[slashd0t]

I'll start by saying that I love everything mobile.. Whether that be iOS, Android or BlackBerry. Actually, not iOS at this moment due to the recent outright privacy breach, but, for the most part, I love all mobile equally

What annoys me most about the recent Playbook reviews is that too many writers are trying to compare the Playbook to the iPad. Why is it, everyone want's a BlackBerry branded iPad!??? What would be the point of RIM creating a clone of an already successful device in a market they know they can't be successful in at this moment? Why won't the writers review the Playbook based on the merits on it achieving what the device was set out to do?

Firstly, the Playbook is designed enterprise down, not consumer up like the iPad. The iPad is designed to be used in the home first. It just so happens with consumerization, the iPad's are making their way into business and there is hardly anyway to stop this from happening. This is what is keeping CIO's, CSO's and CEO's up at night.

Organizations are struggling with consumerization on many levels. They want to accept these devices, yet, don't want to accept the security risk of permitting them. Employee's, executives and even Apple and doing everything in their power to convince the enterprise that these devices will make them more productive, and that they are secure. This is not totally accurate.

CSO's, or security folks are losing control of their data and visibility into which devices are connected into the network because of devices like the iPad. RIM has developed the PlayBook with an enterprise focus first, meaning, security was a major part of development right from the start.

If you have followed this post thus far, please read the following document. Any person reviewing the Playbook professional who has not read this document has no credibility writing/reviewing the Playbook because they don't understand its function:

http://docs.blackberry.com/en/admin/...001-1.0-US.pdf


People who are saying that the Playbook is half baked are missing the point. The ability that organizations now have to track tablets, while feeling assured the data is safe due to the work/personal architecture of the Playbook is huge. The main development focus has been put here initially, while they will roll out the consumer focused applications very rapidly secondly (enterprise down approach).

I'm infuriated that the reviews have just focused on how it compares to the iPad, when in fact, the Playbook is a completely different device.

Yes, it has a tablet form factor, but, the controls built in under the hood are so far superior to the iPad, it truly solves a huge issue for pretty much every organization right now struggling with consumerization. Visibility and control over corporate data while keeping the personal data seperate.

Users WANT to use their tablets at work, employers WANT their users to have technology that enables them to be more productive. Employee's WANT to keep their personal life separate from their work life in most cases which the Playbook achieves beautifully.

I suggest everyone step back for a moment and look at what the Playbook is trying to achieve instead of immediately compare it to the Xoom, iPad etc.

The reason why the Playbook is moving significantly more units than the Xoom, Galaxy tab etc because those devices are wanna-be clones of the iPad and will never be able to compete with Apple's go to market strategy. RIM has created a different product, not an iPad clone.

I wish reviewers would understand this...

[i7guy]

^^^^ this exactly.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[tstrike34]

Bravo well said Sir!

[John Yester]

Glad someone understands

[Thumbtyper]

Take a look at this video. It was produced by RIM way back in November 2010. So to answer your question, RIM is the one that invited comparisons with the IPAD. Don't be offended that reviewers are taking them up on their invitation.



funny how RIM fans spent 6 months touting the vaporbook as superior to the IPAD but now that it is in the wild they would prefer others view it as it's own category.

Why the change?

[slashd0t]

Take a look at this video. It was produced by RIM way back in November 2010. So to answer your question, RIM is the one that invited comparisons with the IPAD. Don't be offended that reviewers are taking them up on their invitation.



funny how RIM fans spent 6 months touting the vaporbook as superior to the IPAD but now that it is in the wild they would prefer others view it as it's own category.

Why the change?

The Playbook vs iPad is the same as the BlackBerry mobile phone vs the iPhone. Obviously they are competing against each other. I think you've completely missed the point of my entire post.

[Rennteam]

So let me ckeck I got this right: My iPad 2, which has excellent Exchange support, is more of a "home device" but my PB, which doesn't even have a native mail or calendar support, is a "business device"?
I use my iPad for Windows server administration, haven't found a remote desktop client for the PB to do the same?!
Seriously...how many excuses do you find for RIM?

The PB has only three advantages over the iPad and unfortunately, in real life usage, they don't really count much:
1. Amazing display for outdoor usage
2. Flash support (but apparently limited)
3. Weight/size

You can argue all day long but most people aren't buying the PB because they want something different than the iPad, they buy the PB because they expect something similar or better...for the same price tag. As long as RIM and Google don't get it, the iPad will always prevail.

[OMGitworks]

I don't disagree with you about the PB but RIM has to take the blame for this, not the critics, though some are certainly over the top and biased. The "no roll-out" roll-out was sort of a disaster in the consumer segment. Of course, the consumer based reviewers are going to review it from the consumer point of view. I know they are large corp. and they should have had their PR people be in contact with NYT, WSJ , PC Mag/World, Engaget and the rest of them so they could shape and temper the reviews a bit. Instead they let those folks shape the debate and of course they are going to rip on lack of native PIM, Apps and the rest of the things viewed as obvious consumer oriented shortcomings. Unfortunately, this may also cut into corporate sales. No business wants to be seen as uncool.

I really like my 9650, but honestly don't understand RIM's corporate operations. They have a potentially excellent tablet here but seem to be undercutting it at almost every step. Where are they deploying their large resources, I don't see it. The lack of an ATT bridge is unbelievable and a great example. They should have negotiated something, maybe even teamed up with ATT to deal with their (substantial) mutual corporate clients. Instead those who want to stay with ATT will not buy the PB for now and those who love the PB may switch from ATT, there was enough $$ there to be shared, but instead it comes across as an afterthought and glaring disappointment. I don't get that. For regular consumers on ATT it is a disaster and fail. Most aren't going to download an unofficial work around (corp IT won't do it either) or wait for something to work, they want it to work out of the box and when it doesn't they will return it. Lame, but true, consumers are lazy, RIM should have known this too.

I think it will be a successful device but RIM clearly forgot that "you only get once chance to make a first impression"

[slashd0t]

So let me ckeck I got this right: My iPad 2, which has excellent Exchange support, is more of a "home device" but my PB, which doesn't even have a native mail or calendar support, is a "business device"?
I use my iPad for Windows server administration, haven't found a remote desktop client for the PB to do the same?!
Seriously...how many excuses do you find for RIM?

So do you understand why the Playbook keeps exchange email isolated the way they do? I agree they could do with a gmail client, but, I'm sure it's coming.

Your iPad 2 has excellent exchange support with only the security controls that Microsoft permits with ActiveSync. Your organization has little control over what you do with your iPad, or, what to do when you lose it, or, get terminated.

How would you feel tomorrow if you were to be let go and your organization used ActiveSync's ability to just wipe your iPad without you having any say in what you do with your personal data on that device?

What sort of security controls are in place if malware were to exploit your browser on your iPad and steal the data residing on it? Apple is completely relying on the security mechanisms of ActiveSync to protect corporate data which is a far cry from satisfactory from any good security professionals point of view.

How are iPads provisioned within your organization? It may be fine if you have 5 employee's, but, what do you do when you hit 30,000? 100,000? How can you control 30,000 iPads running around your environment? How do you control users jailbreaking them, not updating them, and doing god knows what with them?

Again, another person responding who isn't actually understanding what I wrote. The Playbook isnt' designed as a server administrators portable device.. It's designed as a solution that enterprises can safely deploy knowing their data will remain safe and controlled.

[mickrg123]

I agree comparisons to Apple are not needed! Apples success stands on its own!
My problem is with Rim and their awful track record with new products to market. Blackberry is known for security, email, and bbm and Rim decides to launch first "business"tablet without email, bbm,auto correct etc.
But don 't worry about Storm fail just follow Rims mission statement
it will be fixed in new updates. i just hope after all the updates needed I wont have to buy a new PB to run everything like I had to with Storm 1 &2!
PB is not an Apple / Ipad problem it is a Rim problem!

[Thumbtyper]

The Playbook vs iPad is the same as the BlackBerry mobile phone vs the iPhone. Obviously they are competing against each other. I think you've completely missed the point of my entire post.

You can't complain that reviewers are in the wrong for comparing the devices when RIM is the one that asked reviewers to do that by putting out comparison videos on the web and saying they were better.

As far as the business case, take a look at the marketing as well as the apps (software). This is being marketed to consumers. What is the business case for adoption of it as a technology..? where are the multi-tasking business apps (software)

[slashd0t]

The lack of an ATT bridge is unbelievable and a great example. They should have negotiated something, maybe even teamed up with ATT to deal with their (substantial) mutual corporate clients.

You can't blame RIM because AT&T is greedy and doesn't want their users undercutting their tethering plans.

[slashd0t]

You can't complain that reviewers are in the wrong for comparing the devices when RIM is the one that asked reviewers to do that by putting out comparison videos on the web and saying they were better.

As far as the business case, take a look at the marketing as well as the apps (software). This is being marketed to consumers. What is the business case for adoption of it as a technology..? where are the multi-tasking business apps (software)

My issue isn't with the reviewers comparing feature to feature, but, be fair and look at the entire picture. They are basically doing "Well, the iPad browser is faster and the battery is longer.. iPad wins!" Yes, compare those features, but, why not compare the enterprise functionality with it? The area's that the Playbook were designed for? Just because they both have SOME similar functionality, it doesn't show the entire picture.

[mooda]

i think it is a great device but some basic things on it are well half baked. the pdf reader is way to basic. anything with more then ten pages is gonna be an issue as is the docs to go suit power point cant display a bunch of the features and animations that the desktop versions have making showing them impossible. its great on many levels but still needs improvment on some.

[slashd0t]

i think it is a great device but some basic things on it are well half baked. the pdf reader is way to basic. anything with more then ten pages is gonna be an issue as is the docs to go suit power point cant display a bunch of the features and animations that the desktop versions have making showing them impossible. its great on many levels but still needs improvment on some.

I've been reading a 249 page PDF on my Playbook with not so much as a hiccup.

[slashd0t]

And lets be fair guys/gals.. I can't fix the fact that RIM sucks at marketing

[OMGitworks]

You can't blame RIM because AT&T is greedy and doesn't want their users undercutting their tethering plans.

Maybe not, but rolling out he PB only to find out ON LAUNCH DAY that ATT is blocking the bridge is unacceptable. What if RIM released a statement saying "We believe our bridge software is stable and secure and that our customers have the right to use the bridge to connect to their BB devices under their existing ATT plans. It is unfortunate that ATT has chosen to block this exciting and important Playbook feature while all other major carriers are allowing consumers to access and use the bridge under their current plans."

Instead the only "official" word is ATT saying that they didn't get the software until launch and are "checking" it out. See the difference?

[slashd0t]

Maybe not, but rolling out he PB only to find out ON LAUNCH DAY that ATT is blocking the bridge is unacceptable. What if RIM released a statement saying "We believe our bridge software is stable and secure and that our customers have the right to use the bridge to connect to their BB devices under their existing ATT plans. It is unfortunate that ATT has chosen to block this exciting and important Playbook feature while all other major carriers are allowing consumers to access and use the bridge under their current plans."

Instead the only "official" word is ATT saying that they didn't get the software until launch and are "checking" it out. See the difference?

I agree somewhat, but, RIM can't possibly control what AT&T is going to do on launch day. You also have to think of the political landscape between AT&T and RIM.

I do agree RIM could have addressed it better publicly, but, you need to understand that RIM needs AT&T more than AT&T needs RIM and RIM know this. RIM has to constantly keep AT&T happy to have them promote their handsets. With HTC, Apple, Nokia, Motorola, LG, Samsung all knocking on AT&T's door for shelf space for their handsets, RIM is not really in a good position to bash them.

Apple on the other hand has the luxury in this market to basically tell AT&T whatever it wants. Them the breaks.

[OMGitworks]

I agree somewhat, but, RIM can't possibly control what AT&T is going to do on launch day. You also have to think of the political landscape between AT&T and RIM.

I do agree RIM could have addressed it better publicly, but, you need to understand that RIM needs AT&T more than AT&T needs RIM and RIM know this. RIM has to constantly keep AT&T happy to have them promote their handsets. With HTC, Apple, Nokia, Motorola, LG, Samsung all knocking on AT&T's door for shelf space for their handsets, RIM is not really in a good position to bash them.

Apple on the other hand has the luxury in this market to basically tell AT&T whatever it wants. Them the breaks.

Fair enough. Big kids throw big rocks, I get that. I just wish they had told us, not let us find out on launch day when people had already bought a PB and were trying to connect. FWIW - I always thought RIM was done once ATT got the early exclusive iphone distribution and that they should have tried to do something with Verizon and the other carriers who were shut out on that deal way back then. Would ATT have risked losing RIM for an untried iphone? Maybe... probably. Would BB users and corps be devoted enough to switch carriers in order to keep their BB's, maybe? Instead it kept ATT afloat enough to survive and grow until the end of the exclusivity deal and put RIM in a very tough position to negotiate much of anything.

[slashd0t]

Fair enough. Big kids throw big rocks, I get that. I just wish they had told us, not let us find out on launch day when people had already bought a PB and were trying to connect. FWIW - I always thought RIM was done once ATT got the early exclusive iphone distribution and that they should have tried to do something with Verizon and the other carriers who were shut out on that deal way back then. Would ATT have risked losing RIM for an untried iphone? Maybe... probably. Would BB users and corps be devoted enough to switch carriers in order to keep their BB's, maybe? Instead it kept ATT afloat enough to survive and grow until the end of the exclusivity deal and put RIM in a very tough position to negotiate much of anything.

Totally agree. That said, I know a few people now that have played with all of the new devices RIM has coming out in the next few months and the response from them has all been WOW. Apparently they are all mind blowing with the new processors, higher res screens etc. I'm optimistic.

[ADGrant]

.

Yes, it has a tablet form factor, but, the controls built in under the hood are so far superior to the iPad, it truly solves a huge issue for pretty much every organization right now struggling with consumerization. Visibility and control over corporate data while keeping the personal data seperate.

Users WANT to use their tablets at work, employers WANT their users to have technology that enables them to be more productive. Employee's WANT to keep their personal life separate from their work life in most cases which the Playbook achieves beautifully.

That particular issue was solved a long time ago by Good who offer secure client software for many smartphones and have been doing so since they got out of the hardware business (they used to sell a device very similar to early BBs).

I can receive both personal and work email on my iPad. EAS for personal, Good for work. I can't do that on the PB (unless it can simultaneously bridge to two different BBs).

[Intosh]

Security, manageability and the like are not sexy, nor simple, subjects of discussion. So "mainstream" reviewers would stick with stuff that average joes can comprehend and with aspects that don't bore them to death. And that's all fine with reviewers because it means less work for them to review the product.