RIM introduces it's tablet.. the PlayBook (1 Viewer)

[DaveF]

When I hear "BlackBerry", I don't think "fun for the whole family", but "business chic". Do you think RIM is trying to make a versatile device usable by all, home and work? Or business-centric like their phones?

 

[mattCR]

I think this is probably going to be considered "executive chic" first. Blackberry has a few things going for it in that market, and this will be a fit with those buyers. I don't know if it goes beyond that. But I do know that competition is good

 

[Sam Posten]

I saw that engadget video. Looks REALLY janky to me. Those gestures are completely stupid. The guy can't even pull them off reliably.

 

[DaveF]

Weird interview with RIM, by way of Engadget's live-blogging.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/07/mike-lazaridis-live-at-d-dive-into-mobile-with-the-playbook/


Either RIM doesn't know where it's going or it's unable to communicate it in a live interview. (I discount any live-blogging deficiency by Engadget, since they've done a good job with Apple's events).


It would seem RIM has given up on competing with other smartphones: Blackberry does what it does and that's good enough for them. But they also seem to have a self-delusional view of their current phones' performance and popularity. Instead, they're staking their future on tablets (and multi-core processors), but again with a self-delusional view that people only want web and games and video and music on 7" and larger tablets, but not on their phones.


Weird.

 

[Sam Posten]

These guys have gone off the map and have no way to get back on it. I would be very scared if this guy was my boss.

 

[Sam Posten]

The device looks a lot less janky here:

http://www.bgr.com/2010/12/08/blackberry-playbook-hands-on-video-demo/

 

[Kazz]

Seems a little impressive.

 

[mattCR]

Office Depot has leaked pricing at $499 for a Wifi version. If that holds, it's really interesting.. because the Motorola and Samsung pads are in the $700 range, this would undercut them, and be the same as the cheapest iPad with a faster processor, more memory, etc.. I'm kind of surprised if this holds to $499.

Now this is what we're talking about! Sure, we've been well aware of RIM's plans to take the PlayBook to Sprint (and maybe even Verizon), but if this Office Depot listing is to be believed, a 16GB, WiFi version of the 7-inch tablet will also be heading to some retailers for the very competitive price of $499.99. It's really the first solid PlayBook pricing we've seen, and we've got to admit, we're happy to see that RIM followed through on its word to offer the touchscreen slab for under $500. (And hey, it sure beats the leaked Xoom pricing we saw earlier this week.) Unfortunately, the screenshot above doesn't reveal much more, although it lists the QNX-powered slate as hitting Office Depot stores on "Week 17," which is the last week in April according to our calendar. That's a bit later than the March date we've heard before, but either way we're waiting for spring to start and hoping Office Depot's cut out its shady practices so we can snatch up one of these ASAP.

Like I said, really great price if it holds.

 

[Sam Posten]

Competition is good!

 

[Hanson]

Had the Galaxy Tab been wifi only and sold at stores and not by carriers trying to upsell data contracts, it could have easily made it to the market at $499. What RIM was able to sidestep that Samsung could not was Google's Market policy, partly because they're not Google, and partly because there's really not much of an app market available for the Playbook anyway. If you look at the other 7" wifi only Android tabs, they're all around $299, and even if the SGT is more expensive to manufacture due to the better screen and whatnot, it's still not over $200 more. Plus, they wouldn't even need the radios for data and voice.


At this point, I have no idea if Google is going to officially support wifi only tablets. If they don't and try to market their tablets with carrier pricing, they're never going to make a dent into the tablet market.

 

[Sam Posten]

We agree on that!

 

[mattCR]

In an interesting twist, Blackberry is now believed to support running Android apps, as it will boot the GoogleOS through a VM, basically..


http://crackberry.com/newer-reports-again-suggesting-blackberry-playbook-will-run-android-apps


EA has announced it will develop for Blackberry Playbook, announcing "Need for Speed" and "Tetris" "Scrabble" and others... http://crackberry.com/press-release-eas-need-speed-and-tetris-coming-blackberry-launch

 

[Hanson]

Here's the interesting twist -- Blackberry, the enterprise oriented company releases a wifi only tablet that really needs always on data connectivity for enterprise users while Samsung creates a consumer Android tablet that has mostly unneeded always on data capability.


I have data on my SGT to allow me to connect to work wherever I am, so I am in the intersection of that Venn diagram. But really, these products are kind of backwards.

 

[mattCR]

Actually, Hanson.. they are intro'ing four versions of the Playbook. 3 have Cellular plans. Only one is WiFi only. The three with Cellular plans will be Sprint first, soon Verizon and ATT, as they've announced they will be 4G (LTE) as well as HSPA+ versions as well:


http://crackberry.com/press-release-rim-announces-two-additional-blackberry-4g-playbook-models-lte-and-hspa-networks

RIM has now announced plans to offer four BlackBerry PlayBook tablets:

1. BlackBerry PlayBook with Wi-Fi
2. BlackBerry 4G PlayBook with Wi-Fi + WiMax
3. BlackBerry 4G PlayBook with Wi-Fi + LTE
4. BlackBerry 4G PlayBook with Wi-Fi + HSPA+

In addition to the Wi-Fi and 4G connectivity referenced above, each tablet can also support:

1. Bluetooth tethering
2. Mobile hotspots (ie. a MiFi, smartphone or other portable device equipped to act as a mobile Wi-Fi hotspot)
3. BlackBerry Bridge

 

[DaveF]

If this is even half right, the Playbook is dead on arrival: It will not have the lifeblood of the iOS world, the indie developer.


http://blog.jamiemurai.com/2011/02/you-win-rim/

[...] Unfortunately, there was one more little jab you were still able to get in, RIM. This afternoon, Google Notifier informs me that I’ve received an email from you. Naturally, I assumed that it was just a confirmation that my App World account had been approved, considering I had filled out your forms truthfully and completely, just as you had asked. However, I was surprised to find that it was, in fact, a request for more personal information. You wanted me to print off a notarized statement of identification form, fill it out, take it to notary with government issue ID to have it notarized, and then return it to you so that you could be absolutely sure with 100% accuracy that I was who I said I was. I think it goes without saying at this point, but neither Apple nor Google require you to do anything even close to that.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

I still remember Bloomberg requiring me to sign off on something like that as part of my job interview process about a decade ago -- and I basically told them "no, thanks" even though they were ready to offer me the job, but still needed me to sign off on that first.


_Man_

 

[mattCR]

I have to tell you, I find it kind of scary to learn that Apple doesn't require you to provide full affirmative proof of who you are before you start selling stuff. That's kind of scary actually. I'd be pretty sure MS and others also follow the practice of documenting out who they are issuing payouts to. Has this guy developed anything that I would know of? Realize, if you're not an individual, I'm sure RIM would, like Apple, just accept your business license and Tax ID. Being a guy out on your own shingle, there are some hitches in there. If he develops something big, he might look at spending the $200 to get an LLC and a Tax ID together.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Sure, I can see why Apple, RIM, et al. *should* require some reasonable proof of ID, and maybe require different levels of proof depending on what you actually do, but then again, I guess Apple prefers the more direct, arguably more effective approach of their thorough app review process instead -- I'm assuming their review process is very solid indeed.


Truth is background/ID checks tend to just be not much more than formalities anyway and in no way assures developers won't behave maliciously, etc. Meanwhile, they can open up a whole can of worms in terms of potential abuse, etc. Who's watching the watchmen?


Not saying there shouldn't be any kind of ID check at all. But you can't really soley rely on that anyway. And if you'll actually do due diligence in the app review process itself, then the ID part probably shouldn't be a big deal.


RE: my comment about employment at finance-related companies, I can understand why an investment bank or the like would require more thorough checks, including some sort of basic personal finance check, since you'd be working fairly closely w/ people's $$$ -- I'm not sure about the civil rights implications, but maybe they should actually do different levels of clearance checks (like government agencies do) depending on exactly what you'll be tasked to do. But IMHO, Bloomberg and others, who are not working nearly that closely/tightly w/ people's $$$, should *NOT* go for such draconian measures as periodic personal finance checks -- yes, IIRC, they wanted me to sign off on periodic checks, not just a one-time check, and this about a decade ago when nobody else other than actual financial/banking institutions were doing such checks, not even a very tightly run, leading, insurance policy admin software system vendor I worked for back then (though their approach is probably more like Apple's app review process w/ plenty of formal and informal code review, etc.).


Anyway, basically, they should really just approach this 3rd party app development stuff as they would standard outsourcing contract work. Just apply due diligence at the app/code review level and not go for draconian measures at the initial ID/background check stage. And if some genius level developer (or a small group of them) really wants to wreak havoc all *THAT* badly, you're probably not gonna stop him w/ a simple notarized ID and/or basic background check anyway. Actually, wasn't there some recent article about Apple's process being susceptible (w/ provided example of how), if someone really wanted to be malicious (and it didn't even require genius level work)?


OTOH, I guess RIM maybe just want their target market segment -- probably lots of corporate business types who might want the device approved for actual business uses -- to feel safe enough about the Playbook and so are going in this direction to be more in line w/ how many of their Blackberry corporate clients operate...


_Man_

 

[DaveF]

Originally Posted by mattCR

I have to tell you, I find it kind of scary to learn that Apple doesn't require you to provide full affirmative proof of who you are before you start selling stuff. That's kind of scary actually.

Really? You get uneasy over the thought that you might buy software from someone who has sent a Notary-Public authorized form of their identity to someone? I take it you've never downloaded software or shopped on eBay.


That aside, did you read the essay? The entire process of getting setup to develop for RIM was described as almost Byzantine; completely off-putting for a small shop.

 

[Hanson]

I think Man is on the money as to why RIM is doing this -- this kind of extra security is there to reinforce their corporate security cred. I sure RIM is actually happy about this sort of publicity since it also casts a shadow over Apple and Google's lack of strict background checks for developers.