[Thunderbuck]

The PDK never got a chance to take off. 49 days after the release of the Touchpad, they went on firesale. The firesale did help the Touchpad, as there are plenty of apps for it now. It's speculated that there are about 1 million Touchpad's out there.

Playbook speculation is that there are 1-1.5 million units produced and with the firesale, it seems RIM is intent on selling every one of them. Given the Touchpad example (where some of them were bought for only rooting/Android potential), hitting close to the million unit mark is enough to spark developers' attention.

The question now is: how committed is RIM to the Playbook after the current stock is sold off? There are two points of view on that, I think. The first one is, "don't throw good money after bad" and jump out of the business entirely. Possible, to be sure.

The other one is: "it's fixable, let's do it!" I know how naive this sounds, but there are some solid reasons that RIM would commit to it. For one thing, cancelling the Playbook would cast doubt on QNX. It would discredit it in the marketplace, and it would discredit RIM in the process. Might even kill the company completely, since so much has been spent already on the platform.

For another thing, the market conditions aren't the same as they were back in April. There's WAY better developer support, and a major software upgrade ready for roll-out. The product itself has been very well-received, and with better management could pull off a turnaround.

I was intrigued to see reports here of build dates as late as early December. I've got a 64GB on order (couldn't resist that $299 price this week), so that will be the very first thing I look for...

[Economist101]

True, not everything Apple makes will be bought up by the Apple fans. These devices weren't considered Apple "core" devices, so I don't recall Apple really advertising them heavily. Apple breaks its devices down to Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad, but that's probably out of numbers convenience because had Apple TV taken off, it would be one of the categories reported in their financials.

They don't report specific sales of the Apple TV, kind of like how they don't report specific sales of bluetooth keyboards, smart covers or whatever. That doesn't mean the results of those products aren't included i their financials; it's a distinction with a difference.

A question: if all it takes is "marketing," why aren't Macs clobbering Windows in worldwide share? And why not just market every product since, you know, that's all it takes?

My example of the Shuffle is that at the time it was released, there were many flash-based players out there and it wasn't until a year or two later that Apple put out the Shuffle and ate up that niche. It's an example of the the Apple logo selling a product that was widely available from other manufacturers.

Yeah, because there wasn't anything offered by the Shuffle that wasn't duplicated by other devices, like iTunes, the music store, etc. It's like me saying that the BlackBerry logo sold phones to people who would've been just as happy with Treos, an argument which requires that we ignore BlackBerry-specific benefits like BES/BIS.

[cbvinh]

The question now is: how committed is RIM to the Playbook after the current stock is sold off? There are two points of view on that, I think. The first one is, "don't throw good money after bad" and jump out of the business entirely. Possible, to be sure.

The other one is: "it's fixable, let's do it!" I know how naive this sounds, but there are some solid reasons that RIM would commit to it. For one thing, cancelling the Playbook would cast doubt on QNX. It would discredit it in the marketplace, and it would discredit RIM in the process. Might even kill the company completely, since so much has been spent already on the platform.

I agree with the above. If RIM were to abandon the Playbook right after the completion of the firesale, it would definitely put a damper on future QNX/BB10 sales. If they were to kill the Playbook, it would be best to do it after the first few BB10 phones are out and they can profit from them. As much as I like the Playbook, if the reality is that RIM can't compete in the tablet market, they should get out. Having said that, there is leverage that can be gained from having the Playbook around, if only to have a large market for developers.

For another thing, the market conditions aren't the same as they were back in April. There's WAY better developer support, and a major software upgrade ready for roll-out. The product itself has been very well-received, and with better management could pull off a turnaround.

I was impressed with the NDK announcement. The available API's look great. I just hope existing developers move over instead of jumping to iOS and Android.

I was intrigued to see reports here of build dates as late as early December. I've got a 64GB on order (couldn't resist that $299 price this week), so that will be the very first thing I look for...

My refurb unit was built April 13, 2011. Other than two dead pixels that are barely noticeable and the bulge on the back, everything looks pretty new, especially the accessories, manuals and inner box. Yours will be new, so I'd be curious if quality control has improved.

[cbvinh]

They don't report specific sales of the Apple TV, kind of like how they don't report specific sales of bluetooth keyboards, smart covers or whatever. That doesn't mean the results of those products aren't included i their financials; it's a distinction with a difference.

Given Apple likes to report numbers, especially successful ones, Apple TV probably didn't have numbers worth separating out as a category, like Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad.

A question: if all it takes is "marketing," why aren't Macs clobbering Windows in worldwide share? And why not just market every product since, you know, that's all it takes?

Apple doesn't aggressively market Macs that much anymore. (All the billboards I see around me are for the iPad. TV ads have been for the iPhone. Nothing about iPods lately.) Maybe the margins aren't that good for Macs? Hardware-wise, Macs are pretty much high-end PC's and laptops, which have become commodity items. Perhaps Microsoft is just better at marketing Windows than Apple is with Macs? Microsoft goes after every price point, thus large market share. Apple only goes after the high-end and by the numbers, they're doing pretty good at the high-end, especially for laptops.

Yeah, because there wasn't anything offered by the Shuffle that wasn't duplicated by other devices, like iTunes, the music store, etc. It's like me saying that the BlackBerry logo sold phones to people who would've been just as happy with Treos, an argument which requires that we ignore BlackBerry-specific benefits like BES/BIS.

The Shuffle was advertised as "Life is random.", to discount that it lacked controls that everyone expects of an iPod. It shared the iPod name, had the Apple logo, and it sold. The "advantage" of iTunes and the music store have been highly debated... and that's not what Apple advertised the Shuffle to have, only that "Life is random."

As for BES/BIS, I don't think the average consumer cares what this is. He/she wants a nice keyboard and easy messaging to his/her friends. How it's implemented doesn't matter. Whether it's secure or not doesn't matter (look how freely people txt without any guarantee of security).

The Blackberry logo does sell phones, at least it used to be enough.

[Economist101]

Given Apple likes to report numbers, especially successful ones, Apple TV probably didn't have numbers worth separating out as a category, like Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad.

I don't dispute that, but again, there's a difference between "not reporting sales numbers of a particular product" and "Apple TV left out of Apple financials." You claimed the latter; maybe you meant the former, but all I can do is read what you actually wrote.

Apple doesn't aggressively market Macs that much anymore. (All the billboards I see around me are for the iPad. TV ads have been for the iPhone. Nothing about iPods lately.) Maybe the margins aren't that good for Macs? Hardware-wise, Macs are pretty much high-end PC's and laptops, which have become commodity items. Perhaps Microsoft is just better at marketing Windows than Apple is with Macs? Microsoft goes after every price point, thus large market share. Apple only goes after the high-end and by the numbers, they're doing pretty good at the high-end, especially for laptops.

Reread that first sentence you wrote: "Apple doesn't aggresively market Macs that much anymore." Right there, you've established that, at least at some point, Macs were aggressively marketed. Yet here in 2012, despite years of growth, they're still at <10% share. There goes the "marketing" angle.

The Shuffle was advertised as "Life is random.", to discount that it lacked controls that everyone expects of an iPod. It shared the iPod name, had the Apple logo, and it sold. The "advantage" of iTunes and the music store have been highly debated... and that's not what Apple advertised the Shuffle to have, only that "Life is random."

Hmmm. . . volume, track skip, play/pause, headphone jack. . .what controls was it lacking? True, it lacked a display, but that's not a "control." As for the "life is reandom" deal, as I recall, the Shuffle argument was that you could make something really small and really inexpensive if you didn't include a screen, and since many people focused heir listening around random samplings of their songs, often times the display was superflous. For those demanding a display, they still had those options.

As for not advertising the Shuffle to "have" the iTunes and the music store, I don't see what you're getting at, since there's no other way to load music on the device.

s for BES/BIS, I don't think the average consumer cares what this is. He/she wants a nice keyboard and easy messaging to his/her friends. How it's implemented doesn't matter. Whether it's secure or not doesn't matter (look how freely people txt without any guarantee of security).

The Blackberry logo does sell phones, at least it used to be enough.

By far your best argument, but you're forgetting something. Back when the Treo (which is what I mentioned) was actually a RIM competitor, RIM's primary costumers were not consumers; it was enterprise. Surely you're not suggesting that IT people were unfamiliar with BES? Surely you're not suggesting that IT people were uninterested in security? True, what you said is completely valid now, but today's market is vastly different from what we had in 2006 and before.

[[email protected]]

I don't dispute that, but again, there's a difference between "not reporting sales numbers of a particular product" and "Apple TV left out of Apple financials." You claimed the latter; maybe you meant the former, but all I can do is read what you actually wrote.



Reread that first sentence you wrote: "Apple doesn't aggresively market Macs that much anymore." Right there, you've established that, at least at some point, Macs were aggressively marketed. Yet here in 2012, despite years of growth, they're still at <10% share. There goes the "marketing" angle.



Hmmm. . . volume, track skip, play/pause, headphone jack. . .what controls was it lacking? True, it lacked a display, but that's not a "control." As for the "life is reandom" deal, as I recall, the Shuffle argument was that you could make something really small and really inexpensive if you didn't include a screen, and since many people focused heir listening around random samplings of their songs, often times the display was superflous. For those demanding a display, they still had those options.

As for not advertising the Shuffle to "have" the iTunes and the music store, I don't see what you're getting at, since there's no other way to load music on the device.



By far your best argument, but you're forgetting something. Back when the Treo (which is what I mentioned) was actually a RIM competitor, RIM's primary costumers were not consumers; it was enterprise. Surely you're not suggesting that IT people were unfamiliar with BES? Surely you're not suggesting that IT people were uninterested in security? True, what you said is completely valid now, but today's market is vastly different from what we had in 2006 and before.

Vastly different.

[cbvinh]

I don't dispute that, but again, there's a difference between "not reporting sales numbers of a particular product" and "Apple TV left out of Apple financials." You claimed the latter; maybe you meant the former, but all I can do is read what you actually wrote.

This is what I wrote: "Apple breaks its devices down to Mac, iPod, iPhone and iPad, but that's probably out of numbers convenience because had Apple TV taken off, it would be one of the categories reported in their financials."

Current system of Apple reporting: Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad
Had the Apple TV's taken off: Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV.

Reread that first sentence you wrote: "Apple doesn't aggresively market Macs that much anymore." Right there, you've established that, at least at some point, Macs were aggressively marketed. Yet here in 2012, despite years of growth, they're still at <10% share. There goes the "marketing" angle.

Unfortunately for Apple, the PC/laptop/netbook market expanded faster than Mac sales growth. Apple's aggressive marketing did help them sell more and more Macs, just not fast enough to offset the new Windows machines, especially the cheap netbooks that added to Window's market share.

Hmmm. . . volume, track skip, play/pause, headphone jack. . .what controls was it lacking? True, it lacked a display, but that's not a "control." As for the "life is reandom" deal, as I recall, the Shuffle argument was that you could make something really small and really inexpensive if you didn't include a screen, and since many people focused heir listening around random samplings of their songs, often times the display was superflous. For those demanding a display, they still had those options.

The Shuffle wasn't inexpensive. It was compared to normal iPods, but compared to other flash-based players, even those with displays, it was sold at a premium.

As for not advertising the Shuffle to "have" the iTunes and the music store, I don't see what you're getting at, since there's no other way to load music on the device.

How you load music onto the Shuffle isn't a concern of the user. He/she expects that there is a way to do it. He/she is buying the Shuffle on an idea, that "Life is random" and you don't need all the fancy controls that everyone, including Apple, had been putting onto devices.

Many manufacturers at the time had display-less flash players and the lack of the display kept them from sales because Apple iPod's had an interface. The other manufacturers started adding displays... then Apple comes along with the marketing campaign that you don't need the display. I thought it was a brilliant idea. Sell the lack of a feature as a feature. Great marketing.

By far your best argument, but you're forgetting something. Back when the Treo (which is what I mentioned) was actually a RIM competitor, RIM's primary costumers were not consumers; it was enterprise. Surely you're not suggesting that IT people were unfamiliar with BES? Surely you're not suggesting that IT people were uninterested in security? True, what you said is completely valid now, but today's market is vastly different from what we had in 2006 and before.

IT departments may care about security and know what BES is, but they'll deploy Treo's or Windows Mobile devices if they're told to, if only to be able to run applications that their companies use. This, however, is off topic.

Is Apple's marketing great? Yes. Can they get people to rabidly buy something sight, spec unknown? Yes. Can they stamp the Apple logo on anything and have it do well? No, not all the time. Did the Shuffle sell based on marketing? In my opinion, yes, though I do accept your insight into the appeal of iTunes/music store for some people. (A lot of non-techy users I know don't like it because it always syncs and takes a chunk of their hard drive space... "I need more disk space. Why can't I just delete the songs off my hard drive? It's already on my iPod.")

[omniusovermind]

So, you believe that R.I.M can successfully sell a $400 version of the PB? meaning you believe the demand exists at this price point.

the content of my previous post is what I believe. anything else being read into it is reader interpretation, not mine.

[cleacy]

NewsFactor Network

There was a news article posted today expressing an opinion on the same question. The opinion there is less then $250 with improvements, or $300 at maximum.

[[email protected]]

NewsFactor Network

There was a news article posted today expressing an opinion on the same question. The opinion there is less then $250 with improvements, or $300 at maximum.

Would like to read that. Any links?

[cleacy]

I attached the url to my previous reply (it's the link to newsfactor... i'll link it again)

RIM Unveils Second Edition PlayBook, with Native E-Mail | NewsFactor Network