[scorpiodsu]

Not my words....

HP calls BlackBerry PlayBook a webOS ripoff; RIM responds | BGR

[Rickroller]

RIM's response..

“I feel that we set out from the ground up to define a user experience that we felt would delight our customers"

"In fact, I think QNX had that design lined up before we even started working with them.”

Bit of a contradiction isn't it?

In other words.."Does it look like webOS? Huh..that was never our intention *shrug*"

I think it's funny..especially HP's response: "we’ll keep innovating, we’ll keep honing and those guys hopefully will continue to see the value in it and keep following us by about a year"

Poke poke..jab jab lol.

Either way..i think the PB looks great, and I'm excited to see it in person.

[scorpiodsu]

Yeah that was a nice jab by HP but they have to come out with some good products before they can start these kinds of wars.

[Rickroller]

Lol..true dat

[scorpiodsu]

How does he "think" QNX had the designed before. Shouldn't he KNOW? LOL. When you have the facts and are innocent, you don't "think". Funny stuff.

[barrist]

noone really cares outside these types of forums and blogs.

you think all the OSes in the world haven't been lifted in some aspects from other ones?

the typical consumer is only going to see one thing. RIM came out with the Playbook before the Touchpad, and it'll look like the Touchpad is a Playbook Knock-off.

here, try this. ask someone in the street if they care that the Blackberry Tablet's OS looks like WebOS? They'll probably answer, "what the **** is WebOS?"

[Rickroller]

here, try this. ask someone in the street if they care that the Blackberry Tablet's OS looks like WebOS? They'll probably answer, "what the **** is WebOS?"

Not to mention, "wtf is the Blackberry Tablet?", and "wtf is an OS?" lol

[scorpiodsu]

Not to mention, "wtf is the Blackberry Tablet?", and "wtf is an OS?" lol

Yeah or "what's a playbook?.... you mean like the things football teams use?"

[barrist]

Quite easy to explain what the Playbook is. I usually say it's Blackberry's answer to the iPad. Done.

[scorpiodsu]

Quite easy to explain what the Playbook is. I usually say it's Blackberry's answer to the iPad. Done.

Yeah but you have to tell them what it is. Most don't even know RIM has a tablet coming. That's the point. But you don't have to defend RIM and the playbook so hard. We're just talking about HP saying RIM copied their OS and RIM's sketchy response to it.

[barrist]

Yeah but you have to tell them what it is. Most don't even know RIM has a tablet coming. That's the point. But you don't have to defend RIM and the playbook so hard. We're just talking about HP saying RIM copied their OS and RIM's sketchy response to it.

so hard?

lol sure

[scorpiodsu]

so hard?

lol sure

Yes. You're going hard to defend it. That's not necessary. It was just a little entertaining to read that exchange between RIM and HP. Not about whether consumers know what a touchpad is because in all honest (just like you said), outside these boards, few know what a playbook is. I bet I can walk up to 10 blackberry users and just say "Are you getting a playbook" and maybe 2 of them will know what I'm talking about. But that's neither here nor there because I don't care who has a bigger name recognition between the 2. RIMs sketchy response was almost reinforcing HP's claim even though they are irrelevant right now.

[Steve Rizla]

Yeah, every computer today which has wires, lights and runs on electricity ripped off ENIAC.

[scorpiodsu]

Yeah, every computer today which has wires, lights and runs on electricity ripped off ENIAC.

I see you completely when the other way. It's one thing for devices to use components like a screen and wires and an entirely different thing to copy someone else's OS. I'm not saying they did but you went completely outside the box, so far that it doesn't make sense.

[Steve Rizla]

I see you completely when the other way. It's one thing for devices to use components like a screen and wires and an entirely different thing to copy someone else's OS. I'm not saying they did but you went completely outside the box, so far that it doesn't make sense.

So, if a new tablet OS enters the market, what should they do about closing their apps since swiping up and using an X in the corner of the screen are already taken? User interfaces eventually become similar to other user interfaces.

[sivan]

PlayBook UI is so far uninspiring, all we're seeing is the underlying OS performance and 3D capabilities. At least webOS remains innovative.

So far we've barely seen any native UI widgets, most demos are either chrome-less or feature a custom animated UI, like the crazy stuff from TAT. RIM's biggest weakness is precisely in creating native widgets that look good and are easily usable by 3rd party developers.

One also has to wonder how RIM can talk about "professional grade" security but at the same time announce support for every runtime under the sun. Each of those come with its own security model.

I don't understand what they're doing, especially given a month left before launch. But let's see.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[scorpiodsu]

So, if a new tablet OS enters the market, what should they do about closing their apps since swiping up and using an X in the corner of the screen are already taken? User interfaces eventually become similar to other user interfaces.

I don't disagree. But I think it's a little in just how it looks. It's also about how it functions and how you do things that makes something a copy or not. Like I said, I don't know enough about the playbook/QNX to agree or disagree with HP. But comparing hardware components like wires to an OS is 2 completely different things. I think we should be able to agree on that. If not, that's fine.

[Steve Rizla]

I don't disagree. But I think it's a little in just how it looks. It's also about how it functions and how you do things that makes something a copy or not. Like I said, I don't know enough about the playbook/QNX to agree or disagree with HP. But comparing hardware components like wires to an OS is 2 completely different things. I think we should be able to agree on that. If not, that's fine.

I agree

My post was meant to put the message out there.

[sam_b77]

Well in that vein Apple can (and does) claim that the entire Tablet concept was copied from them.
Frankly, I just find it difficult to believe that after the iPad's launch, all the other companies stood up, snapped their fingers and developed their own tablets in under ten months. And if they did just that, then one has to hand it to RIM, HP, Motorola etc for being so quick off the mark.
I'm sure RIM, HP etc had their devices in development long before the iPad, it's just that iPad was in the market earliest (not surprising since they ported the iphone os to the ipad without changing a thing). And if they were in development for a year or two before iPad's launch, then how can one company claim that their OS was copied, when no one even knew what's on offer....simply fog thrown up by the Marketing Suits....

[Phil DeLong]

Alright, I'll say it.


When I first saw the PlayBook OS, the first thing I thought was webOS. Based off purely the looks, there are some striking similarities.

[StaticFX]

sure its similar - but its not a rip off. and HP sucks anyway... i will never buy another hp product. Ive been burned one to many times by their junk.

[barrist]

If HP feels it has a strong case (and not just throwing a hissyfit to get it's tablet in the news) then they should have no problem filing a lawsuit right? these companies sue each other like its going out of style.

[scorpiodsu]

If HP feels it has a strong case (and not just throwing a hissyfit to get it's tablet in the news) then they should have no problem filing a lawsuit right? these companies sue each other like its going out of style.

I know right. They sue each other, it drags on for years and then nothing happens. They agree to stuff behind closed doors and never heard about again.

[i7guy]

Well in that vein Apple can (and does) claim that the entire Tablet concept was copied from them.
Frankly, I just find it difficult to believe that after the iPad's launch, all the other companies stood up, snapped their fingers and developed their own tablets in under ten months. And if they did just that, then one has to hand it to RIM, HP, Motorola etc for being so quick off the mark.
I'm sure RIM, HP etc had their devices in development long before the iPad, it's just that iPad was in the market earliest (not surprising since they ported the iphone os to the ipad without changing a thing). And if they were in development for a year or two before iPad's launch, then how can one company claim that their OS was copied, when no one even knew what's on offer....simply fog thrown up by the Marketing Suits....

Apple can say anything it wants that is within the law, doesn't have to be true. I remember getting my hands on a windows XP tablet before the ipad was ever announced

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[scorpiodsu]

Well in that vein Apple can (and does) claim that the entire Tablet concept was copied from them.

They didn't say the entire tablet concept was copied from them. Maybe you should go watch the presentation. It's available on Apple's site. Even Jobs said that many tablets came before them and crashed and burned. Those were his exact words. So he acknowledges that they didn't create the tablet. What he does acknowledge also is that now companies all of a sudden want to come out with a bunch of tablets since the iPad has been so successful. While they were probably scared or didn't even think about a tablet before, they now have a zillion of them coming out. So while they didn't create tablets that made tablets relevant AND they put an OS on it that is easy to use. Other companies vision of a tablet was basically to do the same thing that a PC can do. Apple was the first to put an OS on it that was different than PC and become successful.