http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=4935
Seems like it just became a lot more attractive for buyers. Certainly puts it much closer to Xoom in my book.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
BlackBerry PlayBook will run Android applications
- Thread starter neiltc13
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=4935
Seems like it just became a lot more attractive for buyers. Certainly puts it much closer to Xoom in my book.
Being able to develop one app for both Android tablets and the Playbook at the same time, is going to be attractive to several groups, from developers to enterprises.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Blade Build/FRG83) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
From reading the press release the Android application compatibility is for Android 2.3 which may limit the Playbook to phone apps over Honeycomb apps but it would be great if it could run full on Honeycomb optimized applications.
A smart move from RIM and a benefit or developers too.
kdarling said:
From reading the press release the Android application compatibility is for Android 2.3 which may limit the Playbook to phone apps over Honeycomb apps but it would be great if it could run full on Honeycomb optimized applications.
A smart move from RIM and a benefit or developers too.
I think its a short term fix that will cause long term headaches for RIM.
Unless I misunderstood the press release, the playbook will run android and/or RIM apps.
What will be the motivation for developers to create BlackBerry apps for the playbook when all they have to do is nothing and the playbook will use their android apps.
Going back in history, IBM tried this to entice users/enterprise to embrace OS/2. They marketed the ability of OS/2 to run windows, but the problem was why develop a native OS/2 app when the windows app would work.
Unless I misunderstood the press release, the playbook will run android and/or RIM apps.
What will be the motivation for developers to create BlackBerry apps for the playbook when all they have to do is nothing and the playbook will use their android apps.
Going back in history, IBM tried this to entice users/enterprise to embrace OS/2. They marketed the ability of OS/2 to run windows, but the problem was why develop a native OS/2 app when the windows app would work.
What was the motivation for iOS developers to create iPad apps, when all they had to do was nothing and the iPad could use their phone apps?
To make their apps look better on the iPad, rather than just enlarged.
Additionally:
From here, so developers will actually need to do something to make the apps run on the PlayBook. If true, then this could generate more headache for developers.
http://press.rim.com/release.jsp?id=4935
Great idea, Jim!
Not.
RIM cutting corners again. They have no ecosystem to speak of, have never really put any effort into making one, and now they think porting over Android apps will solve everything. BOOM! Instant 100,000 apps! That's all they really want to achieve with this: the ability to say they've got 100,000 apps. That just fell out of the sky. LOL
This is the same kind of thinking that got them into trouble in the first place: not bothering to make an effort.
Think about it: Apple actually comes in with a bit *less* specs-wise, with a few features that are actually missing or not-so-great, like camera quality (front, I think) and still 1024 resolution. And what is Apple doing? Currently cutting a wide swathe through the absolute best the competition has to offer and blowing them away utterly. And I think we can agree that this isn't even really Apple's best effort. Pretty astounding. And pretty damned frightening for the competition, some of whom have already publicly declared (or implied) that they don't have what it takes . . . while really trying. Ouch.
Why the iPad success (levels not even imagined a year ago)? Because Apple is the only one that has the full package, and makes it dead-easy to enjoy it. Complete, robust, thoroughly functional Ecosystem + beautiful and powerful (adequately) hardware + the best touch interface for a tablet. Not betaware.
Taken in totality, Apple is superior in this market. And it shows.
RIM hacking Android apps onto a Playbook and back-dooring their way into a half-baked Android ecosystem is a recipe for confusion and failure.
Here is why Apple will succeed, and why the competition will continue to fail in the foreseeable future:
The iPad only does less than a regular computer to us geeks. To everyone else, it does more. This is what Motorola and Google and Samsung and BlackBerry and everyone else, with the sole exception of Apple, do not get about “open” computing.
http://jpteti.com/post/4072771125/the-ipad-is-99-more-open-than-any-other-computer
JP Teti nailed it.
Prediction: Playbook = DOA.
Great idea, Jim!
Not.
RIM cutting corners again. They have no ecosystem to speak of, have never really put any effort into making one, and now they think porting over Android apps will solve everything. BOOM! Instant 100,000 apps! That's all they really want to achieve with this: the ability to say they've got 100,000 apps. That just fell out of the sky. LOL
This is the same kind of thinking that got them into trouble in the first place: not bothering to make an effort.
Think about it: Apple actually comes in with a bit *less* specs-wise, with a few features that are actually missing or not-so-great, like camera quality (front, I think) and still 1024 resolution. And what is Apple doing? Currently cutting a wide swathe through the absolute best the competition has to offer and blowing them away utterly. And I think we can agree that this isn't even really Apple's best effort. Pretty astounding. And pretty damned frightening for the competition, some of whom have already publicly declared (or implied) that they don't have what it takes . . . while really trying. Ouch.
Why the iPad success (levels not even imagined a year ago)? Because Apple is the only one that has the full package, and makes it dead-easy to enjoy it. Complete, robust, thoroughly functional Ecosystem + beautiful and powerful (adequately) hardware + the best touch interface for a tablet. Not betaware.
Taken in totality, Apple is superior in this market. And it shows.
RIM hacking Android apps onto a Playbook and back-dooring their way into a half-baked Android ecosystem is a recipe for confusion and failure.
Here is why Apple will succeed, and why the competition will continue to fail in the foreseeable future:
The iPad only does less than a regular computer to us geeks. To everyone else, it does more. This is what Motorola and Google and Samsung and BlackBerry and everyone else, with the sole exception of Apple, do not get about “open” computing.
http://jpteti.com/post/4072771125/the-ipad-is-99-more-open-than-any-other-computer
JP Teti nailed it.
Prediction: Playbook = DOA.
Last edited:
4 questions:
- who are their core customers?
- what do those customers need?
- are customers buying RIM for Blackberry or for Android?
- does RIM care on the reasoning why customers buy a Blackberry?
- who are their core customers?
- what do those customers need?
- are customers buying RIM for Blackberry or for Android?
- does RIM care on the reasoning why customers buy a Blackberry?
One thing to add.
Apple seems to shine on meeting customers' wants (desires), and not necessarily needs.
If RIM caves in and declares this thing a half-breed tablet/laptop that is publicly declared to be aimed at "business users" (a term used as a cop-out when you're out of ideas) then they'll be looking failure squarely in the face.
With such definitive and accurate statements, why are you not employed as an analyst for a large financial institution?
They might follow Palm into the path of bankruptcy in no time.
Even Motorola is losing money still, so spending resources try to cobble together 2 platforms will surely work out well.
It sounds like the same thing you do to make J2ME and other standard Java apps run on Blackberrys today: you use RIM's byte code converter and then you sign the result. That takes about a minute.
(RIM only charges $20 for a basically lifetime signature code.)
I recall dumping all over the Zune HD as well. Because it was ****, and **** that was released way, way too late in a market that was already chewed up and spat out by Apple. I remember when MS released a brown Zune. You can imagine what my reaction (and not just mine) was.
If you pay enough attention, it's easy to spot a loser. And especially easy to call them out on it.
Last edited:
Money, pure and simple, by providing an app tuned to the iPad's strengths.
On OS/2 the development was so different the cost associated to producing and maintaining two completely different code bases was not economically feasible. Especially when the marketshare for OS/2 was not strong. For the iPad, it wasn't really difficult from a code base to make an iPhone app compile for the iPad. Same APIs same dev tools. OS/2 had a different language, different dev tools and different APIs that were quite different to window's
customers wanted a faster horse but in reality they needed a Ford Model T.
draw a BCG matrix (a very typical b-school approach) and put what you think is RIM's cash cow, star, dog and question mark. personally, i see corporate contracts as their cash cow not a cop-out. i do however question their choice in focusing on apps. i do not see how being able to play Angry Birds would be a selling point if you're pitching to GE for example.
the consumer space is about products/apps, the corporate space is about enterprise service (email security, fleet integration and management etc). luckily, the compounded annual growth rate in the consumer mobile space have been well into the triple digits. even a mis-managed product would have a fair chance of capturing adequate sales... but for how long?
draw a BCG matrix (a very typical b-school approach) and put what you think is RIM's cash cow, star, dog and question mark. personally, i see corporate contracts as their cash cow not a cop-out. i do however question their choice in focusing on apps. i do not see how being able to play Angry Birds would be a selling point if you're pitching to GE for example.
the consumer space is about products/apps, the corporate space is about enterprise service (email security, fleet integration and management etc). luckily, the compounded annual growth rate in the consumer mobile space have been well into the triple digits. even a mis-managed product would have a fair chance of capturing adequate sales... but for how long?
Didn't know that as I'm not a developer. Thanks!
Yes it is. Here's looking at you, kid.
They lack focus. They lack vision. They lack leadership.
They have resources but don't know how to mobilize and use them.
Are they an enterprise provider first, or a consumer provider first? This seems to be at least part of their dilemma.
There's an app for everything - even for corporate, "business" uses. One part of the problem is the conceptual separation. Corporate users are human, and would like devices they can enjoy, for example.
Apps *should* be the focus, but it's a question of quality and amount that should be considered. RIM has no real strategy at the moment. And what they ARE doing was great about three years ago. It's pretty scary, actually.
The "strategy" employed by tech losers:
Add more complexity and hope to win on raw specs. If that fails, change the price. I that fails, release the same product under a slightly different name, spread over several models.
Keep the complexity, but claim that it now fits "different needs" for "different markets."
Repeat.
Except today there are long, long lineups around the world for the iPad.
Hint: it has something to do with what the iPad offers that the others don't. It's also about precisely what the iPad has *less of* that the others don't.
Start guessing.