01-06-12 03:26 PM
167 ... 567
tools
  1. Economist101's Avatar
    See, I think a case could be made that when the iPad sales numbers came out a little soft, analysts settled on the first sensible explanation. And, indeed, maybe it WAS the Kindle that did it. We don't know.

    I don't think it's impossible that the iPad is maturing as a product, though, either, and maybe its sales are leveling until its own refresh comes up.
    iPad numbers haven't been reported yet, and during the last earnings conference call in October Tim Cook indicated this quarter would include best ever iPad and iPhone sales. As for estimates, even the lowered figure reported in the piece would be a record for the device.
    01-05-12 07:10 PM
  2. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    Oh, believe me, I give them a lot of credit for how much they did as quickly as they did it.

    But it is much, much easier to build a UI for a handful of apps then it is to build a general purpose UI framework that for thousands of apps from thousands of developers.
    So if that's the case, why is the Android Player able to support as many apps as it does now?

    I mean, I realize there are a lot that break, but in many cases that's because of device dependencies.

    But for all those that DO work, it looks like the framework is adequate. What am I missing?
    01-05-12 07:11 PM
  3. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    So, has the Fire beaten the Playbook or not?
    We don't have firm sales numbers, but, sure, I'll buy the analyst estimates of 4-5 mil. Fair enough.

    I will weasel out a little though, because of that different business model, and suggest that Amazon has probably taken a bigger financial hit on those sales than RIM has on the PB; the Fire was never designed to be sold at a profit.

    So, for the product to be classified as a success, we'll need to find out over at least the medium term and see if those Fire sales truly add to Amazon's bottom line. They may also cannibalize Amazon customers from other platforms.
    01-05-12 07:18 PM
  4. blackjack93117's Avatar
    If you look at the numbers, you'll see that Android vendors have been churning out products a lot quicker than people have been willing to buy them.



    Sure, that sounds great, but is useless if people aren't t interested in the product at issue. As the sales have shown, RIM can't sell a fairly priced talet in this market, and they lack the cash to continue the heavy discounting they've been doing recently.
    This whole forum is full of people interested in the product at issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    peter9477 likes this.
    01-05-12 07:18 PM
  5. Pearl9100's Avatar
    I don't think it's a faulty comparison at all. Different devices serve different markets. Sure, there's some overlap and competition, and manufacturers all want to have as large a footprint as possible, but some facts remain:

    Some people want a 7" tablet, for instance, over a 10". Maybe not tons, but definitely some. Some people just don't by Apple for whatever misguided reasons. Some people have privacy concerns about Android (because Google sucks a LOT of usage information out of it). Some are brand/quality conscious.

    My point here is that there is probably room for more than a couple of platforms. The platform itself probably isn't as important here as it was with PC's, anyway.
    That wasn't blackjack's original intent or his original argument. A crucial flaw with his argument is that many, not all, consumers cross shop the playbook and ipad, which is why both were on Best Buy shelves. Here are some other faults with his analogy.

    -The mustang isn't bleeding money left and right.
    -The mustang isn't stuck on dealer lots to the point that ford had to do a fire sale.
    -Mustang's cult followers are not constantly disappointed.

    A proper example would maybe be comparing porsche/ferrari/lambo to maybach.

    I never disagreed that there is space for multiple platforms. What I am saying is that there is fierce competition in the tablet space for a limited amount of dollars and disposable income. And with Rim's track record, it doesn't look so good for them.

    lol i knew the nitpickies would be on me - i just picked a couple cars. Point is what Peter said there is room for more than one tablet on the market. because one succeeds does not mean the other fails. The whole comparison thing is ridiculous.
    I am a car enthusiasts, so of course I am going to pick apart your comparison. I roll my eyes every time someone tries to compare or race their modded civic to my 911. They are just in completely different classes.
    01-05-12 07:21 PM
  6. peter9477's Avatar
    You realize these paragraphs are inconsistent, right? If RIM can't sell its tablet at a profit, it doesn't matter that people were willing to buy it. RIM essentially paid those people to take the product. This strategy works fine if you're Microsoft and you're willing to lose money for 7 years before your product has even a profitable quarter, but RIM doesn't have the cash, the share price or the ultra-lucrative primary business to support that type of strategy.
    No, I totally reject the claim that they are inconsistent.

    By saying "RIM can't sell its tablet at a profit", you're again projecting forward from a current situation (where, I'll concede, RIM hasn't been selling its tablet at a net profit) to the future, as though nothing can ever change.

    What you missed was that the part about them buying it now was merely that it showed "obvious interest" from people in the product. As in, it's an interesting product to people, at that price. No debate on that, I hope? I mean, they wouldn't have bought it otherwise, right?

    Now go back to the part about "big enough improvement in 2.0". That's where I propose that because of that interest, if the product changed a lot in the near future, it's conceivable that it would be enough to buy the product success.

    And I'm not even defining success... can we just leave that a bit open but agree that it doesn't need to "beat the iPad" to be considered successful?
    Thunderbuck likes this.
    01-05-12 07:35 PM
  7. peter9477's Avatar
    This whole forum is full of people interested in the product at issue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Excellent point blackjack!

    Everyone here is clearly very interested in the product.

    (Some, apparently, in seeing it fail, but I guess that doesn't change the validity of the statement. ;-) )
    01-05-12 07:37 PM
  8. fj_cruiser's Avatar
    seriously fellas? if u hate rim and/or their products then this is not the forum for ya! i hate my bb but love the pb and i dont give a rats a$$ if u say its gonna fail; i have already ordered another (actually 2 more)

    peace
    Last edited by fj_cruiser; 01-05-12 at 07:54 PM.
    01-05-12 07:47 PM
  9. moretreelessbush's Avatar
    Is any of the code from Harman going to be part of Cascades or BB10?

    Precisely what other than the kernel is RIM using?
    I don't know what RIM is using, but QNX has a lot more to offer than just kernels.
    HMI and Graphics

    In my opinion, if QNX can be the backbone for in-dashboard touch screen entertainment/navigation systems, it should be well suited for playbook and similar devices.
    01-05-12 07:57 PM
  10. app_Developer's Avatar
    So if that's the case, why is the Android Player able to support as many apps as it does now?

    I mean, I realize there are a lot that break, but in many cases that's because of device dependencies.

    But for all those that DO work, it looks like the framework is adequate. What am I missing?
    Those are Android apps. I'm talking about real native apps.
    01-05-12 09:25 PM
  11. app_Developer's Avatar
    I don't know what RIM is using, but QNX has a lot more to offer than just kernels.
    HMI and Graphics
    Is Photon being used here? Remember, this stuff used to be open. I've seen Photon and it's not anywhere close to what Android and iOS offer. And I would hope Cascades isn't being built on that!

    And Flash, yeah I get that. I'd rather poke my eyes out than do Flash development, thank you very much. I'm sure others can have fun with that.

    But Cascades isn't Flash, and I'm sure it doesn't reuse any of that old QNX stuff. Also, obviously the QNX team didn't design Flash or the Flash APIs. People much less talented than them at Adobe did that.


    In my opinion, if QNX can be the backbone for in-dashboard touch screen entertainment/navigation systems, it should be well suited for playbook and similar devices.
    Oh, I don't disagree with that at all. I'm saying that RIM had and has a tremendous amount of work to go from what they bought to what they need. I suspect management did not understand that at all, which is why they announced BBX/BB10 so early. And also why they missed milestones.
    Last edited by app_Developer; 01-05-12 at 09:39 PM.
    01-05-12 09:29 PM
  12. app_Developer's Avatar
    (Oh, and along with Flash they had filesystems. And drivers. And networking. And a bunch of other stuff that the term "kernel" generally excludes. I guess they had more than just a kernel after all. )
    Well, if you're talking about microkernels, then yes. I would count filesystems and drivers as the kernel layer.

    But, yes, I have seen those APIs. I think a higher level networking API would be very welcome for most developers. Apple didn't do that at first either, and people had to roll their own. And that's fine. I'll publish mine and I'm sure others will as well and some interesting project will emerge from that.

    This is why developers want this platform to work out. It's fun having a new toy to play with and build on and learn about. That's what life is all about. (Especially if it's C++, and we get to do some real programming for a change!)

    But I guess my kool-aid isn't quite as strong as some other people's here. I'm still somewhat skeptical that this is all going to fall into place the way everyone here thinks.

    Not that my opinion matters, I just want to see this Cascades API so I can make a small app or two.
    VerryBestr likes this.
    01-05-12 09:33 PM
  13. VerryBestr's Avatar
    [Re possible decision not to release early versions of PIM & email on the PlayBook] "They chose not to" for what purpose? To allow the criticism to continue? To slow sales? To trigger a massive charge for discounting? To further depress the stock price? Why would they give critics an additional reason to come after them for a readily solvable problem?
    Here's my stab at an explanation, dosed with a good bit of conjecture.

    The first roadblock, rumored but generally accepted, was the problem of BES & BIS handling two devices for a single user. BES and BIS may be horrible balls of spaghetti code that have expanded over the years without ever haven been rewritten or redesigned. It sounds like RIM decision makers did not have a good grasp of software development.

    There's not a doubt in my mind that a team at RIM had a working PIM on the Playbook maybe even pre-launch, but that the software took an approach that was somehow unacceptable to somebody powerful enough to kill it. And my speculation is that the problem was a business one, not a technical one. I'll extend my speculation further (and my neck with it) and say that it likely had something to do with the role of either BIS or the user's Blackberry ID, or both (though I won't lose sleep if I'm wrong on that part).
    There is also the problem of the "BBOS player." The first PIM & email PlayBook demos seemed to run in this player, and I'm sure that was the software scheduled for release last year.

    I think it is a shame that this compatibility tool was canceled. Every time the Mac went through a big transition (old OS to Unix-based OS, 68K to PowerPC to Intel processors), Apple provided a "player"-like emulation tool which let users move to the new systems with their old software and gave developers time to transition from old to new.

    It is possible that RIM just could not get the BBOS player to yield a good user experience. Alec Saunders said something like that, when he had to eat his own words from a blog post written before he was hired by RIM:
    Developer Roadmap: BlackBerry BBX and the BlackBerry Java SDK -- RIM Dev Blog
    RIM's Secret Weapon -- Saunder's personal blog

    It is also possible that system constraints (memory usage, perhaps?) made it difficult to run both the Android and BBOS players on a mobile device. If RIM had to make a choice between the two for whatever reasons (system constraints, R&D resources, ...) I think RIM made the right choice.

    Given the huge growth in Android, I think RIM is right to piggy-back on Android: initially using Android apps, eventually using & adapting Android's Java development system. RIM not only dropped the planned BBOS player, but also the planned Java SDK. RIM is said to be a Java house, so why would it completely drop Java development?

    The logical move, I think, would be for RIM to adapt Android's Java system for native development on BB10, expanding it with interfaces to all of RIM's own libraries (Cascades, BBM, email, BB store, etc.). If RIM plans or hopes to do that, there are a couple reasons why it would maintain silence on this possibility.

    First, it would confuse the message it wants to send to Android developers about the ease of moving their apps to BB10.

    The second reason is bound up with the Oracle suit against Google. I just do not believe that RIM would have implemented its Android player without making arrangements with Oracle. But the damages that Oracle hopes to inflict on Google (and eventually Android manufacturers) are related to two points: Google implemented a nearly-complete Java SE system, which Sun/Oracle has never licensed nor released for mobile systems; Google damaged the Java "run anywhere" advantage by implementing a modified incomplete version. Oracle's claims could be damaged by any news that RIM has licensed Android/Java.

    The Oracle suit could be a real game changer for Android and perhaps RIM. I haven't seem much discussion of this lawsuit in the forum, however. Trial date is now scheduled for 19 March.

    Econ101, you're the lawyer. What do you think about the Oracle lawsuit against Google? Do you think RIM would have some kind of agreement in place with Oracle?
    01-06-12 07:32 AM
  14. jedibeeftrix's Avatar
    The logical move, I think, would be for RIM to adapt Android's Java system for native development on BB10, expanding it with interfaces to all of RIM's own libraries (Cascades, BBM, email, BB store, etc.). If RIM plans or hopes to do that, there are a couple reasons why it would maintain silence on this possibility.
    Qt?

    Qt ecosystem continues to grow, organically and harmoniously

    coming soon to a playbook near you!
    01-06-12 07:41 AM
  15. LuvULongTime's Avatar
    I work in IT too. BES admin here, not just some pc tech. I don't see the absolute need for a tablet. It is a luxury and can be fun to use, but it isn't as necessary as a BB with BES support at this point in time.

    just my .02
    Years ago, people may not have seen a need for laptops in the enterprise, but here we are today. The same may very well be true of tablets.

    If I could get each and every person on my team a tablet, I would. Being able to SSH, do email, etc, all from a portable sized tablet would be a huge win, especially for support teams. I am at the point now where I'm pushing to get SSH deployed to their RIM's. Dragging a laptop around is not fun.
    01-06-12 01:58 PM
  16. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    Here's my stab at an explanation, dosed with a good bit of conjecture.

    The first roadblock, rumored but generally accepted, was the problem of BES & BIS handling two devices for a single user. BES and BIS may be horrible balls of spaghetti code that have expanded over the years without ever haven been rewritten or redesigned. It sounds like RIM decision makers did not have a good grasp of software development.
    That may well be the case. This particular explanation suggests it was a technical limitation. Personally, I think some executives at RIM had a hard time swallowing the notion of a device that could use BIS without RIM getting its subscription fee. But we're both guessing here and your guess is as good as mine.

    I also don't know for sure, but I have a hard time believing that the BES/BIS code is THAT f'd-up. Not impossible, no, but I'd want some proof on that.


    There is also the problem of the "BBOS player." The first PIM & email PlayBook demos seemed to run in this player, and I'm sure that was the software scheduled for release last year.

    I think it is a shame that this compatibility tool was canceled. Every time the Mac went through a big transition (old OS to Unix-based OS, 68K to PowerPC to Intel processors), Apple provided a "player"-like emulation tool which let users move to the new systems with their old software and gave developers time to transition from old to new.

    It is possible that RIM just could not get the BBOS player to yield a good user experience. Alec Saunders said something like that, when he had to eat his own words from a blog post written before he was hired by RIM:
    Developer Roadmap: BlackBerry BBX and the BlackBerry Java SDK -- RIM Dev Blog
    RIM's Secret Weapon -- Saunder's personal blog

    It is also possible that system constraints (memory usage, perhaps?) made it difficult to run both the Android and BBOS players on a mobile device. If RIM had to make a choice between the two for whatever reasons (system constraints, R&D resources, ...) I think RIM made the right choice.
    There could very well be something to this. Emulator issues would explain a lot, actually. I've heard the suggestion that there may have been several initiatives being developed in parallel. Not impossible that my "turf war" hypothesis plays into that. Not the first time that rival development teams collided with disastrous results (read the Steve Jobs bio about the near-blood feud between the Lisa and Macintosh teams).


    Given the huge growth in Android, I think RIM is right to piggy-back on Android: initially using Android apps, eventually using & adapting Android's Java development system. RIM not only dropped the planned BBOS player, but also the planned Java SDK. RIM is said to be a Java house, so why would it completely drop Java development?

    The logical move, I think, would be for RIM to adapt Android's Java system for native development on BB10, expanding it with interfaces to all of RIM's own libraries (Cascades, BBM, email, BB store, etc.). If RIM plans or hopes to do that, there are a couple reasons why it would maintain silence on this possibility.

    First, it would confuse the message it wants to send to Android developers about the ease of moving their apps to BB10.

    The second reason is bound up with the Oracle suit against Google. I just do not believe that RIM would have implemented its Android player without making arrangements with Oracle. But the damages that Oracle hopes to inflict on Google (and eventually Android manufacturers) are related to two points: Google implemented a nearly-complete Java SE system, which Sun/Oracle has never licensed nor released for mobile systems; Google damaged the Java "run anywhere" advantage by implementing a modified incomplete version. Oracle's claims could be damaged by any news that RIM has licensed Android/Java.

    The Oracle suit could be a real game changer for Android and perhaps RIM. I haven't seem much discussion of this lawsuit in the forum, however. Trial date is now scheduled for 19 March.

    Econ101, you're the lawyer. What do you think about the Oracle lawsuit against Google? Do you think RIM would have some kind of agreement in place with Oracle?
    The trouble with doing this is it may very well involve expensive licenses from BOTH Oracle and Google. If I were a handset maker I wouldn't want to be making too much of my OS dependent on either of these guys.
    VerryBestr likes this.
    01-06-12 02:14 PM
  17. blackjack93117's Avatar
    See, I think a case could be made that when the iPad sales numbers came out a little soft, analysts settled on the first sensible explanation. And, indeed, maybe it WAS the Kindle that did it. We don't know.

    I don't think it's impossible that the iPad is maturing as a product, though, either, and maybe its sales are leveling until its own refresh comes up.

    And I'm not "hating" on Amazon's business model. In fact, for Amazon it's an entirely appropriate one; they're really a content retailer, not a gadget company. What they want to do is establish a channel to make people dependent on them as a content provider. That's totally cool, but people should really consider what they're getting. It's doubtful Amazon is making any margin on those devices at that retail price.
    Yes the ipad is the big seller - I have to wonder how much has been cannibalized by the advent of lower priced tablets. I think we will begin to see Apple being forced to reduce prices as well, as other tablets develop.

    There is a lot of speculation of RIM not having enough profit margin at these prices, but there is no consideration for the idea of growing revenue from content and media sales from the movie store (for example) and app commissions as the user base grows, which is probably why RIM turned its nose up at Amazon - they want that pie for themselves.


    Yes!

    We here know that the Fire is a very primitive device compared to Playbook.

    But, the huge already installed base has attracted many developers, hackers, and spawned a big accessory market.

    Amazon may, or may not, get all the payback they are hoping for but they have made a big positive impact.
    Why would I want a hacker after my device? One thing I like about having a device made by a smaller player is that it is less of a target for this. Security and lack of vulnerability is one edge that playbook has.
    01-06-12 03:26 PM
167 ... 567
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD