Liberty Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 Emulation will always require more RAM and processor cycles than running something natively, which is more problematic on mobile devices that are limited in both these things (plus battery life) than desktops or servers. Not necessarily horrible, but definitely sub-optimal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 For Example, WINE that was a Linux To Windows emulator sucked, but that's not because of emulation per se, but because the coders did not know how to call the proprietary API or what exactly the API were supposed to do. I actually don't think there is such a thing anymore as a "proprietary API" in current Windows versions. Recognize that it's incredibly difficult to pull off such a feat. The apps that microsoft builds are linked to the public libraries and include the public headers. Same as everyone else gets access to. Legal problems aside, an application team that links to a private library is going to have major headaches when the Windows team updates the API in the future. That's the whole reason why there are public libraries! More trouble than it's worth, yet the conspiracy theories abound. There are however a number of bugs in the public Windows API that cannot be fixed for application compatability reasons. And there are a number of bugs in the documentation that don't properly describe how to deal with this behavior. That must have driven the WINE people bonkers, because if they try to implement the API as it is supposed to work per the documentation, the app will break! That's just life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I think all techies are on the same page here :) . Emulation is good if not hacked and lots of computing power/memory is available. There will certainly be some games that will run slow on the BB devices. BeerBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 The fundamentals of RIM have not changed... what's up with the run-up? I was expecting to see a run-up when new phones start really selling, not on the launch day! BeerBaron Alot of things havent made sense but i think its the fact that they HAVE launched the phones - everyone seems to understand their compatibility ability with the apps going forward. Also re the Apps its becoming clear that of the zillion apps out there a large proportion are just not as sought after as those that make up the $$$ and those that are soughtafter do become avail for the Rimm products. Other than that........ imo the market as a whole hasnt made much sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 With respect to the Techguys on the board here who know vast amounts more than me, isn't it more a case of marketing what you have. Apple has defined the consumer marketplace thus far. If other companies got off their collective asses and learned to produce a product that actually appealed to consumers they might do better. I just bought an IPAD and am very impressed so far. It came in a nice simple package with only two other pieces, the plug-in, and the data cord/charger. There were only 2x2.5 " cards explaining how to go on Itunes and upgrade your software, in 3 or 4 languages. It is a brilliant package. This compares to buy a computer a few years ago that included all sorts of electronic looking gadgets, books of manuals and offers etc, etc, etc. I dont see this as a technology play at all, but rather a brilliant stroke of marketing for a quality product. No one can dispute that RIMM produces a high quality product with their BB, and security network. What they lack is someone with the consumer smarts of Apple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 GREAT NEWS FOR RIMM LONGS - Android on Blackberry! then what is the point of developing natively for bb and what is the point of buying bb? the logical thing to do would be to buy an android phone with native apps. no emulation scheme has ever rescued a withering platform. however, it does get the institutional constituents lathered up. remember rimm rallied dozens of points on the news the playbook would run android. what would get me excited about rimm? massive insider buys. massive company buys. neither of which seem to be happening. in fact not one insider has bought shares in rimm as far as I can tell. Agreed..why buy a BB to run Android when you can buy a phone running Android? I don't really buy the claim that Blackberry's have that much better security than othe phones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftcoast Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 With respect to the Techguys on the board here who know vast amounts more than me, isn't it more a case of marketing what you have. Apple has defined the consumer marketplace thus far. If other companies got off their collective asses and learned to produce a product that actually appealed to consumers they might do better. I just bought an IPAD and am very impressed so far. It came in a nice simple package with only two other pieces, the plug-in, and the data cord/charger. There were only 2x2.5 " cards explaining how to go on Itunes and upgrade your software, in 3 or 4 languages. It is a brilliant package. This compares to buy a computer a few years ago that included all sorts of electronic looking gadgets, books of manuals and offers etc, etc, etc. I dont see this as a technology play at all, but rather a brilliant stroke of marketing for a quality product. No one can dispute that RIMM produces a high quality product with their BB, and security network. What they lack is someone with the consumer smarts of Apple. I agree that it's not primarily about competing on tech. However, I would say that Apple's advantage is not so much about marketing as it is about design. Compared to putting together a great marketing campaign, designing a really great product is hard. (Disclaimer: This is coming from someone who works in product development, not marketing.) I think if Apple's advantage was purely about marketing, then others would have closed the gap long ago. The essence of great design is captured in this much-used quote: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." —Antoine de Saint-Exupery It applies as much to producing a great movie or writing a great letter (or forum post) as it does to designing great consumer electronics. The brilliance of Apple is that they continually nail this, starting way back with the first Macintosh. Apple does not try to make devices that are all things to all people. They have the vision to figure out exactly what features and functionality are essential to their target user, and they ruthlessly strip away everything else. They focus on making a small feature set as simple and elegant and polished as possible. The result is a device that is actually a joy to use. I do agree with a much earlier poster (I think Ericopoly?) who said that Apple will likely struggle to ever build general purpose devices for businesses, because they will be forced to add features and functionality that make it very difficult to adhere to the "less is more" design philosophy. Unlike consumer devices, productivity machines (machines used to produce content vs. consume it) actually do need to be all things to all people, at least until someone figures out how to economically segment this market. These machines need to be competent at everything from graphic design to spreadsheets. This necessarily makes them more complicated to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I agree that it's not primarily about competing on tech. However, I would say that Apple's advantage is not so much about marketing as it is about design. Compared to putting together a great marketing campaign, designing a really great product is hard. (Disclaimer: This is coming from someone who works in product development, not marketing.) I think if Apple's advantage was purely about marketing, then others would have closed the gap long ago. ------- The brilliance of Apple is that they continually nail this, starting way back with the first Macintosh. Apple does not try to make devices that are all things to all people. They have the vision to figure out exactly what features and functionality are essential to their target user, and they ruthlessly strip away everything else. They focus on making a small feature set as simple and elegant and polished as possible. The result is a device that is actually a joy to use. Leftcoast, I think you're absolutely right about this. It's all about design. That's why people have been gravitating towards Apple's products. I know user interface designers (a good field to get in, btw, for all you folks still in school), and they all pretty much agree that Apple blows its competitors out of the water (for now). I do agree with a much earlier poster (I think Ericopoly?) who said that Apple will likely struggle to ever build general purpose devices for businesses, because they will be forced to add features and functionality that make it very difficult to adhere to the "less is more" design philosophy. Unlike consumer devices, productivity machines (machines used to produce content vs. consume it) actually do need to be all things to all people, at least until someone figures out how to economically segment this market. These machines need to be competent at everything from graphic design to spreadsheets. This necessarily makes them more complicated to use. Here I would disagree, primarily because I believe that network computing changes the game. If more and more computing becomes remote -- whether on private or public clouds -- then I see client device operating systems getting less complex and more focused on design and usability. Businesses will be able to add functionality for their employees by using SaaS vendors that deliver their functionality over the network. That's why I think that MSFT faces some real problems going forward with iOS/OSX and Android because I have no doubt whatsoever that these guys are gunning for business customers over the long run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 I agree with txlaw's second point. Over time, the OS will become a lot less important because almost everything important will by done in a browser. This is bad for MSFT, and this means that UI and design (and 'design' doesn't just mean "how it looks", it goes farther than that -- how something is designed is also how it works and how it feels to use) will become more important as differentiators because there will be less lock-in with OSes ('well, I don't have a choice, I need to run this software and it only runs on windows'). Before switching to Macs a few years ago, I was so afraid of not being able to do some things, and I thought I'd just keep a second windows PC as a fall back for those things. I never had to use that PC, and now it's gathering dust in some closet somewhere... Reminds me of a XKCD cartoon: http://xkcd.com/934/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 any time a company must resort to emulation schemes to give customers what they want has already lost. it's a loser's gambit. why bother investing in your own platform if you plan to tout compatibility with the competition. I have seen this movie before. emulation schemes are always proposed by the technology losers, those who made poor technology decisions and or suffered from poor technology execution. technology companies succeed or fail on decisions they made 5 years ago. ps: where are the RIMM insider buys? So Apple is a technology loser? BeerBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 any time a company must resort to emulation schemes to give customers what they want has already lost. it's a loser's gambit. why bother investing in your own platform if you plan to tout compatibility with the competition. I have seen this movie before. emulation schemes are always proposed by the technology losers, those who made poor technology decisions and or suffered from poor technology execution. technology companies succeed or fail on decisions they made 5 years ago. ps: where are the RIMM insider buys? So Apple is a technology loser? BeerBaron Thats what I was thinking- Apple was sucking big time trying to get users to jump on their technologies - only hit lightning in a bottle once they started packing up everyone elses... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CONeal Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Thought theis was a nice article regarding an influential person in the early days of Research In Motion. http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/584998--inventor-who-helped-rim-finally-gets-his-due Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 So Apple is a technology loser? BeerBaron Please elaborate, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leftcoast Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Here I would disagree, primarily because I believe that network computing changes the game. If more and more computing becomes remote -- whether on private or public clouds -- then I see client device operating systems getting less complex and more focused on design and usability. Businesses will be able to add functionality for their employees by using SaaS vendors that deliver their functionality over the network. That's why I think that MSFT faces some real problems going forward with iOS/OSX and Android because I have no doubt whatsoever that these guys are gunning for business customers over the long run. I agree with txlaw's second point. Over time, the OS will become a lot less important because almost everything important will by done in a browser. This is bad for MSFT, and this means that UI and design (and 'design' doesn't just mean "how it looks", it goes farther than that -- how something is designed is also how it works and how it feels to use) will become more important as differentiators because there will be less lock-in with OSes ('well, I don't have a choice, I need to run this software and it only runs on windows'). Before switching to Macs a few years ago, I was so afraid of not being able to do some things, and I thought I'd just keep a second windows PC as a fall back for those things. I never had to use that PC, and now it's gathering dust in some closet somewhere... Reminds me of a XKCD cartoon: http://xkcd.com/934/ In a world where everything happens in a browser (i.e. cloud), doesn't the client machine and OS just become a commodity, as the cartoon suggests? In that world, it seems like businesses will just choose the lowest-cost solution, which is unlikely to be Apple's. I see Apple devices as a bit like BMWs - fun, elegant, beautiful machines that are designed with the very focused goal of delighting those consumers that can afford them. But you don't see many Beemers used as corporate fleet vehicles. Regardless of whether computing happens locally or on the cloud, I just think it will be challenging for Apple's laser-focused design philosophy to translate to the general-purpose corporate PC market. That's all I was saying, and it really has nothing to do with whether the future is good or bad for MSFT. It would be cool to see Apple's designers prove me wrong, though! Disclaimer: I work for MSFT, albeit not anywhere near the Windows or Office businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I think you are partly right, and in good part this is because Apple isn't that interested in the enterprise. It has success there despite its semi-indifference (even Steve Jobs said it himself). They throw a few bones to enterprise users, but they don't really design their products with the enterprise in mind (except maybe some Xserve servers and such..). Apple will have success in the enterprise with smartphones and probably tablets for reasons I elaborated earlier in this thread (or was it the GOOG or MSFT thread? anyway, I don't want to repeat myself, but in short: people don't want to carry two phones around, they want the best and most desirable one, they don't want to be stuck with a sub-par 'work phone' because phones are by nature a consumer product as well as a business tool), but I doubt they'll have much success in the Fortune 500 enterprise with desktop computers and laptop for the reasons you mentioned (price). But maybe their approach to the enterprise will change post-Jobs (who never cared much about that stuff), and in any case, I believe that the way the current market is set up, Microsoft has everything to lose because when you have a near-monopoly, any disruption in the status quo can only either keep you were you are or bring you down... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Leftcoast, I think you said in you eloquent post what I was trying to get across. Up to about 10 years ago I could fiddle with Operating systems and make them work. Now days I could care less how they work and know nothing. I have no time to even learn the basics about devices anymore. They need to work and be intuitive at the outset. The word emulation is absolutely meaningless to me in this context. This is what tech guys completely miss, everytime. Job's brilliance is in recognizing this and having his people develop devices that lay people can use and download Apps onto without any technical knowledge. My workplace consistently lets techies develop inside software and consistently goofs it up. Techies by their nature want to put more and more and more on a device. Apple has reigned them in and simplified the interface for lay people such as myself. That is where the brilliance lies. In order to catch some of Apples business RIMM et al need to emulate Apple's skill or beat it. I am long RIMM via leaps, because I think they will pull rabbits just as Apple has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 So Apple is a technology loser? BeerBaron Please elaborate, I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Well Apple's ecosystem before they started emulating Windows was exactly as per RIM's current situation. Consumers loved the Apple Computer products but the offering of softwares was a lot smaller then on Windows platform. People were justifying buying a Windows PC for the same reason people today say Android has 300k apps and RIMM only 30k. Adding emulation is only an additional selling feature that gives access to much more opportunities, it won't make RIM win the race but it certainly helps too. There are two types of emulation, direct emulation and OS emulation. In the direct emulation the alien software is run directly while in OS emulation the whole operating software is loaded and then the alien application runs under the emulated OS. OS emulation is a LOT more memory costly then direct emulation. What does that mean for RIM? Well, RIM will probably be capable of providing direct emulation as opposed to Apple computer that had to resort to OS emulation. Why is RIM going to succeed at it? The answer is that Google Android and Microsoft Windows have different revenues strategies in regards to their OS. Android will rely on Apps selling and Windows relies on OS sales. Google will make accessible all the libraries and API necessary for direct emulation for free, they will do it with open arms as it increases their revenues. Microsoft has no interest whatsoever to tell every secret of their OS. BeerBaron I'll even go further as to say that direct emulation of Android apps will happen quite fast and quite good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Well Apple's ecosystem before they started emulating Windows was exactly as per RIM's current situation. Sorry, but I'm still not sure what you are referring to here. Is it stuff like VMWare and Parallels or something else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 In a world where everything happens in a browser (i.e. cloud), doesn't the client machine and OS just become a commodity, as the cartoon suggests? In that world, it seems like businesses will just choose the lowest-cost solution, which is unlikely to be Apple's. I see Apple devices as a bit like BMWs - fun, elegant, beautiful machines that are designed with the very focused goal of delighting those consumers that can afford them. But you don't see many Beemers used as corporate fleet vehicles. I think it depends on how things evolve. Right now, there's a debate going on over client-side apps versus web-based apps and when, if ever, the platform will be the Web (or a web language). It's Chrome OS versus Android internally at Google, and Chrome OS versus Windows and MacOS externally. I doubt any Web as platform world will happen in the near term. After all, the interface will have to be different depending on what type of device you are using, which means that client OS's won't go away anytime soon. I think one thing that people don't necessarily take into account with Apple's growth prospects is the following. The handheld computer (i.e., the smart phone) will become more and more important to individuals and businesses going forward, and the cost to produce the handheld computer will continue to go downward. So the question is, will people really go for the low-cost provider if the incremental cost to get a superior product is not so high in absolute terms? That is, if the vertically integrated combination of iOS and the hardware that Apple releases remains superior from a user interaction and performance perspective compared to competitors, and we continue to get lower and lower prices for hardware to where the cost of buying such a device costs between $100 and $200, at what price point does the average person or business say, "I'll just spend the extra $50 or $100 it costs to get an iPhone instead of an Android or WinPhone device." The same logic extends to tablets and traditional PCs. I suspect there's some internal chart at Apple that says that when the price of an iPhone hits $250 (or something like that), most people will choose the iPhone over any competing device. This is why I think the Google-Moto acquisition could be a good thing. Google needs to come up with a phone that will be on par with an iPhone so that Apple doesn't make inroads too fast into the business world. If Google can make Android comparable with MacOS for phones, tablets, and PCs, then the commodity hardware (but not commodity OS) future is much more likely to become a reality. Microsoft probably has the same perspective with Windows. It's interesting that MSFT was reported to be in talks with Motorola prior to Google getting involved, although that may have just been related to Motorola's patent portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Well Apple's ecosystem before they started emulating Windows was exactly as per RIM's current situation. Sorry, but I'm still not sure what you are referring to here. Is it stuff like VMWare and Parallels or something else? Yes that is exactly the stuff like Parrallels and VMWare. BeerBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsto Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I think one thing that people don't necessarily take into account with Apple's growth prospects is the following. The handheld computer (i.e., the smart phone) will become more and more important to individuals and businesses going forward, and the cost to produce the handheld computer will continue to go downward. So the question is, will people really go for the low-cost provider if the incremental cost to get a superior product is not so high in absolute terms? Yeah, you know I already look at my personal iphone (and ipad/mac) as a business tool. Once I factor in the time spent using those devices they are cheap to me on an absolute basis, and even cheaper relative to the headache I would have running a windows machine and android/rim phone. The interesting thing to me is the rumor that Apple will continue to produce the 3gs phone and start selling it unlocked at a low price point to capture the prepaid and non-contract cell phone market. With their own distribution system, their own chip development, the volume discounts from suppliers, and very low r&d per device sold I think they could compete effectively in both ends of the market. That would also lead to a continuing network effect as more and more users joined the itunes ecosystem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 I am long RIMM via leaps, because I think they will pull rabbits just as Apple has done. I would be happy if they pull their head out of the sand, leave alone pulling rabbits out of a hat. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I am long RIMM via leaps, because I think they will pull rabbits just as Apple has done. I would be happy if they pull their head out of the sand, leave alone pulling rabbits out of a hat. ;) I dont think they need to pull Rabbits out of their hats as much as just keep pulling Great updated BB products out of their factories. Look at the positive energy just from them bringing out their latest phones - and these, i believe, arent even run with the top of the food chain QNX software which i slated for what.. early 2012? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 these new phones are nothing special and are minor revisions of their prior products. see thisismynext.com. I think they were your words so i will use them here - paraphrase: looks like the mrkt does not agree with you.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwericb Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 From GuruFocus Prem Watsa Makes a Questionable Investment in Research-in-Motion (RIMM) http://www.gurufocus.com/news/144068/prem-watsa-makes-a-questionable-investment-in-researchinmotion-rimm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now