactors," earlier this year.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...lyst_says.html
According to Wu, these battery problems have arisen partly because "QNX wasn't originally designed for mobile environments
Just what specifc information can you cite that refutes this and supports the assertions you make above?
And that's precisely I am disagreeing with --- because Shaw never knew about the handheld military radios and the next gen moon rovers.
Neptec, long time QNX user who did the shuttle visioning system, has just been selected to build the next gen Moon rover. Yea, somehow operating in 200 below and using a small solar power panel --- and QNX knows nothing about power management.
http://onqpl.blogspot.com/2010/11/ne...velop-new.html
I understand that words can have more than one meaning, but I don?t think it?s possible that you misunderstood the usage of ?mobile? in this context as to suggest the Space Shuttle as a your example of a mobile device.
I guess when I refer to the iPad as a ?satellite computer? I need to clarify that I?m not actually including all artificial satellites.
I understand that words can have more than one meaning, but I don?t think it?s possible that you misunderstood the usage of ?mobile? in this context as to suggest the Space Shuttle as a your example of a mobile device.
I guess when I refer to the iPad as a ?satellite computer? I need to clarify that I?m not actually including all artificial satellites.
We are also talking about smart autonomous rovers that operate in extreme environment with tiny solar panels --- in which most of the power is going to either driving the wheels of the rover or the heater within the body of rover to keep the electronics from freezing.
If the rover uses too much power at night --- then it won't wake up in the morning and you just wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That's called power management.
And that's precisely I am disagreeing with --- because Shaw never knew about the handheld military radios and the next gen moon rovers.
Right!
Why don't you provide us with the "power management" and "battery performance" requirements of the handheld radios and next genii moon rovers -- and how QNX addresses these items?
BTW, in another life I worked for companies that made solar cells (Hoffman Electronics Corporation) and made all sorts of specialized military equipment and vehicles (Lockheed Corporation) and the "Suitcase computer" for the 1st Moon landing (IBM).
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/ideasfromibm/...ng_Special.pdf
As I mentioned before there is nothing special about those military handhelds -- Hell I had some military surplus walkie-talkies from WWII that ca 1950 that were ruggedized and gave great performance for several blocks away -- that's 60 years ago. BTW, they used a hand-trigger generator for power!
As to the military moon rover vehicle:
Likely that is a battery driven vehicle with several large capacity batteries. It also contains solar cells that can be deployed continuously (or as needed )to recharge the batteries. The solar cells, likely, reposition themselves to always point at the sun. The efficiency of solar cells in the moon's thin atmosphere is, likely, many times greater than what we have on earth.
The operating environment is, largely, a function of the hardware (heating an cooling components to work within a given temperature range. Certainly an OS like QNX could monitor sensors and adjust controls to maintain the operating environment -- as could any modern OS. QNX may be better designed for these. specific tasks, though, than a Linux or OSX derivative.
However, when push comes to shove, a moon rover with separate power source (Battery & Solar-generator) is just a special case of the automobile (battery & gasoline-powered generator) operating in a tough neighborhood.
The link you provided (like your other links) gave no specific specs or even an assertion that QNX was being used for power management.
So, while you, I and Shaw Wu may find these interesting and supportive of popularity and utility QNX -- they do nothing to refute his assertions, and nothing to support your assertions.
Do you actually believe:
1) that Shaw Wu doesn't know about these uses of QNX?
2) that, even if he did know about them, it would have changed his research and conclusions?
3) that he would willfully hide specific information from his (and his company's) investor clients?
4) To what end?
Hey, I've got some liquidity right now -- and I am considering buying more APPL in anticipation of a run up to $400.
Give me a reason, based on some facts, why I should by RIMM instead?
1) that Shaw Wu doesn't know about these uses of QNX?
2) that, even if he did know about them, it would have changed his research and conclusions?
The whole Wall Street doesn't know anything about QNX --- that's why they bought the integration with cars argument in April when RIM bought QNX. NOT a single analyst even talked about the possibility of RIM totally migrating to QNX.
What "conclusion" are you talking about? The conclusion that the Playbook may be delayed to May. Well, even I have talked about the possibility of delay --- but at the very least I came to my conclusion with real facts --- like a million things not being finished.
As for you saying that military radios and moon rover are not that out of the ordinary, QNX is saying the exact opposite --- that conventional power management in laptops and PDA's is the fairly ordinary kind of power management and that QNX is going beyond it.
We are also talking about smart autonomous rovers that operate in extreme environment with tiny solar panels --- in which most of the power is going to either driving the wheels of the rover or the heater within the body of rover to keep the electronics from freezing.
If the rover uses too much power at night --- then it won't wake up in the morning and you just wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That's called power management.
I don't think so! These are battery driven. The solar panels are recharging the batteries. The solar panels are much more efficient in the moon's thin atmosphere!
I don't think so! These are battery driven. The solar panels are recharging the batteries. The solar panels are much more efficient in the moon's thin atmosphere!
They also have to keep the rover heated at night from 200 below so that the electronics don't freeze while getting no power from the solar panel and still keep enough power to wake up in the morning. All the while, there is zero human input.
The whole Wall Street doesn't know anything about QNX --- that's why they bought the integration with cars argument in April when RIM bought QNX. NOT a single analyst even talked about the possibility of RIM totally migrating to QNX.
What "conclusion" are you talking about? The conclusion that the Playbook may be delayed to May. Well, even I have talked about the possibility of delay --- but at the very least I came to my conclusion with real facts --- like a million things not being finished.
Why are your assertions facts? Because you say so?
Why are Shaw Wu's assertions not facts? Because you say so?
I'll tell you what I think, based on 54 years of computer experience -- and what I have read and seen:
The PlayBook, as we know it now, will not be available in any quantity or state-of-completion until July 2011.
By then, it will be an also-ran among several competitive products.
I don't really care why -- whether it is QNX, AIR/Flash, Battery, Price, co-incompetance...
It will fail.
They also have to keep the rover heated at night from 200 below so that the electronics don't freeze while getting no power from the solar panel and still keep enough power to wake up in the morning. All the while, there is zero human input.
I would expect that terrific power management for the lunar rover is no small task. It seems from RIMs statements that early prototypes were not tweaked for power management. Okay, I'll buy that.
Let's see a Playbook that is finished ? fully finished and ready to ship. RIM have been doing an awful lot of smack-talk and boasting with little to back it up. I think that's what bothers most of us. The Playbook looks as though it might have some promise "if" it does what they say it does and costs what they say it'll cost and even then they have a fully stocked Apple AppStore to compete with.
I'm not saying that the Playbook will fail, I simply saying that this is going to be an uphill battle for sure.
Personally I don't want to hear anymore statements from RIM on this thing until they have the device finished and ready-to-ship. They've been boasting for months about a product that doesn't appear to be nearly finished or ready to ship. Enough already!
They also have to keep the rover heated at night from 200 below so that the electronics don't freeze while getting no power from the solar panel and still keep enough power to wake up in the morning. All the while, there is zero human input.
That's called "making hay while the sun shines"
Some of the battery power will certainly go to maintaining the temperature.
There are also some electronics that are temperature-compensated in they are designed to operate with the same characteristics across a wide temperature range.
But there is also a thing called insulation. When I worked for Lockheed in 1960-61, they had developed insulated panels used to create instant housing for harsh environments (Think South Pole). AIR, it was made in wall-sized panels 1-2" thick -- LockPaq, or somesuch. Lockheed did a lot of top-secret stuff -- the blackbird SST, a lot of space-related stuff -- they claimed that 1/3 of the satellites in space were made by Lockheed.
So, I suspect, with efficient solar cells, efficient battery storage, efficient insulation, they can maintain operating temperature for critical components for weeks -- if I know anything about mil-specs.
Neptec, long time QNX user who did the shuttle visioning system, has just been selected to build the next gen Moon rover. Yea, somehow operating in 200 below and using a small solar power panel --- and QNX knows nothing about power management.
http://onqpl.blogspot.com/2010/11/ne...velop-new.html
Do you agree that power management in a motorized robot, a solar powered calculator, a desktop computer, a laptop, a central air-conditioning system are all different? They all use different power sources and do different things.
For devices like iPhones and iPads, power management optimization begins at the hardware design and CPU/GPU design and memory bus design level and then the OS + Frameworks + Software are again optimized for the specific hardware. That sort of optimization takes much time and effort.
You can't just slap Adobe Flash and Adobe Air on top of an embedded OS with wild and uncontrolled multithreading on a dual core processor and a gig of RAM and expect to get the same results. It is a well known fact that Adobe Flash / Air are battery hogs, the entire QNX UI is based on Flash / AIR.
I do not know for certain but I think RIM screwed up big time. For what they are looking to do, QNX + Flash + AIR is not going to help much.
Time will tell.
Do you agree that power management in a motorized robot, a solar powered calculator, a desktop computer, a laptop, a central air-conditioning system are all different? They all use different power sources and do different things.
And just what does that have to do with the cost of a slice of bread?
For devices like iPhones and iPads, power management optimization begins at the hardware design and CPU/GPU design and memory bus design level and then the OS + Frameworks + Software are again optimized for the specific hardware. That sort of optimization takes much time and effort.
And you think only Apple is capable of doing this?
Besides much of that design effort is not taken care of buy the SoC design process and the package on package construction of the processors going into these machines.
You can't just slap Adobe Flash and Adobe Air on top of an embedded OS with wild and uncontrolled multithreading on a dual core processor and a gig of RAM and expect to get the same results.
You blew it right there. The implication that things are going wild on the Playbook is joke and you have no basis for stating such.
Flash is a problem but that should surprise absolutely no body.
It is a well known fact that Adobe Flash / Air are battery hogs, the entire QNX UI is based on Flash / AIR.
I do not know for certain but I think RIM screwed up big time. For what they are looking to do, QNX + Flash + AIR is not going to help much.
Time will tell.
Sure Flash isn't a big help with respect to long term performance but it gets product to market and people here mis the importance of doing this. Playbooks long term success will be built around the coming SDK just as the SDK lead to an explosion of apps on the iPhone which then had an additive impact on iPhone sales.
You see what bothers me here is that Apple shoved iPhone out the door with just web app support when it first debuted. After a good long while we eventually got the SDK. Why when RIM is about to do the same thing, it gets no respect is beyond me. Sure they could fail, but they need to try. Especially if you are a die hard Apple iPad owner as it means pressure on Apple to upgrade.
QNX has always been a small company that HAS to cater to all kinds of potential customers --- whether they are big router companies or rugged tablets on the factory floor. QNX put their OS into the Compaq ipaq like 10 years ago as a demonstration to potential clients.
They are an embedded OS --- by definition they are designed to occupy a smaller footprint, and use fewer CPU cycles from the start. They are in handheld military radios --- don't you think that they have done both power management AND robustness/reliability.
I've held way too many of those "handheld" radios. The batteries are IMMENSE! (compared to anything in the consume mobile space) And you have to carry extras for just in case.
I'll give QNX props for energy management. Embedded operating systems that can be used for remote sensors do not suck power for their own benefit. (The radios tend to ignore that in my estimation.) Shawn Wu is talking out his arse when he says what QNX is and isn't designed to do. I can believe the basic facts on PlayBook battery life he reports, but have to completely filter out anything he says when it comes to technical explanations.
Also @Dick, in the QNX context "application" means "device" rather than software "app".
What I'll call BS with on RIM though is that an embedded OS that does do remote sensor in other applications is suddenly not implementing power management in beta hardware? WTF, are they going to ship an Alpha implementation?
To make that comment at all is incredibly telling. Power management isn't just something you slap on after the fact. It's inherent in both the hardware components and the software drivers. If power management isn't implemented yet it either means they are going to be shipping VERY new drivers, or different hardware than they are developing and testing on now. I highly doubt both of those last two possibilities.
That leaves me with one nasty little suspicion that a senior manager of engineers has pulled a good old "Debug Code"-class excuse out his little arse and the non-technical half of the dual core CEOs ate it up. Fully.