Charles, am not getting why still play book prefers for Dual core, when MS and Google is offering their products with Quad core processor. Whether Dual core processor have any advantage when compare with Quad core processors
It's interesting that RIM went with a dual-core processor instead of a quad core, especially given the fact that they were trying (or should have been trying) for a dramatic new product offering. I wonder why. Cost?
Well put, William. The edge RIM still has is its hold on the enterprise market. Purchase managers seem to be quite loyal. Even while employees are asking for iPhones and Androids, the purchase managers are still buying BlackBerrys.
I think RIM probably has another chance to get it right. They finally resolved their co-CEO situation, which could put the company on a new path. Even though Apple and the Android phones have stepped a generation ahead of RIM, the company still has significant technology on hand and they haven't lost their enterprise base. The BlackBerry phone is pretty clunky, but this company may still have a surprise or two in its future.
That's the problem, all right. RIM is like a dinosaur watching a bunch of newly-emerging mammals scurrying around at his feet, way too quick to catch and eat. So the dinosaur decides instead to ignore them. Meanwhile, those little mammals are growing bigger and eating his lunch. It really does seem as though they don't understand what's going on. I would say the company's only value now is intellectual-property protection in the developing wireless patent wars. I see an acquisition coming. Maybe that's what they're banking on, too. They certainly don't seem to be all that interested in making new and exciting smartphones.
I saw a pre-release Playbook at a SAP conference. It was nice. I like the smaller format tablets. They are more portable and that is what the tablet is all about.
Frankly, I think that RIM is DOA. Their main innovation was the provision of e-mail through the cellular network. Their devices were nice (I have a 8310 Curve), but they are not as sophiscated as most of the smart phones available today. Their only claim to fame to fame is really security. I had an early smart phone (a carrier brand) where I could do e-mail. With the BYOB trend in the industry, many of the attributes that RIM brought to the table are no longer unique or considered important. As the reviewer says, they should have gone quad core. I get the impression that they do not understand the situation they are in.
From your analysis, looks like RIM is sticking with the same old, same old, here, which is pretty unfathomable given that their future is hanging on a thread. They really need some blockbuster products to turn the tide back in their favor. This apparently isn't going to do it; I'm wondering if the long-awaited Blackberry 10 is going to be enough to break out of the box.
What should be the perception of a product’s real-world performance with regard to the published spec sheet? While it is easy to assume that the product will operate according to spec, what variables should be considered, and is that a designer obligation or a customer responsibility? Or both?
Biomimicry has already found its way into the development of robots and new materials, with researchers studying animals and nature to come up with new innovations. Now thanks to researchers in Boston, biomimicry could even inform the future of electrical networks for next-generation displays.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.