[lexluthorxx]

They don't have to release new 'dumb' tablets...they have been taking them for years. Just listen to the interviews and quotes they are giving out. Thor has a bucket of 'dumb' tablets.

[joshua_sx1]

Again, I don't think that BlackBerry has really an intention to manufacture "dumb" tablets... specifically that its leader believes that it will be dead in 5 years now...

They are just only looking for a grace exit... for not delivering BB10 to PlayBook...

Posted via Z10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

a dumb tablet makes sense on soo many levels

much less support cost overhead
much cheaper tablet for consumers
makes a beefed bridge support possible (what was originally intended for playbook)

How would there be less support cost overhead.... it would still be a very complex device that WILL HAVE PROBLEMS and thus require most everything any other device requires.

Cheaper Tablet? HOW? A few pieces of hardware could be dropped, but battery and screen will still be needed (and 80% of the other hardware). Might save $30 buck in construction cost... but BBRY would still want $300+ for it.

Bridge Support - Wouldn't even be needed, it would just be a display with some input capabilities. Everything would be on the phone.

Personally I'd rather have a Full Tablet with our old Bridge Support.

Don't get me wrong, if they could make a 7" screen for $100 or a 10" for $150 I'd buy one. But if it cost $300 for a 7" screen or $500 for 10" screen then I'd wouldn't even consider it.

BBRY has NEVER been know to be able to price hardware competitively. Yes they were able to sell an 18 month old PlayBook very cheaply once they had written it off as a lost and discontinued it. But look where it began at the same price as an iPad buy half the size. And look at the Z10, it isn't a premium device based on it's hardware specs - but BBRY is asking for a premium price.

[Zedi Master]

How would there be less support cost overhead.... it would still be a very complex device that WILL HAVE PROBLEMS and thus require most everything any other device requires.

Cheaper Tablet? HOW? A few pieces of hardware could be dropped, but battery and screen will still be needed (and 80% of the other hardware). Might save $30 buck in construction cost... but BBRY would still want $300+ for it.

Bridge Support - Wouldn't even be needed, it would just be a display with some input capabilities. Everything would be on the phone.

Personally I'd rather have a Full Tablet with our old Bridge Support.

Don't get me wrong, if they could make a 7" screen for $100 or a 10" for $150 I'd buy one. But if it cost $300 for a 7" screen or $500 for 10" screen then I'd wouldn't even consider it.

BBRY has NEVER been know to be able to price hardware competitively. Yes they were able to sell an 18 month old PlayBook very cheaply once they had written it off as a lost and discontinued it. But look where it began at the same price as an iPad buy half the size. And look at the Z10, it isn't a premium device based on it's hardware specs - but BBRY is asking for a premium price.

Starting from your list comment; what makes a premium device? Just because the Z10 doesn't have a quad core processor doesn't mean it isn't as premium as the other devices that sport the powerful chip. Would you want a 5 litre V8 engine powering your Kawasaki motorcycle?

To me premium is an overall feeling that all your needs are met, even before you realize you need them.

As to the viewscreen; I see the screen as an inexpensive OS-agnostic device that should probably come in at $100.

I'm sure you realize that the CPU and GPU will reside on the phone. The application storage will also be on the phone.

Think of the screen as a thin client. It only needs to be able to output the video stream, and accept touch screen inputs. Beyond that it needs the radios to allow for limited distance data transmission: Bluetooth, NFC, WiFi(direct). And of course a battery.

As for a front-facing camera, why would that be needed? You can do your talking heads thing on the phone.

Less parts, and less proprietary components means lower costs to support the hardware. And the software would be extremely simple.

Posted via CB10

[Zedi Master]

The "concept" is already available in the market (a.k.a. Asus Padfone 2)... and it is not cheap... it cost around US$900...

The "dumb" tablet may look cheap when you buy it separately... but the tablet is useless without buying the phone (its brain)... in the end, you will end up buying two devices... and again, only one of these two devices can stand alone... you may say that it is cheaper than independent tablet (the one that got its own brain)... but when your niece, nephew, own children or even one of your family members started to wrestler with your phone just to let the "dumb" tablet works, you will start to think how dumb you are to buy that tablet... my brother got Asus Padfone 2 and two lovable and super-hyper active children... and he is experiencing it right now...

Why do people cite the PadFone as a reference?

No one is stating that BlackBerry is going to put out a video 'docking station'! There is no way we want to see a screen that has a phone sized slot to slide the phone into!

Don't forget that ultimately the screen will (likely) be compatible with any handset running the appropriate program that will interface wirelessly with the screen.

At this point almost every phone has a cell phone.

Posted via CB10

[uncle_numpty]

Heres a thought - why not just buy a cheap chinese quad core with a retina display and 2 gb of ram put BB10 on it and brand it blackberry and sell it for $300-$400.

Oh wait - we can't do that because there's no money to be made in tablets and bb10 doesn't work at different resolutions without a load of recoding.

[Thunderbuck]

Again, I don't think that BlackBerry has really an intention to manufacture "dumb" tablets... specifically that its leader believes that it will be dead in 5 years now...

They are just only looking for a grace exit... for not delivering BB10 to PlayBook...

Posted via Z10

Actually, when you go back to that "5 year" quote, this is exactly what Heins was talking about. Why maintain OSes on multiple devices, when you can have one "personal" device that you can connect to with a variety of screens, from a 7" tab all the way up to a projection TV?

What Heins was talking about was the demise of the self-contained tablet like the iPad or the PlayBook. And it will be killed by cheap screens that can effortlessly connect to your mobile. To the user, it will actually be a BETTER experience; they only have to buy/install apps on one device, and they only have to sync content to one device.

[joshua_sx1]

Why do people cite the PadFone as a reference?

Because the principle is the same... a dumb tablet (with a larger screen) and a phone that will run it... perhaps what BlackBerry thinking is connecting it wirelessly instead of docking it... but again the principle is the same...


Posted via Z10

[joshua_sx1]

Actually, when you go back to that "5 year" quote, this is exactly what Heins was talking about. Why maintain OSes on multiple devices, when you can have one "personal" device that you can connect to with a variety of screens, from a 7" tab all the way up to a projection TV?

What Heins was talking about was the demise of the self-contained tablet like the iPad or the PlayBook. And it will be killed by cheap screens that can effortlessly connect to your mobile. To the user, it will actually be a BETTER experience; they only have to buy/install apps on one device, and they only have to sync content to one device.

This will definitely work if by that time, there is only one OS running all mobiles... otherwise, the "dumb" tablet of "i" may not work with "dumb" tablet of "A"... and vice versa...


Posted via Z10

[Gooseberry Falls]

Well, BBRY really needs to dissect Moogle's failed foray into this arena. Motorola phones (Bionic, Razr, Razr Maxx) had a special interface program called Webtop. This allowed the phone to operate linux and later android to a HDTV (via adapter) or 10.1" Lapdock, e.g. dumb terminal. The connection to the phone was via HDMI out cable and microUSB out cable (power). The phone turned into a mouse input device when connected. The technology was abandoned by Google when they bought Motorola. So the newer Moto phones, Razr HD, Razr M, and Razr Maxx HD don't have the Webtop program. The "dumb" Lapdock (more netbook-like) was a $500 accessory. It is/was firesaled at around $60. I got one at $60 and it works OK but it is a pain to set up. So, yes, if it could be DLNA, WiDi, or Miracast, that would be better. Currently, this technology is pretty rare in the wild, e.g. hotel rooms, living rooms, etc. So maybe in 5-10 years it would be more commonplace if an accepted "standard" emerges. It is just not a novel idea...

[Chaddface]

This will definitely work if by that time, there is only one OS running all mobiles... otherwise, the "dumb" tablet of "i" may not work with "dumb" tablet of "A"... and vice versa...


Posted via Z10

It could work cross platform if they used technology like Miracast needing only an app to interpret touch commands. Of course the screen of "i" will only work with "i" but "B","A","W" might work together. The technology is meant to work across different manufacturers using standards.

[bluenote]

Actually, when you go back to that "5 year" quote, this is exactly what Heins was talking about. Why maintain OSes on multiple devices, when you can have one "personal" device that you can connect to with a variety of screens, from a 7" tab all the way up to a projection TV?

What Heins was talking about was the demise of the self-contained tablet like the iPad or the PlayBook. And it will be killed by cheap screens that can effortlessly connect to your mobile. To the user, it will actually be a BETTER experience; they only have to buy/install apps on one device, and they only have to sync content to one device.

Until your phone breaks while you are on a business trip. And then you can't work at all.
So you end up carrying an extra phone just in case. Now you have 3 devices--2 phones and a dumb screen.

[FF22]

Actually, when you go back to that "5 year" quote, this is exactly what Heins was talking about. Why maintain OSes on multiple devices, when you can have one "personal" device that you can connect to with a variety of screens, from a 7" tab all the way up to a projection TV?

What Heins was talking about was the demise of the self-contained tablet like the iPad or the PlayBook. And it will be killed by cheap screens that can effortlessly connect to your mobile. To the user, it will actually be a BETTER experience; they only have to buy/install apps on one device, and they only have to sync content to one device.

Well, then they (bb) had better work on their base - there's a complaint in the q10 forums. Apparently, the only way to see full-size hdmi output is via the video app. Any other video shows up as a smaller constrained window.

[Zedi Master]

Because the principle is the same... a dumb tablet (with a larger screen) and a phone that will run it... perhaps what BlackBerry thinking is connecting it wirelessly instead of docking it... but again the principle is the same...


Posted via Z10

But the cost of the PadFone and it's apparent failure to capture interest in the market are therefore discounted from the argument.

Posted via CB10

[dugggggg]

The basic concept has actually been around for over two decades. It's called a windowing system. Suppose Thor names the device the PlayWindow (PW).

The phone simply runs an app, which communicates with the PW. The PW is dumb in that it only handles basic user interface functions which are totally independent of the brand of phone used. But the PW is smart in that in the screen would likely be bigger and/or higher res than the phone. The PW may also incorporate some QNX UI gestures like "peek", for example. Or it could have hardware the phone may lack, such as an HDMI port or an SD card.

There would be a PW App for BB10 devices, one for Android devices, one for Apple devices, etc.

The idea definitely has potential.

[lawguyman]

The basic concept has actually been around for over two decades. It's called a windowing system. Suppose Thor names the device the PlayWindow (PW).

The phone simply runs an app, which communicates with the PW. The PW is dumb in that it only handles basic user interface functions which are totally independent of the brand of phone used. But the PW is smart in that in the screen would likely be bigger and/or higher res than the phone. The PW may also incorporate some QNX UI gestures like "peek", for example. Or it could have hardware the phone may lack, such as an HDMI port or an SD card.

There would be a PW App for BB10 devices, one for Android devices, one for Apple devices, etc.

The idea definitely has potential.

The idea of a Cross-Platform bridge of sorts is attractive but I think going too far. BlackBerry needs to have their own tablet or else it will continue to lose customers. What other company would willingly introduce it's customers to competitors' products? It's crazy talk.

Posted via CB10

[lnichols]

Don't just concentrate on the BOM. A dumb device would cost BB a lot less to support, too.

Let's go another way here. Say you're a developer, and you've done up a BB10 phone app. If a native BB10 tablet were to appear, there's a good chance you might have to alter your code to get it to work properly. Then there's the question of whether you offer the tablet version to customers who bought the phone version, or who might have bought the previous PlayBook version. And would it even be worth doing special work for a tablet version if the tablet sells badly? It gets surprisingly tricky.

The dumb tablet strategy eliminates all these questions. It doesn't just simplify the device, it simplifies the business.

Again if you pay not much less for a dumb screen that requires you to have a $550 to $600 phone to make it work then you would for a Google Nexus or Kindle Fire self sufficient, then where would it be successful. Definitely not consumer market. Business it would be niche as many are looking to use iPads anyway. Sorry but I don't see a dumb screen as being a major success. They'd be better off just making a a tablet with same specs and screen resolutions as the phones and get cost efficiencies via economies of scale. Apps would work just fine with zero alterations like this.

And again I don't think their is such a thing as a "cheap screen". Look at how much the Z10 replacement is. You still need most of the components of a self contained tablet to pull off a dumb screen.

[Thunderbuck]

This will definitely work if by that time, there is only one OS running all mobiles... otherwise, the "dumb" tablet of "i" may not work with "dumb" tablet of "A"... and vice versa...


Posted via Z10

BB is adopting Miracast and WiFi-Direct in 10.2, both industry standards. All kinds of current Samsung phones would be usable with it, at least for media browsing.

The value BB could add here would be to make the OS smart enough to recognize when it's being rendered on a different sized screen and adjust the UI accordingly.

From the awesome virtual keyboard of my Z10

[Thunderbuck]

...And again I don't think their is such a thing as a "cheap screen". Look at how much the Z10 replacement is. You still need most of the components of a self contained tablet to pull off a dumb screen.

From a purely hardware point of view you're right, but you're not thinking of the incremental business costs.

The "dumb" approach eliminates the need to maintain a specific OS version for the device, or provide user support for it at the same level, or have developers decide if the need to alter code for it. There's a lot of win here, assuming it works.



From the awesome virtual keyboard of my Z10

[lawguyman]

BB is adopting Miracast and WiFi-Direct in 10.2, both industry standards. All kinds of current Samsung phones would be usable with it, at least for media browsing.

The value BB could add here would be to make the OS smart enough to recognize when it's being rendered on a different sized screen and adjust the UI accordingly.

From the awesome virtual keyboard of my Z10

All you would be able to do with Miracast is project the screen from the phone onto the tablet. You could not control it from the tablet.

If you want the tablet to do more, now you no longer have a dumb tablet like you want to have. You now also have to develop a way to control on the tablet content that is projected.

Posted via CB10

[Zedi Master]

All you would be able to do with Miracast is project the screen from the phone onto the tablet. You could not control it from the tablet.

If you want the tablet to do more, now you no longer have a dumb tablet like you want to have. You now also have to develop a way to control on the tablet content that is projected.

Posted via CB10

Other than the archaic physical home button that Apple has, all interactions can be performed on the screen.

All the screen needs to do is to send the information as to what touch gestures were used to the phone. No OS specific interpretations are done on the screen. User swiped up from the bottom in the center of the screen, okay communicate that. User pressed an area on the screen 1 inch from the left and 1/2 inch from the button for a brief time, communicate that.

Does your basic mouse require a lot of processing power? Your keyboard? Or is it off-loaded to the computer?

Posted via CB10

[jpash549]

Dumb screens already abound. You can connect your PB to your TV with HDMI or if you have a smart TV by wireless. Really smart TVs allow you to play games on them. So is the problem making a portable dumb screen? Believe that also is done by service people who carry a wide variety of smaller devices to input information to the mothership which now can be a large server which has the processing software. No reason why it couldn't be a small server like in a phone except the phone currently is not quite powerful enough. But there would seem to be no reason why a meager version of this could not be done with the playbook right now using a Splashtop or RDM+ approach. Maybe that's how we get to run BB10 on the Playbook.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using CB Forums mobile app

[sad_old_man]

From a purely hardware point of view you're right, but you're not thinking of the incremental business costs.

The "dumb" approach eliminates the need to maintain a specific OS version for the device, or provide user support for it at the same level, or have developers decide if the need to alter code for it. There's a lot of win here, assuming it works.



From the awesome virtual keyboard of my Z10

I just love this forum, just love it! I don't think I've been associated with so many people who's heads are so far up their arses that they just want to bleat about anything!!!!!!

From day one on this forum I've heard the same thing. PB failed due to lack of apps. Same on the review sites and I even did a poll on the subject and the 'lack of apps' was the biggest reason for people not being happy with their pb.

BB 10 is no different and we spend all this time babbling garbage about cost and relative usefulness of a dumb tablet and not one person has actually realised that after lugging your 50 inch dumb screen around with you and manage to get yourself a seat on a park bench with the rest of the misfits, all you'll do is tippy tappy away on your tiny little handset moaning about lack of apps on your handset to us poor listeners on crackberry. They can make a 200 inch plasma multitronic intelligent display with built in toaster and panini press, but it's still **** if you have nothing to display on it. At least you'll see your comments about lack of apps in high res on your big dumb screen!

Now come on boys its make your mind up time. Is it apps or hardware that pisses you off the most with the pb?

[Thunderbuck]

All you would be able to do with Miracast is project the screen from the phone onto the tablet. You could not control it from the tablet.

If you want the tablet to do more, now you no longer have a dumb tablet like you want to have. You now also have to develop a way to control on the tablet content that is projected.

Posted via CB10

Of course the tablet would be able to control the phone. That's the point. If you want to be pedantic and insist that Miracast is one-way, let's leave it out of the equation and say it's all done through WiFi-Direct.

The Tablet would be able to communicate with the phone. The phone would know the tablet was connected, and would render according to the tablet's resolution and orientation. It would know the orientation, because the phone would also have full access to the tablet's sensors.

The tablet would, from the user's point of view, give just as good an experience as it would if the phone's hardware and OS were running natively on the tablet itself. The only two drawbacks are that the phone would need to remain within a range where the WiFi-Direct would be able to maintain connection, and that the phone's battery drain would be significant.

[lawguyman]

Of course the tablet would be able to control the phone. That's the point. If you want to be pedantic and insist that Miracast is one-way, let's leave it out of the equation and say it's all done through WiFi-Direct.

The Tablet would be able to communicate with the phone. The phone would know the tablet was connected, and would render according to the tablet's resolution and orientation. It would know the orientation, because the phone would also have full access to the tablet's sensors.

The tablet would, from the user's point of view, give just as good an experience as it would if the phone's hardware and OS were running natively on the tablet itself. The only two drawbacks are that the phone would need to remain within a range where the WiFi-Direct would be able to maintain connection, and that the phone's battery drain would be significant.

You're describing something more complicated than just building a tablet that runs bb10. Plus, it has no advantages over a real tablet that is bridged to a phone.

BB10 already exists. You want to build another os. It seems crazy to me.

Posted via CB10