[samab]

Why would anyone want to submit an app that has large parts of it not working anyway? It would ruin your app's ratings.

[advcomputer]

I think we need to give RIM a break here. They are trying to virtualize the Android environment and as such cannot / will not get everything to run.

So what!

-Jeff

[samab]

It's NOT an emulator. RIM took the source code from Google and port the Dalvik engine from Linux to QNX. It is the same as Amazon Fire or the Nook as they are "forks" and are trying to cut Google out of the money stream --- they will not run Android live wallpaper, they will not run apps that requires Google Maps...

As I said it earlier, Amazon Fire will have the same limitations as the Playbook.

Amazon adds Kindle Fire-specific details to Developer Portal, A's your FAQ -- Engadget

[greatwiseone]

It's shocking how different the response to RIM's limitations and to Kindle Fire's limitations. For the Kindle Fire, commentary seems to say, "yeah, it's missing these things, that's it". For RIM, commentary is "RIM sucks. Most Android apps won't work". I don't understand how people spin very similar limitations in two completely different ways.

[howarmat]

The PB cant be rooted as far as we know and not actually running android OS.

The KF is actually running android for its OS and will probably be rootable.

I would assume loading an APK file and installing will work on the kindle fire fairly easily since its actually running that OS. Now the same could be said of the leaked android player for the PB but we know that is not how RIM intends to use it.

Either way we have not seen the final product on either device so its hard to say. Its just speculation. It does suck that amazon appears to be limiting the potentional on the KF but its also a good bet that some limitations will have workarounds very quickly and easily

[samab]

The PB is actually running android OS. There is no difference between running a limited feature dalvik vm on a linux kernel and running a limited feature dalvik vm on a QNX kernel.

No need for speculation --- you can't load an Android camera app onto the Amazon Fire --- because the Fire doesn't have a camera.

[howarmat]

The PB is actually running android OS. There is no difference between running a limited feature dalvik vm on a linux kernel and running a limited feature dalvik vm on a QNX kernel.

No need for speculation --- you can't load an Android camera app onto the Amazon Fire --- because the Fire doesn't have a camera.

yes that is an obvious one but there are several other apps (in app billing ones) that dont have hardware restrictions that would be possible to load and such

[Tre Lawrence]

It's shocking how different the response to RIM's limitations and to Kindle Fire's limitations. For the Kindle Fire, commentary seems to say, "yeah, it's missing these things, that's it". For RIM, commentary is "RIM sucks. Most Android apps won't work". I don't understand how people spin very similar limitations in two completely different ways.

I think you're doing the PB a disservice to be expecting the same response. That means you think they are in the same league.

PB is/was a $500 tablet. I would expect it to be scrutinized more than a tablet that is launching at less than half the price... unless we are saying the PB was overpriced to begin with.

[samab]

yes that is an obvious one but there are several other apps (in app billing ones) that dont have hardware restrictions that would be possible to load and such

But that is not a software restriction either. It is a Google licensing restriction --- which is even worst.

[samab]

I think you're doing the PB a disservice to be expecting the same response. That means you think they are in the same league.

PB is/was a $500 tablet. I would expect it to be scrutinized more than a tablet that is launching at less than half the price... unless we are saying the PB was overpriced to begin with.

It has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with Amazon having 10,000 apps in their app store. What percentage of that 10,000 apps will be available for the Fire launch?

[lawguyman]

There is a double standard here. The Playbook articles about Android player limitations are very negative. The Kindle Fire article is not.

Many people want to see a train wreck. But, a better story than a train wreck is a comeback. I hope RIM pulls it off.

[Tre Lawrence]

It has nothing to do with that.

It has to do with Amazon having 10,000 apps in their app store. What percentage of that 10,000 apps will be available for the Fire launch?

You floated somewhere else with that, and lost me.

People (like the poster I quoted) are complaining that Fire is not being "dissed" like the PB is for the same shortcomings. That is a huge disservice to the PB.

The PB costs/cost more than twice as much as the Fire. It should be scrutinized more, by default.

[samab]

The PB costs/cost more than twice as much as the Fire. It should be scrutinized more, by default.

The Playbook has 4 platforms for developers to write apps with.

[vicshannon]

As long as there is an app for Nook, Kindle and Netflix Streaming, I'll be a happy camper!!!

[FF22]

It's shocking how different the response to RIM's limitations and to Kindle Fire's limitations. For the Kindle Fire, commentary seems to say, "yeah, it's missing these things, that's it". For RIM, commentary is "RIM sucks. Most Android apps won't work". I don't understand how people spin very similar limitations in two completely different ways.

Well, some might be the difference in price ($500 versus $200) and the fact that the pb is an open format whereas the Kindle device is a portal to their content.

[samab]

Well, some might be the difference in price ($500 versus $200) and the fact that the pb is an open format whereas the Kindle device is a portal to their content.

But the fuzz about the Playbook Android Playbook came after the $200 price cut.

[Branta]

I don't think it's a question of it working or not. It's whether or not RIM will block any apps with in-app billing, for whatever reasons.

IIRC the IP rights for "in-app" purchase (billing?) are held by one of the most notorious patent trolls. Many developers have pulled out of the market as a result of their unrealistic demands.

[samab]

IIRC the IP rights for "in-app" purchase (billing?) are held by one of the most notorious patent trolls. Many developers have pulled out of the market as a result of their unrealistic demands.

That's not the big problem, RIM will cover that by getting a patent licensing deal.

RIM is going to do what Amazon is doing --- they will disallow you from using Google's in-app service because these 2 companies are not going to sign a deal with Google. But RIM and Amazon will make their own in-app purchase API available for you so that you can use their in-app payment infrastructure.

Amazon wants its Appstore to be more Apple and less Android - The Next Web

Quote:

“Because Google’s in-app purchasing technology requires access to Google Mobile Services,” says Amazon, “it will not work on Kindle Fire. We are working on a solution that will let you sell digital content in your apps using Amazon’s merchandising and payments technology. Our solution is currently in Beta and available by invitation only.”

[greatwiseone]

You floated somewhere else with that, and lost me.

People (like the poster I quoted) are complaining that Fire is not being "dissed" like the PB is for the same shortcomings. That is a huge disservice to the PB.

The PB costs/cost more than twice as much as the Fire. It should be scrutinized more, by default.

Yes, I agree the PB should be criticized more, but...I just fail to understand why the double standard.

It's the same problem that everyone has (Amazon, RIM, B&N) when they support Android apps but can't have access to Google's stuff (due to licensing restrictions), but the reaction is completely different.

Yes, the Fire is a $200 tablet that is supposed to be ANDROID, but then you can't even use some of the best ANDROID functionalities (Google maps, etc.). I have an Android phone because I want Google's services (maps, contacts, etc.)

The PB has support for Webworks (HTML5), flash, native, etc...and then what do the commentators say: oh, RIM makes it confusing and no one knows what platform to use.

I'm not a RIM fanboy (I have a touchpad, Galaxy Tab 10.1, PlayBook) and have a Android phone + a 9800, but it's just frustrating seeing how similar facts are being twisted and spinned differently.

[Barefoot_Kevin]

Not a big fan of Android anywho. About all it's good for is games.

[Jayeboi]

Does it mean that Kindle won't work since you can purchase books while in the app and 'app-billing' will not work?

No I do not believe that this means the Kindle app will not work at all but rather it just means that you will have to purchase books from the Amazon/Kindle site then open the Kindle app on your tablet to read your purchase. This is now the case with the Kindle app for Apple devices. So I'm inclined to think that the only change will be that you can no longer purchase books from within the app

[Jayeboi]

You floated somewhere else with that, and lost me.

People (like the poster I quoted) are complaining that Fire is not being "dissed" like the PB is for the same shortcomings. That is a huge disservice to the PB.

The PB costs/cost more than twice as much as the Fire. It should be scrutinized more, by default.

That is total BS! There is a double standard regarding the reviews of the Playbook and the Kindle Fire pertaining to the Amazon Apps. First up...the KF is using the Android o/s yet it has the same limitations as the PB which is using QNX. The limitations in question should not be that surprising considering the same limitations would be in place on any other tablet (ex:iPad). Its about licensing restrictions and the fact that the PB is using a different o/s and is pretty much offering the Android apps as the KF says alot for the QNX o/s.

[Tre Lawrence]

That is total BS! There is a double standard regarding the reviews of the Playbook and the Kindle Fire pertaining to the Amazon Apps. First up...the KF is using the Android o/s yet it has the same limitations as the PB which is using QNX. The limitations in question should not be that surprising considering the same limitations would be in place on any other tablet (ex:iPad). Its about licensing restrictions and the fact that the PB is using a different o/s and is pretty much offering the Android apps as the KF says alot for the QNX o/s.

Okay. The PB is being slighted. Got ya.

[samab]

Okay. The PB is being slighted. Got ya.

People are being slighted by your comments. Nothing more, nothing less.

We are talking about a $200 Kindle Fire vs. a $300 Playbook. Both have the same limitations in Android vm, but the Playbook has 3 other platforms to develop on.

[Tre Lawrence]

Yes, I agree the PB should be criticized more, but...I just fail to understand why the double standard.

It's the same problem that everyone has (Amazon, RIM, B&N) when they support Android apps but can't have access to Google's stuff (due to licensing restrictions), but the reaction is completely different.

Yes, the Fire is a $200 tablet that is supposed to be ANDROID, but then you can't even use some of the best ANDROID functionalities (Google maps, etc.). I have an Android phone because I want Google's services (maps, contacts, etc.)

The PB has support for Webworks (HTML5), flash, native, etc...and then what do the commentators say: oh, RIM makes it confusing and no one knows what platform to use.

I'm not a RIM fanboy (I have a touchpad, Galaxy Tab 10.1, PlayBook) and have a Android phone + a 9800, but it's just frustrating seeing how similar facts are being twisted and spinned differently.

I don't think anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of specs would pick the Fire over the PB. One advantage the Fire has, IMHO, is a functional ecosystem.

People are being slighted by your comments. Nothing more, nothing less.

We are talking about a $200 Kindle Fire vs. a $300 Playbook. Both have the same limitations in Android vm, but the Playbook has 3 other platforms to develop on.

Ah... you and the "people" should report me then if I am causing that much consternation.

BTW, I have found out that what I think or "know" as a self-professed techie sometimes play out differently in the real world. I am comfortable in my uninfallibility.