Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:17 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless Is Research In Motion still, well, in motion? Heck yeah they are. They just unveiled their long-awaited tablet, christened the BlackBerry PlayBook. It's got a dual-core 1Ghz ARM processor, and it runs... QNX! This alone already makes it the most awesome tablet ever.
Order by: Score:
:)
by poundsmack on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:26 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

trust me when I say this thing rocks out loud! it makes the iPad look like a mid 90's Palm pilot ;)

Reply Score: 7

RE: :)
by aliquis on Wed 29th Sep 2010 18:04 UTC in reply to ":)"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

*yawn*

Since the link was from Thom I don't doubt it.

Won't click his retarded links any more.

Reply Score: 2

Damn cool!!!!
by Nex6 on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:32 UTC
Nex6
Member since:
2005-07-06

must say damn cool.....

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:34 UTC
Kroc
Member since:
2005-11-10

Calm down dear, it’s only a commercial.

Price hasn’t been set because I expect that they don’t actually know yet. Getting the manufacturing nailed down for next year leaves plenty of room for price scale. This all seems very high spec (even the iPad is not using an A9) and on face value would cost $800+. Blackberry could quite easily shoot themselves in the foot with pricing, and their me-too reaction to the iPhone has me rolling my eyes.

Yes, it’s QNX under the hood, but can I install my own image on it, is it going to be all proprietary locked down, no-touching, no-hacking? I think they could actually hold ground on the iPad if they let developers hack the system.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Calm down dear, it’s only a commercial.


Apple announced the iPad over two months before it shipped - the 3G model took three months. The white iPhone 4 has been announced four months ago, with no shipping date in sight. It took more than six months for the webOS/Pre from announcement to shipping. Windows Phone 7 - same thing.

It's entirely natural to announce a device with a brand-new operating system 4-5 months early in order to make sure developers get with the program.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by JonathanBThompson on Tue 28th Sep 2010 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
JonathanBThompson Member since:
2006-05-26

Both the iPhone 4 and the iPad had firm ship/sale dates and prices when announced: this does not. This has a nebulous ship date and completely unknown price.

Because they did spec the hardware as high-end as they did, I'd be surprised if it is anywhere near comparable in price to the iPad. Sure, the iPad has 1/4 the RAM, etc. but everything is a tradeoff, and plus, more RAM and faster CPUs eat batteries for breakfast, so, for RIM's sake, I'd hope the smaller screen and (presumably) smaller process dualcore ARM processor use less power, or they simply won't compete when it comes to one of the iPad's biggest selling points: it's not tethered to a power brick or anything like that. Now, where the PlayBook may be a better bet is for those that find the smaller size more to their liking: hey, there's simply no one-size-fits-all solution for all needs ;)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by Kroc
by aliquis on Mon 27th Sep 2010 23:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Yes, it’s QNX under the hood, but can I install my own image on it, is it going to be all proprietary locked down, no-touching, no-hacking? I think they could actually hold ground on the iPad if they let developers hack the system.
WeTab is supposed to run MeeGo, also run Android apps.

License of MeeGo and QT is ok. Whatever they will lock down the item and application development I have no idea .. Sadly chanses are high for the whole market. Companies are idiots.

Edited 2010-09-27 23:05 UTC

Reply Score: 3

Business users would still buy them at $800
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 01:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

People are buying ipads as web browsers, not for the app store.

It would be nice if they got it to around 4-5 hundred but I could still see people paying a premium for it over the ipad.

Better size, higher DPI, dual core, Flash, ARM battery life, Blackberry functionality and "playbook" is a great name on top it all.

QNX is just icing on the cake. This is a very strong entry, I'm impressed.

Reply Score: 3

tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

People are buying ipads as web browsers, not for the app store.

It would be nice if they got it to around 4-5 hundred but I could still see people paying a premium for it over the ipad.

Better size, higher DPI, dual core, Flash, ARM battery life, Blackberry functionality and "playbook" is a great name on top it all.

QNX is just icing on the cake. This is a very strong entry, I'm impressed.


Right, because the several billion applications [> 1 billion for just the iPad alone] are copies of Safari for the iPad.

Reply Score: 3

aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

/5 to get rid of everything which is just variation of something else + 99.5% crap?

Just guessing.

Anyone want to share some truth for how it looks? I have neither device.

Reply Score: 2

tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07

People are buying ipads as web browsers, not for the app store.

It would be nice if they got it to around 4-5 hundred but I could still see people paying a premium for it over the ipad.

Better size, higher DPI, dual core, Flash, ARM battery life, Blackberry functionality and "playbook" is a great name on top it all.

QNX is just icing on the cake. This is a very strong entry, I'm impressed.


Better size and higher DPI ?
The current iPad still has a higher resolution screen and it's an enjoyable 10" screen which is awesome for browsing, games or whatever and this is the current iPad; don't forget that by the time the Playbook is out the new iPad will have been announced.
ARM battery life ? Why wtf is the iPad running ?
Besides the larger size of the iPad allows it to have a larger battery which is a big advantage compared to the rest of these tablets and there's no mention of battery life on the Playbook, just wait and see.

As for the iPad just being used as a browser, you must be living in a cave because numerous reports all over the net would disagree with you.

Edited 2010-09-28 19:33 UTC

Reply Score: 1

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Better size and higher DPI ?
The current iPad still has a higher resolution screen and it's an enjoyable 10" screen


DPI = Dots per inch.

The ipad has a slightly higher resolution but it is spread out over a greater area. Because of this the playbook will have a crisper picture.


ARM battery life ? Why wtf is the iPad running ?

It's just a positive characteristic for this type of device and one that many iPad competitors are missing.


Besides the larger size of the iPad allows it to have a larger battery which is a big advantage compared to the rest of these tablets

That adds weight and it also has a bigger screen to power. The ipad really isn't portable enough, it didn't surprise me at all when I read that Apple has a smaller version planned.
http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/rumor-lighter-smaller-ipad-mini...

As for the iPad just being used as a browser, you must be living in a cave because numerous reports all over the net would disagree with you.


I stated the main reason why people are buying them
http://www.tuaw.com/2010/04/04/poll-why-did-you-buy-the-ipad/

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by Kroc
by Beachchairs on Tue 28th Sep 2010 02:19 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
Beachchairs Member since:
2009-04-10

Yes, it’s QNX under the hood, but can I install my own image on it, is it going to be all proprietary locked down, no-touching, no-hacking? I think they could actually hold ground on the iPad if they let developers hack the system.

If their policy is anything like that of their Phones, then replacing the software shouldn't be that much of an issue. Using an unofficial OS on my Curve was as easy as running an installer executable.

That's not to say they won't go power drunk with their tablet...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Brynet
by brynet on Mon 27th Sep 2010 22:53 UTC
brynet
Member since:
2010-03-02

Emphasize POSIX, but not offer it as a target for application development?

Anyway, QNX isn't what it used to be.. and RIM's acquisition didn't improve the situation.

Edited 2010-09-27 22:54 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Brynet
by Radio on Mon 27th Sep 2010 23:16 UTC in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
Radio Member since:
2009-06-20

Anyway, QNX isn't what it used to be.. and RIM's acquisition didn't improve the situation.
Can you expand a bit? QNX isn't exactly a company we hear a lot about, so an updated (compared to Thom's) review would be most welcome.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by Brynet
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Sep 2010 01:24 UTC in reply to "Comment by Brynet"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Emphasize POSIX, but not offer it as a target for application development?

Anyway, QNX isn't what it used to be.. and RIM's acquisition didn't improve the situation.


What video did you watch? POSIX can be targeted by developers, heck, they're emphasising the very fact that you can write applications in C using POSIX should have been an indicator already.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by brynet on Wed 29th Sep 2010 02:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
brynet Member since:
2010-03-02

I didn't watch any video, I was basing my comments on the linked site and the above writeup.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Brynet
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:22 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Brynet"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Their (SDK early signup) site claim Flash and web-apps.

Edited 2010-09-30 00:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

looks good, but...
by JrezIN on Mon 27th Sep 2010 23:00 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

The insides of the software looks really nice... too bad it'll probably be wasted with proprietary layers of authorizations for apps over proprietary layers of authorizations for services of RIM stuff...

My favorite part about the announcement, was that it has an USB port! ;]

(I hope I'm wrong and they have store-less app installs, non digital certificated-only apps, unencrypted bootloader and stuff... =p ...and maybe Pixel Qi display as on option... =] )

Reply Score: 5

RE: looks good, but...
by steogede2 on Wed 29th Sep 2010 11:09 UTC in reply to "looks good, but..."
steogede2 Member since:
2007-08-17


My favorite part about the announcement, was that it has an USB port! ;]


Looks like it might have an HDMI output too.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: looks good, but...
by Carewolf on Wed 29th Sep 2010 17:27 UTC in reply to "RE: looks good, but..."
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Wake me up if you find out it has industry standard components such as expandable storage using SDHC, something that Apple is only avoiding because it cuts into their profit margin and hurts their image of being the ultimate evil.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by motang
by motang on Mon 27th Sep 2010 23:21 UTC
motang
Member since:
2008-03-27

I like the UI.

Reply Score: 1

Details
by jessesmith on Mon 27th Sep 2010 23:46 UTC
jessesmith
Member since:
2010-03-11

Maybe this seem silly, but I think it would have been nice to hear some of what this device will be able to do. We got a run down of hardware and the OS, but what does it do? What is it good for? What apps will be included? I feel like we're just getting a teaser here.

Reply Score: 3

I bet it's F-n expensive
by RichterKuato on Tue 28th Sep 2010 00:09 UTC
RichterKuato
Member since:
2010-05-14

It looks cool and slick I wonder if it's version of Flash will be able of pinch zoom and comfortably stream un-mobile-optimized videos unlike the current Android version.

Anyways, I'm glad RIM's still able to put together and impressive OS. Man, there are going to be some awesome tablets coming soon. I can't wait to see what HP does with WebOS and Nokia do with Meego plus WebOS's UI designer.

Reply Score: 1

Enterprise-ready toy??
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 28th Sep 2010 00:27 UTC
Fettarme H-Milch
Member since:
2010-02-16

At the end of the commercial RIM states that this tablet is "enterprise-ready and professional" but then they display the name PlayBook.
I'm usually not the kind of person who gives a lot about product names but seriously.... "Play" in an "enterprise-ready and professional" product name?? And then the first image you see when visiting the web site is some car racing game? And then you visit the developer page and it talks about Flash?
WTF?

Is RIM even sure what this tablet is?
To me the approach feels schizophrenic and I fear outside the QNX-frantic crowd, the people will react the same.

How is RIM's core audience -- the enterprise -- supposed to be interested in that thing if apparently Twitter, YouTube, and Flash gimmicks are the core tools?

How are gamers supposed to be interested in a product from a company that's hardly known for its entertainment packages and apparently thinks that Flash is a great gaming tool?

I mean... common, RIM. It's not that hard to make a tablet that appeals to your core audience.
Highlight networking features, real-time video conferencing, DocumentsToGo (gosh, you bought them for a reason), portability of existing BB apps, WLAN, Bluetooth, etc.
Oh and while you're at it, build in a frickin' projector for presentations on the go, possibly with laser pointer input support: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handheld_projector#Pointer-based_Compu...
And don't call it PlayBook.
Do all that and the enterprises will swarm to it.

With the current amount of information, it seems more like a blown up KIN.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Enterprise-ready toy??
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 01:17 UTC in reply to "Enterprise-ready toy??"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

At the end of the commercial RIM states that this tablet is "enterprise-ready and professional" but then they display the name PlayBook.


It's a sports connotation.

Maybe it will have international marketing issues but in the US it is a much better name than iPad.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 28th Sep 2010 08:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise-ready toy??"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

Maybe it will have international marketing issues but in the US it is a much better name than iPad.

Aren't the reading pads in Star Trek TNG not called "pad" in the US?
Well, in the German dubbing of TNG they were always called like that and I'd guess the translators took the name from the original language.
25 years of free (= no cost for Apple) education what a pad is.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Enterprise-ready toy??
by flynn on Tue 28th Sep 2010 03:55 UTC in reply to "Enterprise-ready toy??"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

At the end of the commercial RIM states that this tablet is "enterprise-ready and professional" but then they display the name PlayBook.

In the US 'playbook' is an euphemism for "a set of strategies." It is not childish, and often shows up in serious contexts, see: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2522883

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by AaronD on Tue 28th Sep 2010 05:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise-ready toy??"
AaronD Member since:
2009-08-19

Besides, there are not too many things more "corporate" than sports.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by shotsman on Tue 28th Sep 2010 06:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise-ready toy??"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Yeah, and how will that translate in the Rest of the World. You know that big bad place out there with a marker many time bigger that the USA or even if you add places that play US (almost) only sports like American Football?

As a European, the name 'playbook' means a toy and I lived in Boston for nigh on 10 years. Sort like 'PlayDough'.

I'm sure RIM have spent lots of money on gettingthe best name for their toy. Yes, that is what my bosses will see if the use that name and emphasise things like Twitter & Facebook. These are hardly key things for the Business which their current devices are aimed at and are much better than most alternatives.

Sorry RIM you fail here. It might be absolutely great as a tool but the name will kill it over here.
Remember the Edsel?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 07:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Enterprise-ready toy??"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

The US is a large enough market to sustain this product without the rest of the world.

I also have a hard time believing that both France and Germany would be turned off by the name.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Sep 2010 08:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Enterprise-ready toy??"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I also have a hard time believing that both France and Germany would be turned off by the name.


iPad is a million times worse than Playbook. A "pad" is nothing in either Dutch, German, or French. A "book" is much easier to grasp, cross-lingually. Yet, the iPad seems to be doing just fine over here.

Reply Score: 1

Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

iPad is a million times worse than Playbook. A "pad" is nothing in either Dutch, German, or French.

I don't know about Dutch and French but in German it's pretty common to say mouse pad, touch pad, etc.
IT-related phrases are almost completely English here.

Not only that but Star Trek TNG tells its viewers since 25 years what a "pad" is.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[6]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Sep 2010 08:22 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Enterprise-ready toy??"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

what does a mobile computer have to do with a piece of plastic people used to use for their mouse?

Form factor.


Star Trek is for nerds, and the kind of people the iPad is aimed at surely don't watch that overrated crap

Thanks for proving again that you are a close-minded jerk.
Star Trek certainly has more viewers than your pseudo-journalist blog.

Reply Score: 6

RE[6]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by Neolander on Tue 28th Sep 2010 08:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Enterprise-ready toy??"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Not only that but Star Trek TNG tells its viewers since 25 years what a "pad" is.

Well, I always thought that a "pad" was something like this...
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-ASSacgQMf6SgM::www.wayangtimes....
...sorry...

Edited 2010-09-28 08:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:26 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Enterprise-ready toy??"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Germany
pornpad?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by Fettarme H-Milch on Tue 28th Sep 2010 08:24 UTC in reply to "RE: Enterprise-ready toy??"
Fettarme H-Milch Member since:
2010-02-16

In the US 'playbook' is an euphemism for "a set of strategies." It is not childish, and often shows up in serious contexts

And what's the serious context of the racing game screenshot, application development using Flash, YouTube, and Twitter?

It's not only the name (PlayBook = PlayStation in book format) but also the rest of the advertising.
How can anybody believe in its professionalism and readiness for enterprise if RIM highlights toy features all the time?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Enterprise-ready toy??
by bitwelder on Tue 28th Sep 2010 13:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Enterprise-ready toy??"
bitwelder Member since:
2010-04-27

Right, PlayBook as name is at risk of a double TM-suit, FaceBook from one side, and PlayStation from the other! :-P

Reply Score: 1

RE: Enterprise-ready toy?? - PlayBook
by jabbotts on Tue 28th Sep 2010 12:31 UTC in reply to "Enterprise-ready toy??"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Consider how many enterprise managing buzwordists talk about circling the wagons to go down the bunny whole together with the same "playbook".

Reply Score: 2

Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Consider how many enterprise managing buzwordists talk about circling the wagons to go down the bunny whole together with the same "playbook".


They are just being literal.

Reply Score: 1

may be expensive but
by stabbyjones on Tue 28th Sep 2010 01:08 UTC
stabbyjones
Member since:
2008-04-15

It's looking to be worth the money.

microusb is enough to convince me at the moment. why does everything have to have a 30 ping connector on it? we just got past that with phones and it's being brought back to tablets with gusto.

definitely looking at this when it's out.

Edited 2010-09-28 01:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by KenP on Tue 28th Sep 2010 02:14 UTC
KenP
Member since:
2009-07-28

My only disappointment is the smaller screen size. 7" is barely larger than a smartphone.

iPad, unfortunately, wins due to larger screen size.

Hence, the only one i am really looking forward to is ADAM from Notion Ink.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 07:21 UTC in reply to "Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Nah, I think the iPad is too big and bulky. At that size I'd rather carry a netbook.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by ricegf on Tue 28th Sep 2010 11:07 UTC in reply to "Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Actually, quite a few tablets are coming in 7" size now, for a critical reason - they fit in a (large) pocket. It's the size I plan to buy, once I find a tablet that's worth my money. MeeGo and webOS both look promising... and this. Nice commercial!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by tuzor on Tue 28th Sep 2010 11:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07

Actually, quite a few tablets are coming in 7" size now, for a critical reason - they fit in a (large) pocket. It's the size I plan to buy, once I find a tablet that's worth my money. MeeGo and webOS both look promising... and this. Nice commercial!


Actually that's what their marketing department would like you to believe.
Why would you want to carry something like that in your pocket. Even if it fit's, it's an accident waiting to happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by ricegf on Tue 28th Sep 2010 12:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Um, because I've carried my other tablets in my pocket for the past 4 years with no mishaps?

The point is to have the tablet with you wherever you need it, without having to lug around a backpack or attaché case with a large slate. This is the same use case as for the Kindle 3 (have you noticed it has a 6" display, by chance?).

I agree that it's a different use case than is targeted by iPad, which is most suitable for use on the recliner at home. But I prefer a netbook in that situation, since I tend to type a lot while reclining. :-)

Fortunately, the market will sort this all out and determine if enough people want pocketable tablets, or most prefer an iPad-sized tablet. But certainly this person wants pocketable!

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by Carewolf on Wed 29th Sep 2010 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

Mobile devices made by other manufacturers are usually using better than "cheapest shit we could find" components, and things like: fitting in pockets, surviving use in the rain, being dropped on the floor and being sat on, are expected quality levels for non-Apple consumers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:28 UTC in reply to "RE: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

URL to commercial?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by ricegf on Thu 30th Sep 2010 09:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Here y'go. It shows several advantages of the 7" form factor: Fits in jacket pocket, back pocket or purse, and can be operated with one hand while doing something else. Video conferencing with any computer (e.g., Skype), Flash games, streaming to HDTV, taking photos and videos, the 32 gig uSD card, and some other nice features are also highlighted. It's just a great "lifestyle" commercial IMHO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pV3xJRjH--8

I'm more of a Meego fan personally, but I'm fairly certain the tablet in my future looks more like the Tab than the iPad. YMMV, as always.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

But that's not the QNX tablet? :/

Yeah, I'd much rather take MeeGo than Android.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by roblearns on Tue 28th Sep 2010 14:52 UTC in reply to "Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
roblearns Member since:
2010-09-13

7" is much larger than a smartphone.

What barely?

I can understand if you like the 10" screen size - however, the issue is the larger Tablets are not portable in the sense that average Joe will actually carry it around.

Like a notebook, its going to be left in the living room...maybe carried to the bedroom and back.

Whereas with a smarthpone, its carried everywhere - grocery store, business meeting, park - wherever you go, its with you.

But despite what you say, a smartphone has a tiny 3.5" screen (maybe 4" tops) - and its hobbled by it's internet connectivity being so miserable. It works in a pinch, but its hobbled.

iPad has already proven that the 10" tablet, is not the everywhere device - people are not carrying it around, we know that already.

My hope is that the 7" device might become that device.
It also won't fit in a jean pocket - but it will easily fit into a purse or suit pocket.

I remember the joke about the iPad before it was released, is women would carry it in their purse, and men would have to figure it out - there was early talk of marketing a 'man purse'

Well - time to revisit the subject, what actually happened - is the device IS NOT PORTABLE.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Playbook and Galaxy Tab
by roblearns on Tue 28th Sep 2010 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE: Playbook and Galaxy Tab"
roblearns Member since:
2010-09-13

p.s. Apple also stated several times they expected the iPad to be a Wi-Fi device, with only some smaller interest in 3g.

Why? Because they understood from day one, that you'd connect it to the wi-fi -> in your house.

That it would be the internet browser that you can carry around from room to room in your house.

3g would imply, the everywhere device.

Now, maybe that's all some people want - a browser for their house.

But that still leaves wide open this opportunity, to have the truly portable, internet connected, personal computer - the smartphone is almost that, but, frankly, the postage stamped sized screen, is never going to be as effective as a larger screen. 7" is plenty large to have productive apps.

Reply Score: 1

Tablets are Cute
by backdoc on Tue 28th Sep 2010 02:29 UTC
backdoc
Member since:
2006-01-14

Tablets are cute. They make great commercial fodder. But, they haven't piqued my interest.

RIM is getting off on the right foot, though. I mean, it's running QNX. But, only time will tell if it is flexible enough for me.

If I ever buy a tablet, I am expecting shell access and ssh. And, if I put files on it, I want to be able to mount it on my computer's file system or use scp.

I doubt any of that is ever going to happen.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tablets are Cute
by pepa on Tue 28th Sep 2010 10:57 UTC in reply to "Tablets are Cute"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

My below $100 tablet has root shell and ssh, I can browse my server's filesystem and read files on the go.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Tablets are Cute
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:32 UTC in reply to "Tablets are Cute"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

What I like about tablets is actually the customized-for-the-task-at-hand-and-nothing-more-applications, which seems very "unixish" but kinda have got lost in all the office packages, play-all-sorts-of-media-mediaplayers, e-mail clients, calendars and so on.

It's also the opposit of run-everything-in-some-tab-of-your-browser.

I think facebook status updates is somewhat usable, I think a simple picture browser is to, a simple IM-client, stock tracking, RSS-reader and so on.

Reply Score: 2

Wow, look at these specs !
by Neolander on Tue 28th Sep 2010 05:27 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

I bet this thing can run for at least twenty minutes before being plugged in !!! ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wow, look at these specs !
by Kroc on Tue 28th Sep 2010 07:09 UTC in reply to "Wow, look at these specs !"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

"The Lappy 486 comes with one half of ten minutes battery life…"

Reply Score: 1

No 3G?
by orfanum on Tue 28th Sep 2010 06:03 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

This does look interesting but it seems that ATM RIM will 'provide' you with 3G only only via tethering a BlackBerry phone to the PlayBook...Not very compelling, although I can see the marketing 'logic'. I would wait until the promised 3G and 4G iterations. Also, If I were RIM I would be offering a device that came with access to a broadly available wireless network as part of the package. Glad to see QNX getting a bit of a boost, though.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No 3G?
by Adurbe on Tue 28th Sep 2010 18:34 UTC in reply to "No 3G?"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

For me, the tethered option is far better. It means I dont need 2 network contracts in order to browse the web.

Instantly this 'feature' (i see not reason why this isnt a standard) has saved me £30 per month compared to having 3G built in

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: No 3G?
by orfanum on Wed 29th Sep 2010 09:10 UTC in reply to "RE: No 3G?"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

Good point: I had not thought about viewing it in that way - I was more concerned about the prospect of having to carry around two devices.

Just wondering now whether face-2-face video conversations might in fact sit ever more comfortably with people, rendering the need to have a tablet *&* a smartphone therefore ever more unlikely?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: No 3G?
by tuzor on Wed 29th Sep 2010 10:47 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: No 3G?"
tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07

Good point: I had not thought about viewing it in that way - I was more concerned about the prospect of having to carry around two devices.

Just wondering now whether face-2-face video conversations might in fact sit ever more comfortably with people, rendering the need to have a tablet *&* a smartphone therefore ever more unlikely?


The way I see things moving into the future is both types of devices becoming more powerful and feature rich, to the point were most people abandon laptops for tablets. That's why it makes sense for tablets to have a 9-10" screen.
I don't think that they will(should) ever converge into one category,

Reply Score: 1

2011???
by tuzor on Tue 28th Sep 2010 09:09 UTC
tuzor
Member since:
2007-08-07

First of all, Apple has created a very positive image for themselves lately (when it comes to common folk) and they are known for their iDevices.
By naming their products that way they automatically get free publicity and more importantly a recognisable name all over the world.
On the other hand RIM have to heavily market the "Playbook". It could be the best name in the world, but in the end it really isn't when you have to spend millions of dollars to advertise it.

This seems like a great device, the competition in the tablet area is getting better and better and that's just good for consumers like us.
However don't forget that this is coming out early next year which means it will compete with the next generation iPad.
Personally I find the screen a bit too small as well but I suspect that many of these manufacturers are forced into the 7" screens because Apple is sucking up the supply of the larger ones and maybe raising the price on them.

Reply Score: 2

RE: 2011???
by Eddyspeeder on Tue 28th Sep 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "2011???"
Eddyspeeder Member since:
2006-05-10

I agree; since there was news that the iPad SDK holds support for among other cameras ( http://www.osnews.com/comments/22818 ), I've always said the next generation iPad will support it. Apple merely needed to keep prices low to "create" a flourishing tablet market. I think they succeeded...

But hey, does anybody else notice there is no mention of hard disk capacity *AT ALL*? With 1 GB RAM it is only to be expected that the HD will be much more spacious, but it doesn't say anywhere what the actual volume is.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: 2011???
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Sep 2010 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE: 2011???"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree; since there was news that the iPad SDK holds support for among other cameras ( http://www.osnews.com/comments/22818 ), I've always said the next generation iPad will support it. Apple merely needed to keep prices low to "create" a flourishing tablet market. I think they succeeded...

But hey, does anybody else notice there is no mention of hard disk capacity *AT ALL*? With 1 GB RAM it is only to be expected that the HD will be much more spacious, but it doesn't say anywhere what the actual volume is.


If it is anything like the blackberry mobile phones it'll have bugger all space; even their high end Storm only comes with 256MB built in memory. For Christ sake, its 2010 and people are still bundling only 256MB on a phone worth as much as an iPhone?! I'll bet my bottom dollar that it'll have the same woeful amount of memory as their phones will and charge the same price as the iPad.

Apple competitors never cease to disappointment me in almost every way they put a product out there; from the lack of Android 2.2 upgrades to the anaemic space included with their products, and their refusal to ship globally because of their hatred of international customers. I call it hatred because there is absolutely no reason what so ever not to ship it global on day one - put up a f--king website and allow people to purchase it anywhere around the globe.

Edited 2010-09-28 14:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 2011???
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Sep 2010 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2011???"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You do realise that unlike Apple, most companies are not averse to SD expansion slots, right? I'd much rather have an SD slot which I can continuously upgrade than soldered-on 16GB without the ability to upgrade - save for buying a new device, of course.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: 2011???
by Beta on Tue 28th Sep 2010 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 2011???"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realise that unlike Apple, most companies are not averse to SD expansion slots, right? I'd much rather have an SD slot which I can continuously upgrade than soldered-on 16GB without the ability to upgrade - save for buying a new device, of course.

Please sir, can we have both?

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: 2011???
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 2011???"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

If you want more memory then I'd rather take _TWO_ SD card slots.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: 2011???
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 2011???"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realise that unlike Apple, most companies are not averse to SD expansion slots, right? I'd much rather have an SD slot which I can continuously upgrade than soldered-on 16GB without the ability to upgrade - save for buying a new device, of course.


Amazing how you fail to explain to me why I should pay close to the same price for an inferior product. Take this:

http://www.vodafone.co.nz/shop/mobileDetails.jsp?skuId=sku6920077&v...

Only upgrade is via a mini-sd slot, the result? even if I wanted to upgrade to 16gb (which is the largest mini-sd available) I would end up paying more than a 16GB iPhone 4:

http://store.apple.com/nz/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco...

So I end up paying close to $1200 for a Blackberry plus upgrade card (16GB is going to be the largest mini-sd) or I could pay $1099 for a iPhone 4 - around $100 cheaper. Then add on that- are you going to receive a new OS like how iPhone 3GS did? I doubt it.

So you're saddled with a more expensive phone that you can't upgrade the OS and limited expandability due to technical limitations of sd-mini technology

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: 2011???
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Sep 2010 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: 2011???"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I call it hatred because there is absolutely no reason what so ever not to ship it global on day one - put up a f--king website and allow people to purchase it anywhere around the globe.


Laws.
Legal requirements.
Testing procedures.
Supply problems.
Insufficient production capacity.
Lack of a supply chain.
No support structure.
Insufficient raw materials.
Insufficient manpower.

Want me to go on?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: 2011???
by kaiwai on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: 2011???"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Laws.
Legal requirements.
Testing procedures.
Supply problems.
Insufficient production capacity.
Lack of a supply chain.
No support structure.
Insufficient raw materials.
Insufficient manpower.

Want me to go on?


Then stop whining that Apple is mopping the floor with you. If you want to beat Apple how about producing a comparable experience - there is should be no reason in this day and age for me not being able to purchase a device unless the company is being a grade A cunt and refuses to sell it internationally.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 2011???
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 2011???"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

there is should be no reason in this day and age for me not being able to purchase a device unless the company is being a grade A cunt and refuses to sell it internationally.


It's clear you know jack shit about how to run a business. Serving the entire world takes boatloads of money and manpower, something most companies simply don't have. How hard is it to understand something as basic as that?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: 2011???
by kaiwai on Wed 29th Sep 2010 00:13 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 2011???"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

It's clear you know jack shit about how to run a business. Serving the entire world takes boatloads of money and manpower, something most companies simply don't have. How hard is it to understand something as basic as that?


Bullcrap; Apple have been selling their products in New Zealand for well over 20 years, well before they became a big player in the computer market. If a small company like Apple 20 years ago could target a market of less than 4million people with almost half the GDP per capita as the United States then I bloody well think that a company who is in a stronger position can do like wise.

If your products aren't accessible to the marketplace then you're going to f--king fail! it doesn't matter how good the product is, how many oooh's and aaah's are said by fanboys jerking their gherkin off in front of the computers screen - it'll remain nothing than a wet dream fantasy for the majority of people. Don't come to this forum bitching that your favourite company is failing in the marketplace when they exclude 9/10 of the worlds population from ever being able to get a hold of the device.

Edited 2010-09-29 00:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 2011???
by tuzor on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 2011???"
tuzor Member since:
2007-08-07


Then stop whining that Apple is mopping the floor with you. If you want to beat Apple how about producing a comparable experience - there is should be no reason in this day and age for me not being able to purchase a device unless the company is being a grade A cunt and refuses to sell it internationally.

Please stop accusing RIM, Thom is going to have heart attack.

On a more serious note, having thought about it, it's quite interesting how they've left out important stuff like a price, an actual ship date, storage capacity and no indication of when a 3g model will arrive.

When the iPad was announced they made it pretty clear that they were pricing this aggressively.
They have some important decisions to make which could either make this product a relative success or a failure.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: 2011???
by kaiwai on Wed 29th Sep 2010 00:24 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: 2011???"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Please stop accusing RIM, Thom is going to have heart attack.


Yeah I know but nothing pisses me off more than circle jerk of Apple haters putting up alternatives which 9/10 people in the world couldn't purchase even if they had funds ready to so.

On a more serious note, having thought about it, it's quite interesting how they've left out important stuff like a price, an actual ship date, storage capacity and no indication of when a 3g model will arrive.

When the iPad was announced they made it pretty clear that they were pricing this aggressively.

They have some important decisions to make which could either make this product a relative success or a failure.


True, I was also wondering the same things about the lack of details - I can understand the old adage of under promise and then over deliver but at the same time if you fail to provide at least the details then people will decide not to hold off their purchases and simply go for the one that is already shipping and is a known quantity.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: 2011???
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: 2011???"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Yeah, because iPhone was released in the US, Europe and Asia at the same time. And is available globally?

Even less so: At the same price?

Edited 2010-09-30 00:42 UTC

Reply Score: 2

axilmar
Member since:
2006-03-20

What GUI does it run? can it be programmed in C/C++?

Reply Score: 3

Screen Resolution
by edwardv on Tue 28th Sep 2010 15:38 UTC
edwardv
Member since:
2007-09-19

I would like a higher res screen. The minimum I would consider buying is 1600x1200 with 2048x1536 preferred.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Screen Resolution
by nt_jerkface on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:06 UTC in reply to "Screen Resolution"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

For a 7" screen?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Screen Resolution
by Adurbe on Tue 28th Sep 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Screen Resolution"
Adurbe Member since:
2005-07-06

In fairness the Playbook has an HDMI output, I think he wants it to Output that, not show as REALLLY tiny on the 7" screen

No point connecting to a nice projector to se big squares ;)

Edit: re-read, thats not what he meant... my point stands though so will leave the comment...

Edited 2010-09-28 18:37 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Screen Resolution
by aliquis on Thu 30th Sep 2010 00:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Screen Resolution"
aliquis Member since:
2005-07-23

Why do everyone think that a high DPI / resolution screen in a small format will make everything small?

It won't, only sharper. Just render everything bigger. Not hard at all.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Screen Resolution
by Neolander on Thu 30th Sep 2010 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Screen Resolution"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Why do everyone think that a high DPI / resolution screen in a small format will make everything small?

It won't, only sharper. Just render everything bigger. Not hard at all.

Indeed. It's only old OSs like Windows and Mac OS who could have some issues with that because of legacy applications and APIs that were made with a specific DPI in mind.

OSs that don't have a large base of long-time users to please, like QNX, don't have this issue. They only have to encourage development of resolution-independent applications or software specifically designed for the targeted hardware (here : tablet), though the latter is a waste of resources

Edited 2010-09-30 05:35 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screen Resolution
by shotsman on Tue 28th Sep 2010 16:10 UTC in reply to "Screen Resolution"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Ah, you mean like those now obsolete laptops that you could buy once upon a time.

This trend towards wider (length pixels) yet smaller (heightwise) GLOSSY screens is also IMHO really, really bad.
Not everoune wants to show the latest Hollywood Shrek pt 49 in super widescreen. Some of us really want to do proper work. As for the lack of matt screens, do these makers ever try their products out in the real world. You know the one with sometimes crap ambient lighting.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Screen Resolution
by re_re on Tue 28th Sep 2010 22:39 UTC in reply to "Screen Resolution"
re_re Member since:
2005-07-06

A higher resolution screen would be nice but would drastically increase the cost of the item considering it is a 7 inch display.

Reply Score: 2

PlayBook and Ruby Development
by hibridmatthias on Tue 28th Sep 2010 19:50 UTC
hibridmatthias
Member since:
2007-04-11

I have always been fascinated by QNX.

My question is, any Rubynistas gonna take a shot at developing for this platform? What tools/frameworks are you going to try? Rails? QtRuby? Rhodes?

No matter which one, one thing is for certain...things are definitely heating up for Ruby folks interested in mobile apps....

Reply Score: 1

ooooh man
by helf on Tue 28th Sep 2010 23:16 UTC
helf
Member since:
2005-07-06

I never thought I'd actually want a RIM device but this looks awesome. I adored QNX and I love webos. Its a mixture of the two! Its amazing ;) I think I will wait to buy a tablet till it comes out and see how awesome/horrible it is.

Reply Score: 2