[lui22]

Personally. I have use for my PlayBook. The biggest benefit for me is the and it's not as bulky nor distracting. The Z10s screen is good for what I use it for and the play books screen is good for everything else. I watch movies, is better for Web browsing though that's not saying much because the only reason is the screen size. My Z is my communicator and my PlayBook is my entertainer. My laptop is my tweaker and my iMac is my worker.

-I'm A Gay Dev. Deal With It.

[grover5]

I mainly use my Z10 and dell laptop. When I travel it's easier to take a tablet than a laptop but the functionality for spreadsheets and other business needs isn't equal on the tablet...so I take the Z and the dell. I'd like a tablet with robust Microsoft Office capabilities but that might just be the surface and for now I think I still prefer my dell.

Posted via CB10

[MarsupilamiX]

The Surface RT vs Surface Pro is a good unplanned experiment.

Same manufacturer, similar marketing, similar product. The RT and the Pro were so similar that it was confusing to the consumer.

The only thing the consumer needed to know was that the RT couldn't run all the apps as the other one. A wonderful real-world experiment showing that apps matter.

This is a very simplistic view of things.
Product differentiation may have been one point.

But let's not forget price, the fact that this is Microsoft's first Tablet/ in-house computer that MS is selling under their name.

Then we have the question of familiarity of a product to the consumer.
If the iPad behaves like a big iPod touch/iPhone and the user already has one of the smaller offerings, then an iPad would be a logical choice, not the Surface RT.
The same goes for Android based tablets.

I did not understand why MS launched the Surface RT, as cheap W8 tablets are definitely way more interesting for the consumer and for OEMs to make.
But to say that the lack of RT's success is only related to confused consumers, is definitely wrong.

I also think that MS did something geat with W8, as hybrids actually became useful, and tablets having the potential to incorporate the power of a Notebook became possible.
This will make for a very interesting competition in the tablet market, and BlackBerry, as of now, can only lose in that environment.

Posted via CB10

[merp23]

Browsing on the z10 is so painful where you have to constantly resize the web page. Don't see how it beats browsing on the playbook

[m1a1mg]

I must live in a different world. I see tablets everywhere in airports, 90% are iPads.

[Wiki Cydia]

I think Thorsten was right about the tablet. There won't be healthy margins on tablets. Even Apple had to make a reduced price mini ipad to compete with the others.

Posted via CB10

They don't build the Mini to compete with other tablets; the build the Mini for people that want a smaller iPad. That's why it's still $130 more than the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7.

[davidmcromano]

Tablets haven't fully disappeared for the frequent flyer but considering the way smartphones are being developed and equipped these days it will be a matter of time. I wouldn't consider myself a frequent flyer, but when I do fly, my Playbook is a definite packing item. My 9360 does everyone I need it to do but sometimes the option to have everything on a bigger screen is more fitting. Even when I get the Z10, the Playbook will still follow me around.

[MarsupilamiX]

They don't build the Mini to compete with other tablets; the build the Mini for people that want a smaller iPad. That's why it's still $130 more than the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7.

I am sorry, that I couldn't find better words, but what the hell is this non-sensical reply?

Of course the iPad Mini competes with other 7 inch tablets. That Apple launched it in a purely reactional way, because other 7 inch tablets were doing pretty well, and that "big" tablets are rather expensive, even though Steve Jobs said that "small" tablets are DOA, clearly proves that.

The price is higher, because Apple can get away with it.
It's that simple.
Supply and demand...

Amazon and Google have to use cheaper prices, because this is a competiting and compelling feature against the iPads.
The HP TouchPad fire sale, showed us that people pretty much buy everything, if it is cheap enough, even though it was DOA, considering future support.

This also further contradicts the comment of the user "notfanboy", saying that apps matter that much.
If apps and ecosystem would have been a must have, the TouchPad should have sold more or less 0 times.

Do you really believe what you just said?
If yes, please revise your position.

Posted via CB10

[Wiki Cydia]

I am sorry, that I couldn't find better words, but what the hell is this non-sensical reply?

Of course the iPad Mini competes with other 7 inch tablets. That Apple launched it in a purely reactional way, because other 7 inch tablets were doing pretty well, and that "big" tablets are rather expensive, even though Steve Jobs said that "small" tablets are DOA, clearly proves that.

The price is higher, because Apple can get away with it.
It's that simple.
Supply and demand...

Amazon and Google have to use cheaper prices, because this is a competiting and compelling feature against the iPads.
The HP TouchPad fire sale, showed us that people pretty much buy everything, if it is cheap enough, even though it was DOA, considering future support.

This also further contradicts the comment of the user "notfanboy", saying that apps matter that much.
If apps and ecosystem would have been a must have, the TouchPad should have sold more or less 0 times.

Do you really believe what you just said?
If yes, please revise your position.

Posted via CB10

Before telling me to "revise my position," maybe you should re-read my post and quote the section where I said that the Mini does not compete with other tablets (Hint: I never said that). You'll note that what I said was that Apple does not "build" the Mini to compete with other tablets. Ultimately, the Mini does compete with other 7-in models, but that is incidental to its purpose, and not the purpose. There is a difference.

Also, the Steve Jobs quote wasn't that "small" tablets were DOA. He actually said the particular crop of 7-in tablets (Galaxy Tab, PlayBook, etc) were DOA.

[notfanboy]

This also further contradicts the comment of the user "notfanboy", saying that apps matter that much.
If apps and ecosystem would have been a must have, the TouchPad should have sold more or less 0 times.

Do you really believe what you just said?
If yes, please revise your position.

I likewise advise you to reread what I posted because you misunderstood it. I was comparing Surface RT and Surface Pro and no other tablets. I don't know where you got that idea, mine post was just a few sentences. To summarize, my thesis was that RT failed with respect to the Pro because of app availability.

[MarsupilamiX]

Before telling me to "revise my position," maybe you should re-read my post and quote the section where I said that the Mini does not compete with other tablets (Hint: I never said that). You'll note that what I said was that Apple does not "build" the Mini to compete with other tablets. Ultimately, the Mini does compete with other 7-in models, but that is incidental to its purpose, and not the purpose. There is a difference.

This is wrong, even though you may think that wording it like that, hides the fact.

What you say, would mean, that pretty much every iPad mini buyer, would not have bought a normal iPad, as it was too big, and would not have bought another 7 inch tablet from any other company as it would not run iOS and would not be from Apple.

Only under this scenario, your thesis would be confirmed, as Apple, if they would have no intent to compete with other tablets, would have only been interested to tap into that market.

If that isn't the case though and Apple wanted to also gain customers from other manufacturers, or people being undecided, then the iPad mini does indeed compete with other tablets and it was indeed Apple's intent to do so.

The difference between these two things, that you wrongly tried to establish, actually doesn't support your argument.
When we define ,

Ultimately, the Mini does compete with other 7-in models, but that is incidental to its purpose, and not the purpose. There is a difference.

correctly, then the argument actually does not work in your favour.

This is the case, because one of Apple's intent through releasing the Mini, was to get people on board that were either already in the possession of a 7 inch Android tablet, or just couldn't justify/afford the cost of a big iPad and therefor considered anorher "smaller" tablet.

Also, the Steve Jobs quote wasn't that "small" tablets were DOA. He actually said the particular crop of 7-in tablets (Galaxy Tab, PlayBook, etc) were DOA.

I used the word "small" similarly to 7 inch devices, because I didn't wanted to repeat it 5 times, in two sentences. The most popular Tablets that are "small" also have a 7 inch panel.
This should have been clear through the context.

The Steve Jobs quote said that this category of device is DOA. The iPad mini is part of that category ( 7.9 inch).

We know that he was wrong about that.
But how wrong?
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/28/...pple-expected/

What this shows us, is that apparently more people have an interest in a cheaper and smaller iPad.
And in a category of device that was declared DOA by Steve Jobs.

You probably won't read the article, so I'll just quote a statement from Apple, that further contradicts your assertions about the reason of the iPad Mini's existence and can be found in the link:

"In terms of cannibalization, I think cannibalization is a huge opportunity for us," Cook said. "Our base philosophy is to never fear cannibalization. If we do, somebody else will just cannibalize it. We never fear it. We know iPhone has cannibalized some iPod business, we know iPad has cannibalized some Macs, and that doesn't worry us."

There was no need to tell me that I should re-read your post, I understood what you said the first time and because of that I told you how false your assumptions were.

Posted via CB10

[jegs2]

I think Thorsten was right about the tablet. There won't be healthy margins on tablets. Even Apple had to make a reduced price mini ipad to compete with the others.

BlackBerry getting its teeth kicked in regarding the Playbook might have somewhat colored Thorsten's outlook on tablets.

[MarsupilamiX]

I likewise advise you to reread what I posted because you misunderstood it. I was comparing Surface RT and Surface Pro and no other tablets. I don't know where you got that idea, mine post was just a few sentences. To summarize, my thesis was that RT failed with respect to the Pro because of app availability.

You said:

Same manufacturer, similar marketing, similar product. The RT and the Pro were so similar that it was confusing to the consumer.

^
Here comes confusion into play.
You introduced it, and therefore I talked about it in my reply.

If your only point was the fact,

The only thing the consumer needed to know was that the RT couldn't run all the apps as the other one. A wonderful real-world experiment showing that apps matter.

then:

) the consumer wouldn't be confused as he knows that RT can't run every program that W8 can run, and the decision not to buy an RT based Surface would have been a conscious one, not a confused one.

A wonderful real-world experiment showing that apps matter.

The problem with what you say here, is that it becomes a generalization, out of nowhere.

"Apps matter".
The context of the statement, is not clear, as it could be attributed to other examples easily, through your use of : "a wonderful real world experiment".
Why say it that way, if your goal wasn't to draw parallels with other real world scenarios?

Posted via CB10

[ukmight]

I must live in a different world. I see tablets everywhere in airports, 90% are iPads.

I saw the same until about 4 to 5 months back. Almost any business traveler had one tablet instead of the laptops, at least while using it in the Airports.
As of now, a lot of people I see are mostly with their phones only. The number of people with Tablets has reduced quite a bit.

Posted via CB10

[rustmonkey]

For work, my Playbook and minikeyboard work great for Citrix. No need to carry the laptop when a virtual desktop is available Add in the BB phone for communications and the laptop can stay home.

Posted with my Playbook via Tapatalk

[Wiki Cydia]

What you say, would mean, that pretty much every iPad mini buyer, would not have bought a normal iPad, as it was too big, and would not have bought another 7 inch tablet from any other company as it would not run iOS and would not be from Apple.

No, that’s not what I said at all.

Only under this scenario, your thesis would be confirmed, as Apple, if they would have no intent to compete with other tablets, would have only been interested to tap into that market.

Would that be the same one you said earlier in your post was wrong? Is it wrong or isn’t it?

You probably won't read the article, so I'll just quote a statement from Apple, that further contradicts your assertions about the reason of the iPad Mini's existence and can be found in the link:

"In terms of cannibalization, I think cannibalization is a huge opportunity for us," Cook said. "Our base philosophy is to never fear cannibalization. If we do, somebody else will just cannibalize it. We never fear it. We know iPhone has cannibalized some iPod business, we know iPad has cannibalized some Macs, and that doesn't worry us."

Ah. So because Tim Cook answered a question from an analyst regarding cannibalization, that’s now a “statement” from Apple? (Hint: It’s not; it’s a statement from the CEO during an earnings call. Remember, the “DOA” statement you cited earlier was also made during an earnings call, so these calls probably aren’t the best source of information in terms of what the company’s actual beliefs/plans/motivations are.)

There was no need to tell me that I should re-read your post, I understood what you said the first time and because of that I told you how false your assumptions were.

Please feel free to list the “assumptions” in my original post, as I don’t think I made any.

Since my suggesting that you re-read my post clearly bothered you, I apologize. I figured that since you felt free to tell me to “revise my position” that you wouldn’t get offended when I offered my own instruction. I also wont' tell you to use more periods and fewer commas, especially when you’ve got at least one comma in every sentence you’ve written. I won't tell you to pick an argument and present it coherently instead of rambling. I won't tell you to slow down and read before you type. Nah, I guess I won't do any of that.

[MarsupilamiX]

No, that�s not what I said at all.



Would that be the same one you said earlier in your post was wrong? Is it wrong or isn�t it?



Ah. So because Tim Cook answered a question from an analyst regarding cannibalization, that�s now a �statement� from Apple? (Hint: It�s not; it�s a statement from the CEO during an earnings call. Remember, the �DOA� statement you cited earlier was also made during an earnings call, so these calls probably aren�t the best source of information in terms of what the company�s actual beliefs/plans/motivations are.)


Please feel free to list the �assumptions� in my original post, as I don�t think I made any.

Since my suggesting that you re-read my post clearly bothered you, I apologize. I figured that since you felt free to tell me to �revise my position� that you wouldn�t get offended when I offered my own instruction. I also wont' tell you to use more periods and fewer commas, especially when you�ve got at least one comma in every sentence you�ve written. I won't tell you to pick an argument and present it coherently instead of rambling. I won't tell you to slow down and read before you type. Nah, I guess I won't do any of that.

The irony of your words is something that is kind of entertaining.
Talking about rambling and then giving me this rant, because you are obviously offended that someone doesn't accept your nonsense of:

They don't build the Mini to compete with other tablets; the build the Mini for people that want a smaller iPad. That's why it's still $130 more than the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7.

is pretty amusing.

This is, to remind you, just a baseless assumption.
And it was debunked.

Just because you don't understand what you are saying, doesn't mean you're not wrong.

I already explained it before, in my other reply. Worded like that, your assumption has a very strict set of requirements, Apple's strategy would have to meet, so that one could consider your statement as true.

If you don't understand that, you apparently don't understand what you yourself are saying.

Ah. So because Tim Cook answered a question from an analyst regarding cannibalization, that�s now a �statement� from Apple? (Hint: It�s not; it�s a statement from the CEO during an earnings call. Remember, the �DOA� statement you cited earlier was also made during an earnings call, so these calls probably aren�t the best source of information in terms of what the company�s actual beliefs/plans/motivations are.)

Is that a joke?
You evoked it yourself: The CEO of Apple said it on an earnings call.
This indeed can be considered as a message from Apple.

If not, I do wonder why Thorsten Heins didn't use that excuse when cancenling the BB10 update for the PlayBook.
He should have just said:
"Don't hate BlackBerry for it, hate me. But keep buying BlackBerries! It's not the company who won't give you the update."

That this sounds absurd, has a reason...

The best part of your reply is the ending though:
Telling me to re-read your post didn't bother me.
I even quoted it again. The only problem I have with it, is that the assumptions you made, are ridiculous and wrong as well.

To think that your useless provocation at the end, would get you more of a reaction, is pretty pathetic.
No matter how you try to twist the facts, or how much you dislike commas...

They don't build the Mini to compete with other tablets; the build the Mini for people that want a smaller iPad. That's why it's still $130 more than the Kindle Fire HD and Nexus 7.

^
This is simply wrong and a baseless assumption, that I already disproved in my other reply.
I would suggest, that you try to understand, what you yourself are writing.

Posted via CB10

[belfastdispatcher]

A world with dumb peripheral screens would be a very selfish world and it's not gonna happen, very few people buy ipads for their use alone, they're usually shared devices for the whole family and this is why it will not work.

[Vurhan]

Tablets might die only after physical keyboard's death.

[DivideBYZero]

Thorsten was right. There is NO tablet market, simply an iPad market. The minor players in that market are Android only and make up a very small percentage of sales. This is the same segment domination as we saw with the iPod and the bit players that tried to mop up the anti-apple sales. Thorsten is just the first C level guy in tech to admit this is the case.

[ukmight]

Tablets might die only after physical keyboard's death.

The truth is physical keyboard is almost dead. The existing ones are very small numbers. BlackBerry also pushed the Z10 as the better device at launch of BB10, even claiming physical keyboards have a limited future.
Only after they noticed that the market responded weakly to the Z10 and the core BlackBerry customers were looking forward to the Q10, they shifted gear to make Q10 "the BB10 device ".
You will notice in the initial interviews how Thorsten would prefer the Z over the Q.

Posted via CB10

[3800]

The truth is physical keyboard is almost dead. The existing ones are very small numbers. BlackBerry also pushed the Z10 as the better device at launch of BB10, even claiming physical keyboards have a limited future.
Only after they noticed that the market responded weakly to the Z10 and the core BlackBerry customers were looking forward to the Q10, they shifted gear to make Q10 "the BB10 device ".
You will notice in the initial interviews how Thorsten would prefer the Z over the Q.

Posted via CB10

in my opinion, they released the Z10 first cause they knew the Q would sell better and they hoped to get more Z sales out of people too impatient to wait for the Q. and also forced people who didn't want to wait or buy the Z buy legacy devices.

Posted via CB10

[rudyalexc]

I use my iPad at home, my Q10/iPhone outside of home, and for everything else I use a PC. Tablets had a "fad" when they first came out, but it's not as easy/useable over an actual laptop/desktop

Sent from my BlackBerry Q10

[3800]

double post

[sixpacker]

Thorsten was right. There is NO tablet market, simply an iPad market. The minor players in that market are Android only and make up a very small percentage of sales. This is the same segment domination as we saw with the iPod and the bit players that tried to mop up the anti-apple sales. Thorsten is just the first C level guy in tech to admit this is the case.

Adopting this approach means you will never build a brand or customer following that can grow to challenge Apple's dominance.

The Tablet market is (was) a good place to be for BBRY even if its not that financially lucrative.

The Playbook had a decent niche following and promoted the BBRY brand.

Dumping it indeed allows BBRY to focus all its efforts on the handset market but this is an all-in strategy, and one that doesnt look to have been successful.