If "Rim" wasn't a bad enough name as it is!
This is embarrassing frankly. LOLZ
BlackBerry maker Research in Motion is preparing to launch an iPad competitor in November, and it will be called the BlackPad, according to a report citing two people familiar with the company's plans. Bloomberg reports that the RIM tablet will have roughly the same dimensions as the iPad, offer WiFi and Bluetooth, and give …
why the hell does it have to have 'pad' in the name at all??? do all companies have to copy Apple right down to the name?
SURELY they could hire a branding team to come with a name?
At least its not Dell though, who would name it the easy to remember 'X9B7207-g' :-)
Terry, I am referring to the fact that after the iMac came out, suddenly there was and i-Everything on the market. And even irons came in bondi blue.
Now there is the iPad and all speculation turns to what x-pad the competition will bring out.
Why do tablets now have to be called pads'?
Come on, wheres the imagination?
(there are other minor examples too, but you get the idea..)
The iPad sells so if you want to get a share of that search market, grab the punters with something that is similar, you need to follow the leader. By leader I mean the one that has sold the most, not the ones that are actually any good.
The oldest marketing trick in the book. Fred sells product X-ABC so if you want to sell yours, you need to sell it as Y-ABC to ensure the punters find your product. You call it UD364, it will not get seen.
The cheap far-east knock-off merchants are masters at it, take a trip down to your local Trading Standards office for a taste!
Apple threw away all preconceptions of how a tablet should work and built something new based not upon a desktop OS, but a smartphone. They created good hardware and backed it up with a lightweight (if heavily locked down) operating system.
The Blackpad, if the reports are to believed, will not offer anything new over the iPad. In fact, if the reports are to be believed, it will be inferior. No 3G model; access provided only through a smartphone acting as a gateway. (Assuming of course that you own a compatible smartphone on a provider that will allow you to do such things.) Everything I have read elsewhere says it will have Blackberry 6 OS; an operating system that looks as bland and uninspired as Windows Phone 7.
It promises to deliver less than the iPad but cost as much, whilst suffering from being nearly a generation behind. I’m sorry, I don’t like Apple all that much, but their execution on the iPad was fantastic. They took a concept (tablets) that was dead (barring a few significantly overexpensive flukes the P1510d or the OQO) and change the game significantly. They brought excellent battery life, a multitouch interface system that works and that most critical of items: a low price.
I don’t much care for Apple, but if the bloody thing had a USB port, an SD Card slot and the ability to be easily rooted (so that I could run whatever programs I wanted, not so that I could pirate other programs,) then I would already own one. (There has to be a way to recompile VLC or something similar to run on it. Then I could watch my extant collection of media without having to repurchase it all from iTunes. SD Cards would allow me to swap out media I wish to watch.)
Other *pads might (might!!) offer something like this in the future. Maybe. By then, Apple will be onto the second generation of iPad with enough features to answer the competition. Apple got into the “actually affordable and usable” tablet market before anyone else. Everyone else failed miserably to execute, and now Apple has the category brand name recognition.
So, too little, too late? Damned right. It might please the odd geek or business if it happens to be somehow technologically superior to an iPad, or cheaper. (Highly unlikely on both counts.) If it does, it still won’t be a game changer, and thus it will be unable to overcome the brand recognition on that market space that Apple has, and won’t sell in enough volume to matter.
Thus: too little, too late.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
A general purpose computer is one that can run different programs and the hardware is not dedicated to running just one task.
Go back to 1995, there was no USB. So computers back then weren't personal computers?
Go back to 1985 and there was no multitasking on most machines (on desktops), so computers back then weren't personal computers?
If you went back 10 years and showed people the iPad they would be astounded. I had a 256 colour Palm IIIc with 160x160 resolution back then which I thought was pretty good.
And when was it decided that the ports on an a machine dictate that it is a Personal Computer or not? I thought we'd got beyond these strawman "multitasking", "no copy/paste" or "but it's a standard feature on xxx platform made by xxx" type 'arguments'. Look, have the decency be original, or at least try. Pointing and guffawing like all the other little nerds, doesn't make you any more right, it just make you another internet nerd, voicing the same bullshit 'opinion'; that goes for the Apple fanbois too. Yadda, yadda, yadda. You've read something somewhere and regurgitated it. It's really getting tedious...
There are a number of reasons iPads generally aren't considered PCs, just as there are a number of definitions of what a PC is.
The definition Apple gives to a PC in their commercials is "anything that isn't a Mac". So by Apple's own definition, an iPad is NOT a PC.
The general definition is pretty broad. "A small digital computer based on a microprocessor and designed to be used by one person at a time." The iPad is closer here. But the iPad is intended to be used by many people at once. One person to operate it, and three or four other people to watch in the coffee shop while writing their plays on MacBooks.
The term most people are more inherently familiar with is is this one: "A microcomputer with its own processor and hard drive. Although technically this refers to all such computers, including Macs, the term PC is nearly synonymous with only the IBM-compatible microcomputers." This, in the end, is the definition Apple endorses and the most widely known one.
So, the iPad is not a PC.
I would also add that typical PC allow you to upgrade parts -- laptop (hard-drive, rams, and in some case even CPU).
Also in PC you can install software from different companies even if original maker didn't approve of that.
However, if iPad was running OSX (the laptop, or desktop base) then it could pass as a PC. However, it's nothing more the big version of it's mobile cousins.
So RIM bought a domain and there are rumors of a planned released of this unseen product in November. How exactly is that answering the iPad? I mean the iPad is selling so far at around 1 million a month or so and selling a ton of Apps. RIM hasn't and probably won't answer that with this device.
...seems to be making other companies forget about innovation. Apple has always been about innovation, and everyone else seems to be playing "follow the leader" right now.
If only they followed the engineering philosophy, rather than push out me-too devices.
I count Google as the only exception.
What did Apple invent? They have stolen the IP of others and admitted to it. You surely don't complain about the royalty rates if you didn't steal anything.
Mobile to mobile video conferencing? Nope, Apple wasn't first.
Push? Nope, not Apple.
Mobile email. Nope, not Apple
Touchscreen mobile phones. Nope, not Apple.
Apps on a phone. Nope, not Apple.
I can't see a single thing Apple invented. Unless your idea of innovation is copying/stealing, then they are the king.
Innovation is not the same as invention, Lance. You can take an idea (an idea isn't necessarily IP either Lance) and improve upon it. This is such a puerile, schoolyard "it was MY idea first" type argument!
Apple haven't claimed that they invented mobile to mobile video conferencing, YOU did! Apple never claimed that they invented push email *or* the notion of mobile email either. Neither can I recall Apple ever claiming that they invented "touch screen" phones, but theirs was the first to use actually use "touch" (ie your *finger*) for input., rather than a fiddly stylus. Apple never claimed to invent apps on phones; when the initially released the iPhone, they intended it to run *webapps*. The dev and Tech "journalist" cried merry hell they they couldn't develop apps on it (much like the rediculous "S'not fair, I only know Java and I should be allowed to use that!" brouhaha), so Apple acquiesced and released an SDK and allowed apps on the device. See, facts! Want more, not silly conjecture!
"I can't see a single thing Apple invented. Unless your idea of innovation is copying/stealing, then they are the king." Utter and complete rubbish. Like it or not, Apple, Microsoft and Google to name the current dominant tech firms are ALL innovators, they wouldn't be where they are if they weren't. It's only myopic individuals that like getting themselves all steamed up about frankly meaningless and trivial flame wars that think otherwise.
I can't tell if you have no reading comprehension or are just exceptionally bad at logic. He did not state that Apple "invented" any of those things. You said that Apple's product was innovative, so he listed the features of the product and asked which was an invention of Apple, because none of them are. For reference, since you do not appear to own a dictionary:
innovation: invention, a creation (a new device or process) resulting from study and experimentation
innovation: invention, the creation of something in the mind
The only thing Apple appears to have innovated or invented is an antenna that doesn't work.
I also found it intellectually delicious that the second definition specifies that an innovation is something that is invented in your mind, because Steve Jobs' imagination is only place that the iPhone 4 "just works" or is "magical and revolutionary".
Also, lest you embarrass yourself further with this "Apple was the first touch of the finger input" nonsense, Apple stole that technology from IBM, who invented it in the 1960s.
Quote: "Mainstream exposure to multi-touch technology occurred in 2007 when the iPhone gained popularity, with Apple falsely stating they 'invented multi touch' as part of the iPhone announcement, however both the function and the term predate the announcement or patent requests."
There is still hope for you though, if you stand still we may be able to remove your head from your rear.
Lance 3 asked, and I quote; "What did Apple invent?", then continued to list bogus claims that Apple had 'made', claiming that they had "stolen" all this technology. I was merely suggesting that Apple had NEVER claimed that they had invented any of the things that Lance 3 was disputing. Perhaps I could have been more explicit. I didn't even suggest, claim *or* intimate that Apple invented the (multi-)touch interface, just pointed out (correctly) that they were the first to bring it to market successfully, intimating they had done so with the then iPhone OS; again I could have possibly been more explicit. Apple have patented multitouch heavily, but again that's not a suggestion of *invention*, just a claim of *innovation* in the mobile space.*You* are attempting to put words in my mouth in much the same way Lance 3 was with Apple.
As to Invention/innovation; I can play the 'quote-the-dictionary' game too! I'll quote from The Oxford English Dictionary;
Innovate: 1) To change (a thing) into something new; to alter; to renew. 2) To bring in (something new) the first time; to introduce as new. eg; Nylon... was first invented in 1928, but not innovated until 1939. 3) To bring in or introduce novelties; to make changes in something established; to introduce innovations.
Invent: 1) To come upon, find; to find out, discover. 2) To find out or produce by mental activity. (There are several more entries, but *none* of them suggest invent == innovate)
I'd argue that you are very much wrong and my point stands; innovation != invention, although it is correct to assert that they are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Quoting from a Wikipedia article is not a good place to start with a rebuttal either; they themselves have a "DON'T QUOTE US!!!" disclaimer! The article that you do quote is, unsurprisingly, unsubstantiated. It merely links to videos shot and posted in 2005; meaningless as it doesn't necessarily prove prior art in any way, just that someone recorded a video in 2005! Or are you and the Wikipedia 'editor' suggesting that Apple only developed the iPhone in 2007? In fact they should really reference Elan Microelectronics (http://reg.cx/1HdK) 2010 claims agains Apple with regards multi-touch, but that's a whole other debate. Let's follow that "Apple stole it off IBM..." 'reasoning' though; the idea for hypertext, and arguably the GUI and modern computer interfaces as we know them, were more or less 'invented' by a chap called Vannevar Bush (look him up on Wikipedia!). So many modern "innovations' can be rationally argued to have been stolen from him!
As to your rude tone, why? There is absolutely no need for it! It's nasty, spiteful and puerile, especially given how wrong you are! So, with all due respect, I suggest that you lay off the coffee and perhaps it is you that could do with his head removing from his rear. I thought is was only Apple fanboys that were supposed to be smug...
He may have insinuated that Apple stole different features from other people (hint: they did). This implicitly suggests then that they didn't invent the technology, like Steve Jobs claims they did.
I think when you say "intimating" repeatedly you mean "imitating"... then again, maybe you are getting intimate with your "multitouch" Apple devices. Not sure how that would work since there isn't even a USB port on the iPad.
"Quoting from a Wikipedia article is not a good place to start with a rebuttal either."
You know that studies and independent reviews have determined Wikipedia is far more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica, right? Anyway, here it the NYU web site summarizing the most recent iteration of multitouch. Look familiar? http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirsense/index.html
Han, J. Y. 2005. Low-Cost Multi-Touch Sensing through Frustrated Total Internal Reflection. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
Pretty smart though, I guess. They waited for a couple decades so other people could invent the technology for them, then "patented the hell out of it" to quote Stever.
The *Nature* 2008 review of Wikipedia’s reliability. It didn’t say that Wikipedia is “is far more accurate than Encyclopedia Britannica” at all. The journal did find that there were on average 2.92 mistakes per article for Britannica and 3.86 for Wikipedia, which to the rest of the world means that Britannica is in fact more accurate than Wikipedia, if only marginally (depends on how the stats were calculated). The thing that I want to really to address is this; I didn’t say that Britannica, or any other encyclopedia for that matter, *was* a better reference, merely that using Wikipedia to base your argument on wasn’t a good idea! I wouldn’t base an debate, hypothesis or any kind of report on facts found in an encyclopedia! While encyclopedias are a reasonable platform to start your research from, it is advisable to, to quote Wikipedia; “...take care – as with all general reference works – to check their facts and be aware that mistakes and omissions do occur.” To present information gleaned from any encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia as empirical evidence is just foolish.
"A white pad will remain an apartment where rhythm-challenged people wear khaki pants and eat Wonder Bread with mayonnaise. ®"
Reg... That is spineless.
If you're gonna make (albeit funny) little gags like that, at least have the minerals to be duotone in your slander.
I wonder... what would the line say if the device was called a 'yellowpad'??
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020