1. Economist101's Avatar
    If you were to judge the Nation's economy by all the Kennedy kids and stay-at-home stay-at-the-gym-while-the-nanny-takes-care-of-the-kids moms with Mac Books, iPhones, and iPads lounging at the local Starbucks, you'd never have believed the country had recently seen a recession.
    Probably because their version of the "country" didn't just experience a recession. Wealthy people are wealthy, even at times like this, and in many markets the items favored by wealthier people are less sensitive to "prevailing economic conditions" than less expensive items favored by the occupiers.
    01-07-12 09:08 AM
  2. ADozenEggs@aol.com's Avatar
    Probably because their version of the "country" didn't just experience a recession. Wealthy people are wealthy, even at times like this, and in many markets the items favored by wealthier people are less sensitive to "prevailing economic conditions" than less expensive items favored by the occupiers.
    Exactly! LVMH had record sales this this year. And there's now a 2 year waiting list on Bentley's in Beverly Hills.

    On the other end of the spectrum 'vice' purchases are also way. Alcohol sales, tabacco(mainly in the form of cigarettes), firearms also do extremely well in a down economy.

    My response was to the poster who felt that Apple sales would eventually decline because of their perceived high prices. It's all relative at the end of the day, and I wouldn't expect to AAPL lose market share any time soon.
    01-07-12 09:26 AM
  3. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    It doesn't matter whether you "agree" or not; when you have to announce a $485 million write down on unsold inventory, your product is a disaster, at least on January 7, 2012...
    The PRODUCT is not a "disaster"! Stop it!

    Now, the execution most certainly has been. I've said it elsewhere: RIM had no business pricing the Playbook on par with the iPad. The App Store does make iOS more valuable and it was arrogant for RIM to think the Blackberry brand would make up for that on its own. They likely would have saved themselves a world of hurt with introductory pricing of $150 less for each SKU. At that pricing they would have been taking a modest loss on the 16GB units (making it the traditional "loss leader"), but making a small profit on the 32s and be comfortable with the 64s. It certainly wouldn't have cost them a half-billion writedown.

    And at that price-point customers would have been impressed with the design, performance, and overall quality. Preferably, this would have been accompanied by native PIM from day one as well, but that would have been a lot easier to forgive at a lower price-point too.

    Look, Econ, I still believe fairly passionately in this product. You make some very valid points about how badly RIM has managed the Playbook. Myself, I see the kind of arrogance that can only come from an overblown ego or two, and I think RIM's board is getting set to address that.

    But the PRODUCT is actually pretty good even in its current form. Good enough that there's still a decent chance of rehabilitating it.
    cbvinh likes this.
    01-07-12 10:22 AM
  4. cleacy's Avatar
    I don't own an ipad, I also don't own a playbook. I have however owned an ipod touch since they were first available, and purchased a Touchpad during their firesale last summer.

    When I purchased the Touchpad, what I wanted from it was a larger-then-ipod web brower/video player/ebook reader, and good battery life. I didn't want anything more from it, didn't even think or care about future value from an existing ecosystem, and with knowing it was from a reputable company, my sole expectation was that it would perform at least moderately smoothly. I'd paid $100, and would have paid $200 without blinking.

    If it had been priced at $250, I would have had to think about it. Over that, and I would have passed in favour of saving for an Ipad.

    I don't need a 2nd tablet, and while i'd think about it with the Playbook at about $150 or less, it would take a bit of consideration. I passed on their sale price at $199 *because* I already had a tablet. If I didn't have one, I would have purchased the 16GB.

    So... When it comes to future pricing. One question would be whether you're aiming for people buying a 2nd tablet for the house, or the first tablet. I'd put pricing on the low end at $150-$250.

    The big question then is whether you can build and retail at those prices, and still make a profit.
    01-07-12 10:23 AM
  5. cbvinh's Avatar
    Apple still is pretty much untouchable, and they prospered because of the fan base.
    That was said of the iPhone, before Android phones took over. At some point, tablet prices will affect the market more (as tablets are seen as a commodity item) and Apple's market share will begin to shrink. Of course, Apple won't care. They don't have to sell tons to be profitable. Nothing wrong with that.

    still trying to figure out what secure version of android your talking about. With the Boot loader lock on the playbook running droid wouldn't be an issue, plus you take out all the spyware that native droid products come with.
    Motorola Droid Pro with "secure" Android Froyo 2.2

    DROID Pro by MOTOROLA - Business Cell Phone - Tech Specs - Motorola Mobility, Inc. USA

    Seriously? what google interfaces its just software.
    Wrong, only reason Amazon and the Nook have their own stores and custom version of droid is to generate revenue for their brand. That is the reason that the price point is lower is so they can make it with sales from their book sales and app markets.
    And note, the Kindle has no secure boot loader and is fully rootable to any dev's version of droid. While the Nook has a locked boot loader and is being torn apart right now to find work arounds.
    Read Tips 1-2:

    Getting Started With Kindle Fire Development

    "Tip 1: Kindle Fire has no Google services. In particular, when developing apps make sure to use the AOSP version of the SDK — not the Google APIs version. For example, assume any Google specific intents will fail.

    Tip 2: A Tablet Without Honeycomb or Ice Cream Sandwich

    Amazon built the Kindle Fire OS using Android 2.3.4, Gingerbread (API Level 10). This is not a tablet-optimized version of Android...

    ...

    Conclusion

    Amazon’s Kindle Fire is a top selling popular Android tablet. It has no Google services and the platform has been customized by Amazon, so supporting this device may not come as easily as other Android tablets."

    Its quite obvious you don't see to understand that if hulu is free on my pc it should be free on my playbook (not hulu plus)
    Apps come from dev's, None of them seem to realize that BB has a tablet out. but any how about HULU. I can go to any free to view sight with my playbook and watch the content. But when it comes to Hulu, no one will stand up to them and say kiss off this is a portable computer so it should be able to watch the free content. Especially with the great browser the playbook has.

    I really don't see where my price point is wrong. It falls inline with the current fire sale that is going on by Blackberry right now. It also is adjusted for pricing if they would have incorperated a SD slot.

    I priced the playbook as a tablet with an OS that has no app market support but has great hardware but is still lacking. Now if the playbook had a full on app market support, it would be a differnt story, but paying 5 bucks for angry birds is a joke. I'll root it before I pay for free apps, and for the browser fix for hulu, and enjoy the fire sale and pic up a 64gb for $299 to go with my 32gb that I picked up for $249.
    Your pricing wasn't what I was addressing, since they're inline with firesale prices, like you're saying. There's no analysis necessary for that. You just priced the Playbook to what RIM decided. RIM must know what they're doing, right? Playbooks are selling and you bought one, even considering two, even without a full Android App Market in the future (you know that, right?).

    $5 for Angry Birds is not RIM's decision. That's why I question whether you understand where apps come from. Address your issue to Rovio. Hulu is specifically blocking the Playbook's browser. Address your issue with Hulu or get SimpleBrowser and set the User Agent to FireFox [edit: SimpleBrowser isn't enough to fool Hulu as it seems to detect the Flash platform. My bad. Complain to Hulu.].
    Last edited by cbvinh; 01-07-12 at 04:45 PM.
    01-07-12 01:21 PM
  6. cbvinh's Avatar
    I know its kinda like waiting almost a year for os 2.0 wishing for the better. And watching the price drop, making you feel like you wasted your money on a dream.
    You've been waiting almost a whole year? Sounds like you just purchased your Playbook. $249 for 32 GB just recently happened.
    01-07-12 01:28 PM
  7. cbvinh's Avatar
    That phone did fail, but let's be honest: that was a Motorola phone with iTunes grafted onto it, and a limited version at that. By the time it was ready, it was clear it wasn't going to be successful, and Apple used it as a misdirection to set up the iPad Nano announcement.
    Maybe Motorola should sue Apple for development not in good faith and conflict of interest... otherwise, it's just as much Apple's baby...
    01-07-12 01:33 PM
  8. cbvinh's Avatar
    The result has been a product that has managed to capture market interest better than any other non-iPad, sold better than any other non-iPad, and right now has the best upside of any non-iPad.
    And that upside is pulling people into their ecosystem and later upgrading them to Kindle Fire 2, 3, 4, ...
    01-07-12 01:39 PM
  9. quarky_uk's Avatar
    Huh?

    The Playbook kicks the Fire's in performance and storage. The whole point of a Fire is that you store your stuff in "the cloud" and download it as you want it. The catch is, you'll need to maintain that Amazon Prime membership. I've heard some claim it's pretty slooooow, too. Especially compared to the PB.

    The Playbook, OTOH, is built to a higher spec than the Fire (and most Android tabs, too). Even its harshest critics have praised its build quality and performance.

    If they maintain the current hardware standard, improve the look/feel of the UI, and get the Video Store going I think they could get away with $249/16GB, $329/32GB, $399/64GB.
    You don't need amazon prime for the Fire.

    If you want a tablet to read ebooks, watch your films/video's, listen to music, and browse the net, the Fire does it just as well as the playbook (admittedly the Fire has less storage locally, but then it is slightly lighter).

    I can take pictures, use GPS, do video chats, etc on my phone, I don't have to have it on a tablet.

    Sure, the PB has a whole host of extra bits and pieces but for a lot of people, it doesn't actually matter. The smart phone has given people more ways to get those things.

    To most users (not geeks), it is function that matters. The PB's extra h/w is not currently getting translated into enough additional functionality at the moment and that is what matters.

    It is a shame because QNX is great. I returned my iPad2 because the size meant that it didn't fill a niche for me (like a 7" tablet does). The only reason I have a PB is because I borrowed it from work to get use to the Fire form factor (although now, I am sorely tempted to keep the PB and forget all about the Fire). But even I have to admit, the iOS interface is fantastic, and QNX is not far behind. Without the apple logo though, without the Android marketplace, and without the Amazon content and name, the PB is really up against it out in the big wide-world.

    Hence it needs a price-point lower than the Fire.

    Saying all that, I am really impressed with the PB, but perhaps like most people out there, I would never have considered buying one (if I couldn't borrow one from work first). The lower price-point is essential (at this point) to get others to think likewise.
    01-07-12 03:14 PM
  10. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    The PRODUCT is not a "disaster"! Stop it!

    Now, the execution most certainly has been. I've said it elsewhere: RIM had no business pricing the Playbook on par with the iPad. The App Store does make iOS more valuable and it was arrogant for RIM to think the Blackberry brand would make up for that on its own. They likely would have saved themselves a world of hurt with introductory pricing of $150 less for each SKU. At that pricing they would have been taking a modest loss on the 16GB units (making it the traditional "loss leader"), but making a small profit on the 32s and be comfortable with the 64s. It certainly wouldn't have cost them a half-billion writedown.

    And at that price-point customers would have been impressed with the design, performance, and overall quality. Preferably, this would have been accompanied by native PIM from day one as well, but that would have been a lot easier to forgive at a lower price-point too.

    Look, Econ, I still believe fairly passionately in this product. You make some very valid points about how badly RIM has managed the Playbook. Myself, I see the kind of arrogance that can only come from an overblown ego or two, and I think RIM's board is getting set to address that.

    But the PRODUCT is actually pretty good even in its current form. Good enough that there's still a decent chance of rehabilitating it.
    I think you make some valid points. I especially agree with points on price.
    01-07-12 03:28 PM
  11. kevinnugent's Avatar
    I guess I'm wondering to myself does BB NEED to manufacture a tablet? Does it? Everyone has jumped into the tab market because they'd like to capture a share of the revenue being generated. But does RIM, or anyone's survival actually hinge on whether or not they sell 2+ million tablets every Q?
    I question whether their future entails hardware of any nature. Scrap the PB and phone manufacturing in the future whilst licensing BB10.
    01-07-12 03:38 PM
  12. quarky_uk's Avatar
    Interestingly, if anyone here has the misfortune to use Good Technology, they started as a hardware provider like BB, and then switched to software only providing (badly) encrypted email on iPhone/Android, etc.

    I can also see other devices losing their hardware dependence. Why carry around a physical PSP when a modern smartphone is probably MORE than capable of providing enough grunt?
    01-07-12 04:00 PM
  13. ADozenEggs@aol.com's Avatar

    I can also see other devices losing their hardware dependence. Why carry around a physical PSP when a modern smartphone is probably MORE than capable of providing enough grunt?
    If, by PSP, you mean the Playstation Portable, I think the disappointing sales numbers of the Vita to you statement.
    01-07-12 04:14 PM
  14. SCrid2000's Avatar
    I don't think the price matters near as much as the advertising. RIM needs to convince people they need a tablet if they want to be either a.) cool or b.) productive.
    People will buy whatever the TV convinces them they need to buy, regardless of price.
    01-07-12 04:14 PM
  15. dandbj13's Avatar
    Before determining the price, we should do what RIM and HP never did: determine the market. Who is the PB for? Is it for BB users with iPad envy? That is a particular product at a particular price. Is it for BB enterprise customers who might want a companion device for their phone? Is it for the upscale consumer, the great unwashed using a feature/messaging phone, the small business pro?

    RIM and HP were all over the place with their message. When Apple introduced the iPad, SJ made a lengthy appeal for what the product was intended. He made the bold statement that if it was not the best experience for those specific things, it had no reason to exist. You may argue if it was successful at those things, but it definitely had a reason to exist. The market agreed. No one since that time has provided any such reason for their product to exist. They only exist because the iPad exists. The market has responded to them by purchasing more iPads.

    I am guessing with all this talk of music, movies, and games, RIM wants to be in the consumer market. Now, the challenge is figuring out if they are after the low end or the high end. If they are after the high end of the market, they ought to produce a high end product and price themselves accordingly. I think this would be a tragic mistake. If they are after the lower end of the market, they have to be at $199 or less.

    There is no middle ground. $299 is an overpriced KF. $399 is a discounted iPad 2. Between $200 and $500 is no-man's land. Also, there is the profitability problem. A tab meant to be profitable at $299 is nothing more than a KF, which Amazon is selling at a loss. An iPad competitor is expensive to produce, not to mention the millions in R&D that RIM is simply not going to spend.

    Ultimately, the question of price must give way to the question of why. Why is RIM even making tablets? For whom are they intended. What are they supposed to do. Only after those questions get solid answers will we be ready to speculate on price.
    01-07-12 04:31 PM
  16. ADozenEggs@aol.com's Avatar

    RIM and HP were all over the place with their message. When Apple introduced the iPad, SJ made a lengthy appeal for what the product was intended. He made the bold statement that if it was not the best experience for those specific things, it had no reason to exist. You may argue if it was successful at those things, but it definitely had a reason to exist. The market agreed. No one since that time has provided any such reason for their product to exist. They only exist because the iPad exists. The market has responded to them by purchasing more iPads.
    Well said...
    01-07-12 04:43 PM
  17. Thunderbuck's Avatar
    Before determining the price, we should do what RIM and HP never did: determine the market. Who is the PB for? Is it for BB users with iPad envy? That is a particular product at a particular price. Is it for BB enterprise customers who might want a companion device for their phone? Is it for the upscale consumer, the great unwashed using a feature/messaging phone, the small business pro?
    Or to put it more simply, "what can a tablet do that existing devices can't?" Let's remember that Microsoft tried very, very hard to make tablets mainstream several years ago. They failed, but it's clear that tabs are very useful in certain vertical applications.

    The advent of e-books has likely been the tipping point for tabs; rather than an e-reader device that either can't surf the web or does it poorly, many users prefer a device that can surf, present e-books, and other media.

    RIM and HP were all over the place with their message. When Apple introduced the iPad, SJ made a lengthy appeal for what the product was intended. He made the bold statement that if it was not the best experience for those specific things, it had no reason to exist. You may argue if it was successful at those things, but it definitely had a reason to exist. The market agreed. No one since that time has provided any such reason for their product to exist. They only exist because the iPad exists. The market has responded to them by purchasing more iPads.
    There IS kind of a chicken/egg argument here, though. What Apple has done indisputably better than any competitor is build an appealing app base. They were prescient enough to have that infrastructure in place for the iPad touch and the iPhone.

    Apple is not the only company, though. And there are many users who wouldn't buy Apple if their lives depended on it. Apple did a great job of a) executing on the whole notion of the "app" and its infrastructure and b) creating a market where none existed.

    BTW, Jobs was famously disdainful of marketing studies and focus groups, and saw little point in testing out design concepts with consumers.


    I am guessing with all this talk of music, movies, and games, RIM wants to be in the consumer market. Now, the challenge is figuring out if they are after the low end or the high end. If they are after the high end of the market, they ought to produce a high end product and price themselves accordingly. I think this would be a tragic mistake. If they are after the lower end of the market, they have to be at $199 or less.

    There is no middle ground. $299 is an overpriced KF. $399 is a discounted iPad 2. Between $200 and $500 is no-man's land. Also, there is the profitability problem. A tab meant to be profitable at $299 is nothing more than a KF, which Amazon is selling at a loss. An iPad competitor is expensive to produce, not to mention the millions in R&D that RIM is simply not going to spend.

    Ultimately, the question of price must give way to the question of why. Why is RIM even making tablets? For whom are they intended. What are they supposed to do. Only after those questions get solid answers will we be ready to speculate on price.
    Content is king. If nothing else, the iPad proves that. If the consumer hook is content, then what's wrong with RIM using that to improve the appeal of their product? $299 is an overpriced Kindle Fire? Not when you consider that the KF doesn't have any horsepower as a gaming platform. Remember, Amazon is a content company. They sell books, movies, and music. They're not really into games.

    You defeat your own argument. You try to claim that everything between a Kindle Fire and an iPad is "no-man's-land", but that's exactly the territory that's open to competitors. The Android tablets are good, but generally speaking the Playbook performs better and has a better UI. Given the response to the discounted prices it sounds like that's appealing.
    01-07-12 05:20 PM
  18. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    Or to put it more simply, "what can a tablet do that existing devices can't?" Let's remember that Microsoft tried very, very hard to make tablets mainstream several years ago. They failed, but it's clear that tabs are very useful in certain vertical applications.

    The advent of e-books has likely been the tipping point for tabs; rather than an e-reader device that either can't surf the web or does it poorly, many users prefer a device that can surf, present e-books, and other media.



    There IS kind of a chicken/egg argument here, though. What Apple has done indisputably better than any competitor is build an appealing app base. They were prescient enough to have that infrastructure in place for the iPad touch and the iPhone.

    Apple is not the only company, though. And there are many users who wouldn't buy Apple if their lives depended on it. Apple did a great job of a) executing on the whole notion of the "app" and its infrastructure and b) creating a market where none existed.

    BTW, Jobs was famously disdainful of marketing studies and focus groups, and saw little point in testing out design concepts with consumers.




    Content is king. If nothing else, the iPad proves that. If the consumer hook is content, then what's wrong with RIM using that to improve the appeal of their product? $299 is an overpriced Kindle Fire? Not when you consider that the KF doesn't have any horsepower as a gaming platform. Remember, Amazon is a content company. They sell books, movies, and music. They're not really into games.

    You defeat your own argument. You try to claim that everything between a Kindle Fire and an iPad is "no-man's-land", but that's exactly the territory that's open to competitors. The Android tablets are good, but generally speaking the Playbook performs better and has a better UI. Given the response to the discounted prices it sounds like that's appealing.
    Not to speak for dandbj13, but I think he was referring to price point rather than tablets themselves. I agree with him on that. I think the pricing structure for the near future has been decided. To be successful, companies may now note that $300 is too expensive of a price.

    I still think that for the rank and file consumers (the ones who truly determine the viability of any product), things like UI mean little. They will like the UI of the product that gives them what they want. This comes from someone who actually likes the PB UI.
    01-07-12 05:48 PM
  19. dandbj13's Avatar
    You try to claim that everything between a Kindle Fire and an iPad is "no-man's-land", but that's exactly the territory that's open to competitors. The Android tablets are good, but generally speaking the Playbook performs better and has a better UI. Given the response to the discounted prices it sounds like that's appealing.
    I don't think you quite understand my argument. How the PB is selling at $299 is irrelevant as it is likely losing money. If you build a tablet to meet a $299 price point and be profitable, what you have built is a KF, or something very much like it. You cannot build the current PB and sell it profitably at $299. At $349-$399, you are in direct competition with the discounted iPad 2. It doesn't matter what you build. In that price range, you will lose. You either have to go cheap or go super high-end niche, or go home.
    app_Developer likes this.
    01-07-12 05:53 PM
  20. ADozenEggs@aol.com's Avatar

    You defeat your own argument. You try to claim that everything between a Kindle Fire and an iPad is "no-man's-land", but that's exactly the territory that's open to competitors. The Android tablets are good, but generally speaking the Playbook performs better and has a better UI. Given the response to the discounted prices it sounds like that's appealing.
    I agree with him. For the time being. The majority of consumers either want an lesser cost device or they want an iPad.

    I also agree with you. 'No-Mans' land is rife with potential. But it's not territory that will be settled by copying either the high-end or low end devices.

    Which may mean that the device that does indeed settle this territory is the one we haven't seen, because it hasn't been invented yet.
    Last edited by ADozenEggs@aol.com; 01-07-12 at 07:29 PM.
    01-07-12 05:59 PM
  21. Economist101's Avatar
    Or to put it more simply, "what can a tablet do that existing devices can't?"
    No offense, but this is way off. There isn't a thing the iPad can do that can't be done on another device. The same is true of every other tablet. So while your line certainly is "simpler," it's not an accurate summary of the original comment.

    BTW, Jobs was famously disdainful of marketing studies and focus groups, and saw little point in testing out design concepts with consumers.
    You write as though the above have a similar motivation, but in fact they occurred for drastically different reasons. Marketing studies and focus groups can be useful, but we've all heard the Henry Ford quote and it's dead on. As for testing out design concepts with consumers, a minor reason is what you describe, but the primary reason is that the company doesn't discuss unannounced products externally, and in most cases doesn't announce them until right before they're ready to launch. The most notable exceptions are the Apple TV, the iPhone and the iPad, though the announcements of those products were likely dictated in part by the need to run them through the FCC, where they would certainly be leaked.

    You defeat your own argument. You try to claim that everything between a Kindle Fire and an iPad is "no-man's-land", but that's exactly the territory that's open to competitors.
    No doubt. How are those competitors doing, by the way? Are any of them profitably selling tablets today, or are they all talking about things they are going to do, sales they're going to make, and profits they are going to earn?

    The Android tablets are good, but generally speaking the Playbook performs better and has a better UI.
    Yeah that better performance and UI hasn't exactly propped up sales; the fact that RIM began selling all units at the same price is all you need to know about the PlayBook's lack of market success.
    01-07-12 06:10 PM
  22. dandbj13's Avatar
    I agree with him. For the time being. The majority of consumers either want an lesser cost device or they want an iPad.

    I also agree with you. 'No-Mans' land is rife with potential. But it'ss no territory that was be settled by copying either the high-end or low end devices.

    Which may mean that the device that does indeed settle this territory is the one we haven't seen, because it hasn't been invented yet.
    Mr. Eggs, if that's your real name, I admit that I am discounting the option of building something for that price range largely on the basis that I believe Apple will continue to offer the iPad 2, not at $399, but $349. That is what the original iPad went for on refurb when the iPad 2 came out.

    I am also basing my assumption on the idea that there is no tablet market, just an iPad market. This assumption is easily tested by a thought experiment. Offer the iPad at the same price as the cheapest competitor. In that eventuality, the nearest competitor gets fitted for cement boots. $349 kills everything from $300 on up.

    I admittedly could be wrong about either of those assumptions. However, to date, the market has not proven me so. Perhaps RIM will be the ones to prove that there is a substantial market of people who want something other than the iPad and not just something cheaper.
    01-07-12 06:12 PM
  23. trsbbs's Avatar
    Eliminate the 16 and 32 gig models. Fire sale them until gone. Production stopped on these two models ASAP.
    Only have the 64gig for $299.00 at OS2 launch.
    Run this through the Spring. Dry up the in inventory.
    Q2 2012 stop production of current PB. Leave them wanting more if OS2 is good.
    Mid Summer, late Summer introduce the PB2 with hardware (leading edge) upgrades etc..
    Keep the original PB relevant. EOL after 3 years.

    Just a thought...

    Tim
    Last edited by trsbbs; 01-07-12 at 07:45 PM.
    01-07-12 07:34 PM
  24. ADozenEggs@aol.com's Avatar
    I admittedly could be wrong about either of those assumptions. However, to date, the market has not proven me so. Perhaps RIM will be the ones to prove that there is a substantial market of people who want something other than the iPad and not just something cheaper.
    Actually, it's Mr. Dozen to my friends.

    Possibly. But can they do it with a device that, at least in it's current form, peaks when used in conjunction with a BB phone?
    01-07-12 07:51 PM
  25. dandbj13's Avatar
    Actually, it's Mr. Dozen to my friends.

    Possibly. But can they do it with a device that, at least in it's current form, peaks when used in conjunction with a BB phone?
    I suppose that is possible. I don't see it, though. A tablet is not an accessory for a phone. It didn't work when HP tried to link the TP to the Pre3 with Touch to Share. I think the iPad, and now the KF, gain popularity partly because they do not require another device to get the most out of them. I believe that really hurt the PB.

    Another challenge is that with that plan, you would be limiting the potential market to RIM customers. That is another dangerous strategy as many BB users are so because that is what they got at work for free, or because it was the inexpensive option. That is not the market of people who buy expensive accessories, even if they wanted them.

    Believe it or not, I would love to be wrong about a lot of this. I get no benefit from watching RIM break themselves on the Apple iceberg. Is it possible for RIM to produce a tablet that customers in Indonesia can afford, and Americans will want, and shareholders will applaud? I just don't think so.
    01-07-12 08:08 PM
111 12345
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD