04-06-12 12:13 AM
133 123 ...
tools
  1. purijagmohan's Avatar
    I think Playbook Tablet was a major strategic blunder by RIM.A tablet without apps would never sell.Instead of a tablet If RIM had come up with a 4.3 inch IPOD like device, while cranking out OS 7 devices earlier say around 2010 end, they would have a better chance of succeeding.

    They IPOD-like device would have the phone software tested and they could have given away the hardware for cheap,So that when their BES was ready for QNX they could have launched phone.

    Instead they went the tablet route and that's not helping at all.

    EDIT: Looks like there is a confusion.What I mean is BB10 1.0 software on BB London hardware without 3G/4G connectivity.A IPOD TOUCH Like device.
    Last edited by purijagmohan; 04-02-12 at 03:07 AM.
    04-01-12 11:45 PM
  2. bitek's Avatar
    I love my "blunder"

    Sent from my BlackBerry Runtime for Android Apps using Tapatalk
    04-01-12 11:53 PM
  3. ssbtech's Avatar
    So you're saying you wanted a 4.3" tablet?
    04-01-12 11:57 PM
  4. kemj's Avatar
    You gotta be kidding. RIM betting its future on a smart mp3 player... Pfff
    04-02-12 12:00 AM
  5. SK122387's Avatar
    An iPod like device from RIM would probably have been a huge mistake. RIM has made no secret of their struggle to appeal to consumers, so why would they make an entirely media-centric device?


    None of this matters. There's no going back to 2010.
    kemj likes this.
    04-02-12 12:02 AM
  6. Rello's Avatar
    Ummmmm OP, your thread is a good year and a half late.

    And I have to disagree.....a ipod device would've been a terrible idea. The tablet was definitely the best option of a bad situation
    04-02-12 02:05 AM
  7. sam_b77's Avatar
    Most absurd post I've read in a while and thats saying a lot in a forum full of absurd posts.
    undone, kbz1960, Bobcat665 and 3 others like this.
    04-02-12 02:30 AM
  8. purijagmohan's Avatar
    Sorry I don't see how tablet was a better option.First of all tablet software resources merely delayed the phone software.When I say IPOD like, what I mean is BB10 1.0 software in a BB LONDON Hardware.

    It would have meant that all resources would have have been working on the BB 10 software instead of focusing on tablet software.I know tablet software is similar but not same.RIM has a resources crunch, so they could have focused only on BB10.

    They merely sold 1 million playbook units in first year.So don't think they would have done worse if they sold at 200 dollar a unit.
    04-02-12 02:37 AM
  9. ekv's Avatar
    An mp3 player with qnx from RIM ?

    Why do you feel it would compete with ipod and sell enough to make devs create apps for it.

    They do not have a music store like itunes. MS spent lot of money with zune. Still they did not even go near the ipod. RIM does not have that kind of money or marketing power.



    Sent from my BlackBerry 9900 using Tapatalk
    04-02-12 02:44 AM
  10. Wretch 12's Avatar
    The PlayBook is a great device, and it's a great way of developing a base of applications for the BBX/BB10 platform.
    polytope likes this.
    04-02-12 02:55 AM
  11. sam_b77's Avatar
    Alright I'll take this one.

    So you are basically saying that RIM should have gone on ahead to work on launching BB10 phones directly without wasting time on the PB. While you have a point in that there are other things to consider.

    QNX was a recent acquisition and the OS developed is still in an early stage. It has nowhere near the level of evolution of BBOS.

    Phones are RIM's reason for existence and if they had put QNX 1.0 on phones then you can imagine the furore. The company would have died in two quarters flat. if they had not come up with OS 7 then they wouldn't have shipped 11 million devices because there would have been no takers for QNX 1.0 on phones.

    Even the 2.0 evolution is a far cray away from phone deployment. A lot of things have to be worked out like notifications, sound profiles, always on messaging app etc. If you compare QNX 2.0 and BBOS7 then from a phone standpoint the BBOS7 is far more capable.

    In a sense RIM made a tablet running QNX 1.0 as proving grounds. The tablet was a novelty and nothing much was expected from it. Even Apple couldn't have predicted the success of a device which is basically a gadget lover's wet dream.
    RIM took a write down for sure on the tablet but at least it could afford the write down as it still had money coming in from phone sales. Imagine taking a write down on QNX 1.0 phones and no sales at all. RIM would have folded by now.

    Today they are in a much better position. They will have the third generation QNX os on Phones. This is the most important fact. Third generation not first generation. They now have a good sense of whats missing and what needs to be worked upon. The harsh critics are good as RIM gets to know what the customers are missing and need. And most importantly they got the Apps for QNX rolling. Sure you might say that QNX Apps are only in thousands while Apple and Android has millions. But at least thousands are better than none which is what would have happened if QNX 1.0 was popped into phones.
    04-02-12 02:59 AM
  12. daveycrocket's Avatar
    Alright I'll take this one.

    So you are basically saying that RIM should have gone on ahead to work on launching BB10 phones directly without wasting time on the PB. While you have a point in that there are other things to consider.

    QNX was a recent acquisition and the OS developed is still in an early stage. It has nowhere near the level of evolution of BBOS.

    Phones are RIM's reason for existence and if they had put QNX 1.0 on phones then you can imagine the furore. The company would have died in two quarters flat. if they had not come up with OS 7 then they wouldn't have shipped 11 million devices because there would have been no takers for QNX 1.0 on phones.

    Even the 2.0 evolution is a far cray away from phone deployment. A lot of things have to be worked out like notifications, sound profiles, always on messaging app etc. If you compare QNX 2.0 and BBOS7 then from a phone standpoint the BBOS7 is far more capable.

    In a sense RIM made a tablet running QNX 1.0 as proving grounds. The tablet was a novelty and nothing much was expected from it. Even Apple couldn't have predicted the success of a device which is basically a gadget lover's wet dream.
    RIM took a write down for sure on the tablet but at least it could afford the write down as it still had money coming in from phone sales. Imagine taking a write down on QNX 1.0 phones and no sales at all. RIM would have folded by now.

    Today they are in a much better position. They will have the third generation QNX os on Phones. This is the most important fact. Third generation not first generation. They now have a good sense of whats missing and what needs to be worked upon. The harsh critics are good as RIM gets to know what the customers are missing and need. And most importantly they got the Apps for QNX rolling. Sure you might say that QNX Apps are only in thousands while Apple and Android has millions. But at least thousands are better than none which is what would have happened if QNX 1.0 was popped into phones.
    OP, I have to ask, what made you think of this point? I'm not taking the "mick" I would like to know.
    04-02-12 03:41 AM
  13. madman0141's Avatar
    I'm sorry you don't like your PlayBook anymore.
    04-02-12 04:02 AM
  14. sam_b77's Avatar
    I'm sorry you don't like your PlayBook anymore.
    Was that comment for me?
    04-02-12 04:05 AM
  15. daveycrocket's Avatar
    Common business sense and following what has happened to the market and RIM. I have the Playbook and I cringe imagining the same OS on a phone. Its fine for the tablet experience and it makes a nice OS. But even when OS 2 came out the notifications are week.
    For Eg, if I lower the volume of media even the notification volume goes down. Such a simple thing but RIM hasn't gotten around to correct it. While the BBOS 7 and all BBOS's before this used to handle the different volumes like a charm. The QNX 1 would have been a nightmare on phones.
    sam_77 my appologies, being old I pressed the quote tab as I was reading and agreeing with your post, my post was meant for the original poster.
    04-02-12 04:06 AM
  16. sam_b77's Avatar
    sam_77 my appologies, being old I pressed the quote tab as I was reading and agreeing with your post, my post was meant for the original poster.
    I was also confused....I should have clarified
    daveycrocket likes this.
    04-02-12 04:14 AM
  17. husainpatan's Avatar
    Sorry I don't see how tablet was a better option.First of all tablet software resources merely delayed the phone software.When I say IPOD like, what I mean is BB10 1.0 software in a BB LONDON Hardware.

    It would have meant that all resources would have have been working on the BB 10 software instead of focusing on tablet software.I know tablet software is similar but not same.RIM has a resources crunch, so they could have focused only on BB10.

    They merely sold 1 million playbook units in first year.So don't think they would have done worse if they sold at 200 dollar a unit.
    LMAO
    I can only laugh at ur explanation. Such big words. I praise rim for not having people like u at top.

    Now face the truth: *YOU ARE FISHING HERE*
    Last edited by husainpatan; 04-02-12 at 04:56 AM.
    kikloo likes this.
    04-02-12 04:51 AM
  18. lnichols's Avatar
    Yes because Apple only has the iPad/tablet market wrapped up, an iPod competitor would have surely stolen marketshare as the iPod doesn't have the MP3 player market wrapped up . Apples iPod sales are declining because people are buying the iPhone and iPad instead. Mp3 player market is declining in general, because smartphones can do all they can anyway. Tablet market is young and growing. RIM's mistake was launching an unfinished OS, promising to quickly add the missing features, then taking almost a year to deliver a self sufficient tablet. Who would have bought a RIM iPod Touch with no e-mail, no apps, no BBM, substandard music player and video player, etc. Tablet had the most potential, RIM just botched it horribly. If BB10 rollout is anything like the Playbook rollout RIM will be done.
    04-02-12 08:56 AM
  19. pkcable's Avatar
    The "blunder" was in the marketing, and the too slow development of the OS. And by marketing I also mean marketing themselves to interested developers.

    2 things can be said though, they DID make a great tablet, the hardware is incedible, and at least they tried, the free playbook for an app offer for example.
    kikloo likes this.
    04-02-12 09:23 AM
  20. dynot's Avatar
    As an occasional critic of RIM's misteps and questionable decisions over the past year or so, I can tell you that the Playbook was definitely the best thing they've done lately, especially with the OS upgrade. I bought one recently and find it (for my purposes) far more convenient to have a small form factor with the added benefit of bridging to my phone.

    Furthermore, I found myself downloading far more apps than I anticipated (so much so that I had to return a 16gb for a 32gb version). There are now about 70,000 apps in AppWorld, sufficient for my (and probably most people's needs). "Over a million apps" is just a marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned.

    As some have said already, the statement the OP is making is totally absurd. If you think that the media and all RIM's critics have been harsh until now, could you imagine what it would be like if RIM came out with their own version of an iPod! Besides, do you really think there's room for such a device given the advances of smartphones and the rising popularity of tablets?
    04-02-12 09:25 AM
  21. chi-town311's Avatar
    Sorry I don't see how tablet was a better option.First of all tablet software resources merely delayed the phone software.When I say IPOD like, what I mean is BB10 1.0 software in a BB LONDON Hardware.

    It would have meant that all resources would have have been working on the BB 10 software instead of focusing on tablet software.I know tablet software is similar but not same.RIM has a resources crunch, so they could have focused only on BB10.

    They merely sold 1 million playbook units in first year.So don't think they would have done worse if they sold at 200 dollar a unit.
    Just wondering - how is "tablet" software different from phone software? The phone will run the same apps on a unified OS. Any app will work on the phone. The tablet OS is BB10. There is no difference. Besides adding a phone calling app.
    04-02-12 09:45 AM
  22. kbz1960's Avatar
    Post #11 should be the default response to anyone with these silly ideas.
    Barljo and sam_b77 like this.
    04-02-12 09:57 AM
  23. sam_b77's Avatar
    Post #11 should be the default response to anyone with these silly ideas.
    Thank you. I was thinking if I should weigh in or not, but some of us should way in from time to time in between all the absurdities going on.
    kbz1960 likes this.
    04-02-12 10:02 AM
  24. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    Lemme play devil's advcoate here.

    Without taking it personally, and looking at what the PB has done financially for the company in the last year, can you see where the opening premise might have some merit?

    Can't you see why a fair-minded outsider might say RIM was better off without the PB in the short run? Yes, I am tying the argument into short run for now.
    04-02-12 10:05 AM
  25. kbz1960's Avatar
    Lemme play devil's advcoate here.

    Without taking it personally, and looking at what the PB has done financially for the company in the last year, can you see where the opening premise might have some merit?

    Can't you see why a fair-minded outsider might say RIM was better off without the PB in the short run? Yes, I am tying the argument into short run for now.
    Perhaps for someone that just joined or knows nothing about RIM or the PB. The OP joined in 2010 although only has 212 posts. Would think they have been at least reading.
    04-02-12 10:10 AM
133 123 ...
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD
";