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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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?
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
William, now most people prefer tablets with either latest Android or Apple OS. Moreover Google and MS is also coming to market with most updated features. In such scenario, any scope for RIM or Nokia products.
Beth, the first BlackBerry I used back in 2009 was a mini boat anchor. My personal Motorola cellphone was slim and lightweight compared to the clunky BlackBerry issued by the company. Although RIM has a lot of work ahead of them to compete in the Apple iOS, Android, and Windows 7 smartphone/tablet market, I was quite impressed with the Qualcomm based communication pcb and dual mini speakers shown in the teardown slides.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
Using Siemens NX software, a team of engineering students from the University of Michigan built an electric vehicle and raced in the 2013 Bridgestone World Solar Challenge. One of those students blogged for Design News throughout the race.
Robots that walk have come a long way from simple barebones walking machines or pairs of legs without an upper body and head. Much of the research these days focuses on making more humanoid robots. But they are not all created equal.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.