I won't post the whole tet here simply because my point is that there is not a single mention of the Playbook. Ignorance or bad publicity job from RIM's side?
I won't post the whole tet here simply because my point is that there is not a single mention of the Playbook. Ignorance or bad publicity job from RIM's side?
Why would you want it to be mentionned in an Apple propaganda?
In any case, the Playbook's price is still unknown so no point of mentionning it in the article.
I think its 50/50 but not ignorance but outright bias.
The last few articles in the wall street journal even that I read recently paints a tablet universe of "apple vs. Motorola" without even a hat tipped at RIM. Not even a mention.
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
I think the problem is that BlackBerry hasn't targeted the consumer market in the last couple years. I mean, sure the BlackBerry's great for enterprise users, but iPhones and Android phones can target tweens to professionals, sustained largely in part to their diverse application offerings.
The best thing about BlackBerry (with the flop of the Torch, anyways) is its great keyboard. As a whole, blackberry's touch capabilities are really lacking... but I'm straying from my point.
The Playbook, on web OS, doesn't have the massive app libraries that the Apple platform, and to a lesser degree Android, has developed over the years. It's difficult to understand, to my mind at least, who RIM is targeting in terms of market segments. The iPad - Android Tablet comparison makes sense as they're both really similar, historically, so where Playbook fits is .. a little foggy.
Why doesn't bb just do a commercial blitz in the comming month.I mean it should be comming out soon :S. They need to get more exposure than their website and here really. I mean yeagh the people in my wow guilds bbm only know about it because I mentioned "hey who's getting the playbook" on one out of the 10 that is on there knew about before I refered them to here now 8 of them want it.
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
I think the problem is that BlackBerry hasn't targeted the consumer market in the last couple years. I mean, sure the BlackBerry's great for enterprise users, but iPhones and Android phones can target tweens to professionals, sustained largely in part to their diverse application offerings.
The best thing about BlackBerry (with the flop of the Torch, anyways) is its great keyboard. As a whole, blackberry's touch capabilities are really lacking... but I'm straying from my point.
The Playbook, on web OS, doesn't have the massive app libraries that the Apple platform, and to a lesser degree Android, has developed over the years. It's difficult to understand, to my mind at least, who RIM is targeting in terms of market segments. The iPad - Android Tablet comparison makes sense as they're both really similar, historically, so where Playbook fits is .. a little foggy.
What are all those statements in bold based on?
Originally Posted by soulwolf
Why doesn't bb just do a commercial blitz in the comming month.I mean it should be comming out soon :S. They need to get more exposure than their website and here really. I mean yeagh the people in my wow guilds bbm only know about it because I mentioned "hey who's getting the playbook" on one out of the 10 that is on there knew about before I refered them to here now 8 of them want it.
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
What's wrong with commercials after the product is released?
I won't post the whole tet here simply because my point is that there is not a single mention of the Playbook. Ignorance or bad publicity job from RIM's side?
The PlayBook doesn't have a price, so why would it be mentioned?
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
I think its 50/50 but not ignorance but outright bias.
The last few articles in the wall street journal even that I read recently paints a tablet universe of "apple vs. Motorola" without even a hat tipped at RIM. Not even a mention.
Now i've re-read it, i'd say 60-40 heh!
But yea, some people are just either uninformed or ignorant to the PlayBook.
Apple buys key components used across a wide range of devices with large amounts of cash. They can get components much cheaper by doing this then someone working off credit. Their aren't many tech companies out there that can drop $8 billion dollars cash on "strategic components" like Apple did, and they just dropped another $3.9 billion cash on something new. RIM only has $2.5 billion cash on hand total, Apple has almost $60 billion.
The PlayBook doesn't have a price, so why would it be mentioned?
Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com
The least they could've done is address the rumours of the proposed $499 price that are everywhere. It's a substantial issue in regards to the article.
Apple buys key components used across a wide range of devices with large amounts of cash. They can get components much cheaper by doing this then someone working off credit. Their aren't many tech companies out there that can drop $8 billion dollars cash on "strategic components" like Apple did, and they just dropped another $3.9 billion cash on something new. RIM only has $2.5 billion cash on hand total, Apple has almost $60 billion.
Yup money talks. Who do you think I'm going to make sure got the best pricing and the components they needed when they needed even if meant delaying another company order
The least they could've done is address the rumours of the proposed $499 price that are everywhere. It's a substantial issue in regards to the article.
Wired Writers should stick to Tech news and not business speculation.
Apples business model on the iPad, the components used, and the distribution model all give give Apple some great advantages with moving the iPad,
The Writer brings up the fact that the Xoom's comparable iPad is 10% less, though he doesn't put it in percentage points, so the difference is not grand,
The lack of comparable devices currently priced on the market leaves this article as very much a Grab for attention with no supporting elements,
There is a major lack of supporting data as to why other tablets can't be made at the same price point as the iPad.
That article reeks of market dictatorship by Apple, "relatively puny 7-inch screen" Galaxy tab? I'm sorry but not everyone wants a fricking 2 lbs 10" tablet, holding that thing for longer than 5 minutes becomes encumbering, the Galaxy tab weighs less than 1 lbs and 7" is much more suitable for fitting in coat pockets and bags. And the iPad isn't the first either, that's one thing Apple is good at doing- fooling the consumers.
Also CNN are fairly biased, nearly every one of their employees uses an Apple product of some kind, you see reporters using iPhones/iPods and MBP's on the deks around the studio.
I won't post the whole tet here simply because my point is that there is not a single mention of the Playbook. Ignorance or bad publicity job from RIM's side?
I stopped reading that POS article at the second sentence of the third paragraph that read: "The iPad is still the first, and best-selling, product of its kind."
While you cannot argue it is the best selling product of its kind, it is nowhere near the first. If the author is going to write an article like this, they should at least use facts. IMO, that tipped me off to some hidden fanboism.
As far as the OPs point, even without finishing the article, I can understand his point. While I partly agree, I think its mostly due to more Apple fanboism and/or ignorance on the subject matter. I don't think anyone who has done research on tabs can not know about the PB and have run across some marketing by RIM. Or, the author of the article knows all about the PB but including it in the article would not have supported his argument. Just like Michael Moore... only discuss that which supports your claim, and nothing to the contrary.
. Then the Palmfolio. Both *huge* successes. :>
