[JasW]

windows....

Ha ha . . . anyway, even if the "QNX Superphone" referred to in the other thread (i.e., a mini-PlayBook) were released next month instead of the OS7 phones, what would RIM have? A device that finally squares off against the iPhone. But would that even be enough? I tend to think not -- most of the consumer market will still opt for an iPhone even where things are more or less equal. I'd imagine this would be so even if QNX totally spanked iOS 5 in terms of superiority.

RIM's game is healthy survival now, not overtaking Apple or even Google. It's strength is in messaging -- from both a hardware and software perspective -- so that healthy survival will depend upon bolstering what will in essence be a niche market, i.e., those people beyond the "how r u" tappers who use their phones for serious messaging (a broad term that includes everything from lengthy email to posting in forums such as this one). People who want a 4.3" eyepopper of a screen for whatever reason, games, videos, etc., are probably never going to be looking first at a BB.

[brucep1]

Because the potential of QNX is documented and technical, not potential to developers, for example it can support up to 32quores(or was it more?) hardware, name another OS that can do that?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

How do you document potential?

[howarmat]

Ha ha . . . anyway, even if the "QNX Superphone" referred to in the other thread (i.e., a mini-PlayBook) were released next month instead of the OS7 phones, what would RIM have? A device that finally squares off against the iPhone. But would that even be enough? I tend to think not -- most of the consumer market will still opt for an iPhone even where things are more or less equal. I'd imagine this would be so even if QNX totally spanked iOS 5 in terms of superiority. Its not the OS being QNX and it being a superphone, its also about the ecosystem which it would severely be lacking right now. It needs time to get people developing on QNX architecture really. IMO having the android app player will defeat this really and even when the superphone is ready its going to have to rely on "android apps" to save the day. Just have to see

RIM's game is healthy survival now, not overtaking Apple or even Google. It's strength is in messaging -- from both a hardware and software perspective -- so that healthy survival will depend upon bolstering what will in essence be a niche market, i.e., those people beyond the "how r u" tappers who use their phones for serious messaging (a broad term that includes everything from lengthy email to posting in forums such as this one). People who want a 4.3" eyepopper of a screen for whatever reason, games, videos, etc., are probably never going to be looking first at a BB.

very true they probably wouldnt. But many like me really wanted to see the storm serious do great and be great phones. Its too bad, RIM got great sales with them but they were still widely panned by most as the worst BBs ever.

[Crucial_Xtreme]

Ha ha . . . anyway, even if the "QNX Superphone" referred to in the other thread (i.e., a mini-PlayBook) were released next month instead of the OS7 phones, what would RIM have? A device that finally squares off against the iPhone. But would that even be enough? I tend to think not -- most of the consumer market will still opt for an iPhone even where things are more or less equal. I'd imagine this would be so even if QNX totally spanked iOS 5 in terms of superiority.

RIM's game is healthy survival now, not overtaking Apple or even Google. It's strength is in messaging -- from both a hardware and software perspective -- so that healthy survival will depend upon bolstering what will in essence be a niche market, i.e., those people beyond the "how r u" tappers who use their phones for serious messaging (a broad term that includes everything from lengthy email to posting in forums such as this one). People who want a 4.3" eyepopper of a screen for whatever reason, games, videos, etc., are probably never going to be looking first at a BB.

I'm not sure this has the be the case forever but I agree. I've been saying the same, RIM doesn't have to be number 1 or 2 in order to be successful. Number 3 isn't bad and this is an attainable & sustainable goal for the near future. Once QNX is totally ported and has some history in the marketplace, RIM can start mixing it up again with the big 2. I just don't want people thinking they have to be numero uno to be successful.

[allengeorge]

RIM doesn't have to be number 1 or 2 in order to be successful. Number 3 isn't bad and this is an attainable & sustainable goal for the near future.

There appears to be some confusion wrt. what being "1" and "2" represent. Sometimes people take it to be the ecosystems (i.e. Google/Android vs. Apple/iOS) and sometimes it refers to the device manufacturers (i.e. Apple, Samsung, HTC, etc. etc.).

There's no doubt that the dominant ecosystems are Android and iOS. I don't see how another one could be broadly viable in North America unless everyone switches to webapps or starts to dump apps altogether. It's tough to support yet another platform, and unless you have a large chunk of market share most companies won't do it. And I feel like the only way RIM can get that market share is to offer something so compelling that people will drop their Androids for it, or jump directly from feature phones to BlackBerries.

There's no doubt you can have many device manufacturers living (and being profitable) in the same space. That said, I think you're going to see it coalesce into the top three commanding more than half to two-thirds of the market, with everyone else fighting for the scraps. My guess as to the top three isn't particularly out there: Apple, HTC, Samsung.

[lnichols]

There's no doubt that the dominant ecosystems are Android and iOS.

Apple has an ecosystem. iTunes, integration between AppleTV and iDevices for big screen, iCloud coming, etc. I don't consider Android to be an ecosystem. It is an OS with an mish-mash of App Stores that talks to Google services that are available on any platform. If you define and ecosystem to be an OS with Appstore, then I guess Android has one (and by definition RIM would have one too), but maybe my definition of an ecosystem has higher standards.

[i7guy]

The PB has gotten mediocre reviews at best and if thats what QNX has to offer then RIM is in serious trouble.

Even though I have the ipad 2, the playbook is more in line with what I'm looking for in a tablet, as I've spent a lot of time playing with one. Although I love using the ipad as a semi-laptop substitute, mobil safari is just okay and the ipad 2 is kind of blah.

I'm probably going to pick up a playbook in the near future.

[jd914]

Really, you've got to stop right there before you make yourself look stupid. Back up the statement in bold. I will bet dollars to donuts you can't list any concrete reasons to back up the statement in bold. Hate on RIM/BB all you want, that's your prerogative; but if you want to be taken seriously, don't just spout off nonsense.

Katiepea isn't spouting off nonsense it's the general consensus of tech professionals and reviewers that WebOS is the most polished and better functioning of all operating systems. Web OS's multitasking and notification system are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, thats a fact.

The only problem with Web OS was Palm and now HP integrating their OS into inferior hardware.

IMO Web OS will give the competition (Andriod and iOS) a run for their money if HP licensed it to other manufacturers.

QNX is a complete rip off of Web OS one good example is the swiping up of cards to close applications among other things.

Does Web OS have more potential than QNX? Without a doubt yes it just needs to be licensed to better manufacturers. QNX has RIM so thats a handicap right off the back.

[kbz1960]

If webOS is so great why did they have to sell it to HP, why isn't there tons of apps for it?

As for RIM ripping off webOS for QNX tell me who doesn't take features of an earlier OS and improve upon them?

Not saying webOS isn't good or bad, just sayin.

[Foreverup]

Katiepea isn't spouting off nonsense it's the general consensus of tech professionals and reviewers that WebOS is the most polished and better functioning of all operating systems.

The only problem with WebOS was Palm and now HP integrating their OS into inferior hardware.

IMO WebOS would jump ahead leaps and bounds if HP licensed it to other manufacturers.

QNX is a complete rip off of WebOS one good example is the swiping up of cards to close applications among other things.

Does WebOS have more potential than QNX? Without a doubt yes it just needs to be licensed to better manufacturers. QNX has RIM so thats a handicap right off the back.

Actually QNX is not a ripoff of WebOS

certain aspects of the Playbook UI are a ripoff of WebOS, but QNX is a far superior kernal and base OS than WebOS.

[DenverRalphy]

Katiepea isn't spouting off nonsense it's the general consensus of tech professionals and reviewers that WebOS is the most polished and better functioning of all operating systems. Web OS's multitasking and notification system are leaps and bounds ahead of the competition, thats a fact.

The only problem with Web OS was Palm and now HP integrating their OS into inferior hardware.

IMO Web OS give the competition (Andriod and iOS) a run for their money if HP licensed it to other manufacturers.

QNX is a complete rip off of Web OS one good example is the swiping up of cards to close applications among other things.

Does Web OS have more potential than QNX? Without a doubt yes it just needs to be licensed to better manufacturers. QNX has RIM so thats a handicap right off the back.

The nonsense I spoke of was the claim that the potential behind QNX is a joke. I'm not disputing the merits of WebOS. However to claim QNX having any potential as being a joke, that's really quite... ignorant. QNX does indeed have the potential to be better than WebOS.

And QNX is in no way a ripoff of WebOS. They have the same "Cards" style in the UI. Whoopdy Friggin Doo. Beyond that, there's nothing you can say they ripped off.

[jd914]

The nonsense I spoke of was the claim that the potential behind QNX is a joke. I'm not disputing the merits of WebOS. However to claim QNX having any potential as being a joke, that's really quite... ignorant. QNX does indeed have the potential to be better than WebOS.

Those are big shoes to fill and QNX is basically unproven in the mobile handset arena. To say QNX will be better than or have more potential than A, B or C operating system is too soon to make that call.

[ADGrant]

Because the potential of QNX is documented and technical, not potential to developers, for example it can support up to 32quores(or was it more?) hardware, name another OS that can do that?

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

I beleive its 32 cores but why does that matter?

[belfastdispatcher]

I beleive its 32 cores but why does that matter?

It means it's a very very powerfull OS, if it can play a video, a game and shoot video all at the same time you must think the potential is huge, maybe it could even boot windows 7 etc, the potential has to be extracted out of it as of yet but it's there.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com

[ADGrant]

The only problem with Web OS was Palm and now HP integrating their OS into inferior hardware.

IMO Web OS will give the competition (Andriod and iOS) a run for their money if HP licensed it to other manufacturers.

WebOS's problems were far bigger than the inferior hardware. Palm released an all new OS that addressed the weaknesses of their old platform but unfortunately ignored it strengths too (like its excellent PIM apps). WebOS also shipped with very weak development tools based on web technolgies.

Also forced PalmOS users to pick another platform which Palm hoped would be WebOS. However, it was actually easier to switch to a non Palm device (e.g. a Blackberry if you were syncing your Treo with Outlook).

[Amy wineBerry]

All I know is any person, place, or thing can have all the potential in the world, but if it doesn't translate into measurable results, it's just that. Potential.

Also, it seems the average consumer does not settle for potential. They'd rather see results. Don't tell them what an OS could theoretically do. Give it to them in practice. That will take some crafty marketing, of course.

The thing with RIM is that even when the QNX superphone is ready, the market may not feel compelled to gravitate toward it. That was the problem with Palm and webOS, and to some extent, Microsoft and WP7.

Posted from my CrackBerry at wapforums.crackberry.com