ie8 fix
Click Here

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

RIM bets big bucks on Playbook success: Five key questions

By | April 13, 2011, 3:10am PDT

Summary: Research in Motion will show off its PlayBook to select media types in New York and the divergence in expectations is notable. RIM is betting its dollars on a big PlayBook sales.

Research in Motion on Thursday night will show off its PlayBook to select media types in New York and the divergence in expectations is notable.

Most folks I’ve talked to—including TechRepublic’s Jason Hiner, Jason Perlow and Rachel King—have relatively subdued expectations. There are more than a few wild cards with the PlayBook. On the other hand, RIM has a real opportunity because Android tablets have underwhelmed so far. With the right product, RIM could be No. 2 to Apple’s iPad in the consumer market and defend its enterprise positioning.

The other wrinkle key divergence here is the potential difference between RIM co-CEO Jim Balsillie’s take and what consumers will actually do.

In any case, RIM is betting big on the PlayBook’s success and putting money on it. In RIM’s annual report, purchase commitments for materials and contract equipment manufacturers surged at the end of the fourth quarter. These purchase commitments surged to $10.8 billion, up from $6 billion in the third quarter.

So what? RIM is clearly building up for a big PlayBook launch. Morgan Stanley analyst Ehud Gelblum said in a research note:

Purchase commitments at the end of FQ4 expanded to an all-time high of $10.8B, up from $6.0B in FQ3. Out of the $10.8B, $8.5B represents purchase orders placed with contract manufacturers, up from $5.8B in FQ3 and represented the largest chunk of the increase. So-called “other commitments” (which consist of purchase orders or contracts with suppliers of raw materials) also increased noticeably growing from ~$0 in FQ3 to $2.2B in FQ4. Considering that RIM is guiding to shipments being down in FQ112 (13.5-14.5M vs. 14.9M in FQ411), we believe most if not all of the $2.7B increase in purchase orders placed with contract manufacturers is related to its new Playbook tablet launching on April 19th. Assuming a $500 ASP and 20% gross margins – i.e. that 80% of that $500 ASP represents COGS paid to contract manufacturers – implies that RIM has reserved capacity for nearly 7M Playbooks from its contract manufacturers (the $2.7B increase divided by ~$400 of cost of goods sold per Playbook).

Here’s where things get interesting. Gelblum is projecting 3.5 million PlayBooks to be sold in the next fiscal year. Other analysts come well under that mark.

That gives us a few scenarios:

  • The PlayBook is going to sell really well and few see it yet.
  • RIM had to pay up with longer commitments to secure capacity and components for the PlayBook.
  • Balsillie will be vindicated with a dash of low expectations combined with strong sales.

In any case, RIM’s big bet leads us to our top five questions revolving around the PlayBook launch.

Will the PlayBook sell? As noted before, Balsillie dumped the underpromise, overdeliver CEO playbook. RIM will either be vindicated or be faced with an embarrassing glut of tablets.

Does the lack of native email matter? RIM has been dinged because you need a BlackBerry to access corporate email with the PlayBook. However, it’s unclear whether consumers will really care. You can get Web mail as many already do. Corporations may already have BlackBerries ready to tether.

Can the PlayBook perfect Frankenstein? RIM is launching a QNX powered device that can run Android apps as well as BlackBerry software. It’s a virtualization dream. Unless these various app players in the PlayBook can’t keep up. If the PlayBook—a Frankentablet—can’t be seamless look out below.

Will enterprises go with the PlayBook? Balsillie boasted that CIOs were holding up pilots and deployments for the PlayBook. The problem is that RIM still doesn’t have much room for error. Sure RIM is playing a home game in business technology, but the employees are bringing their iPads to work.

Are developers going to be completely confused? In the long run, RIM is going to have to get developers onto its QNX platform. However, RIM is supporting Android apps. Why would a developer run to the PlayBook for a native QNX app?

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
37
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: RIM bets big bucks on Playbook success: Five key questions
stewartngandu@... 19th Apr 2011
@tr0ndizzle

Dude, can you please can it. You are just embarrassing yourself we do not need this kind of marketing on tech blogs. No one really cares about the recited marketing stuff you are parroting back at us.
I think you've nailed the problems. But the VM running the old Phone-version of Android is going to be a major Achilles' Heal. I can't see the performance being good, running a VM in a system with limited resources (especially RAM) is always difficult. We don't know how compatible it will prove to be. Finally, this sounds like a battery killer. As you point out, will developers sit on their hands waiting to see if there is any demand for QNX apps?

The email thing is utterly boneheaded. Palm back in the day realised this wouldn't fly (remember Folio?) Why do they think the influx of Android and iOS phones won't hurt them? Doesn't putting an Android VM in this make Android phones MORE attractive?!

I'm sorry to say this smells of fail, epically.
@jeremychappell I have to agree that it doesn't look good but while I can usually get a sense of how individual users will react to a device, I usually fail at predicting how enterprise customers will react. There are a lot of dim bulb CIOs out there so even if a product does not seem like a good buy to 90% of the world, CIO/CEOs may buy it (to be fair, it could also turn out to be a great product that they do not buy).

Lack of enterprise email is the biggest surprise for me and I think it is going to be a real problem for them. The size may also be a factor. I am a fan of the 7 inch form factor for tablets but I am not sure I would be if I was using the tablet for work.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out. My feeling is that regular consumers drive the app market for these devices and since I am not feeling they are going to sell well with anyone except enterprise users, I don't think we will see much growth in the the native blackberry app market.
0 Votes
+ -
@redhaven

I always felt it was a strange decision to go with a 7" screen, especially when it's being pushed as the device for the enterprise. 10" and above is ideal for work.
@jeremychappell - I agree, this is a good article with good questions. As for your comment that running VM in QNX for Android Apps being less attractive than Android on native devices. What needs to be clear is that Android smartphones are actually Linux phones running an Android VM called Dalvik. (So even on Android devices, Android is running in a VM.) If RIM builds the Android VM to run atop the native QNX, then the scenario will be near-identical to an actual Android phone. The QNX Kernel is faster than the Linux kernel for running multiple-processes, so it could actually be a better experience on QNX. Of course, it all depends on what approach the developers take on this implementation.

This is a similar issue that iOS and Android both have with Flash support. They both run Flash in a VM on top of their native operating systems. In the case of Android, Flash runs on top of Android Dalvik which runs on top of Linux. It's not a very good experience. QNX has implemented Flash and Adobe AIR code natively in a silo equivelant to the QNX OS, so in theory, performance should be half-decent. I still wouldnn't be too optimistic as Flash doing real-time vector based animation is still a processor intensive... usally not a fault of Flash, but of the person who created an overly complex vector animation to portray something simple. Flash's raster animations (i.e. streaming videos) however should still be very good.

In the end, I'd still take flash support instead of no flash support. It's better to be able to access information I need to do my work instead of being blocked from seeing anything at all. (an issue I've had repeatedly in the past). Hopefully Apple makes mends with Adobe for the iPad3... or just make their own Flash viewer/player if they want.. Flash/Shockwave runtimes are open source anyway.
@NO_CARRIER I don't see Apple reversing course with Flash support. From their point of view there are too many problems with Flash (security for one, performance for another). Given how many units they are selling it's Flash that'll lose this. Content creators cannot afford to ignore iOS by not providing alternative content.

It is that simple. You can support Flash, but you have to provide the experience another way for iOS - you simply cannot put your head in the fire bucket as if iOS didn't exist.
@jeremychappell
Let's see, I want a tablet really bad... pick iPad or Playbook... hmmm I think I'm going with Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
Good points
chronos27 13th Apr 2011
@jeremychappell - We had a presentation by RIM last week, about the Playbook. It was clear that RIM is focusing on it's existing user base that already had Blackberry's. Those people are eager to get tablets of any kind at work to bridge the gap between the Blackberry and their laptops...a pain to lug around when in the office. When we asked about licensing for the BES, it was a little foggy. Surprisingly many of the questions were answered with "I can't imagine RIM won't add those features down the line." From the gate, the tablet seems like a complete fail. But RIM has enough of a tablet desperate user base in highly controlled IT environments that it will succeed.
0 Votes
+ -
Seppuku desu
Robert Hahn 13th Apr 2011
@chronos27 Maybe, but the story you're telling sounds an awful lot like the way that all the non-IBM computer companies addressed the issue of the IBM PC.

None of them had retail distribution, none of them had ever run a television commercial, yet they were faced with this runaway success that was invading all their best accounts.

So they conned themselves into believing that they could participate in the PC business by confining their marketing activities to their existing friends. Maybe nobody else wanted a Data General PC, but the Data General shops would buy them.

Seen any Data General shops lately? Wang? Burroughs?

You can't stay price competitive with a guy who's selling millions (or worse, tens of millions) by selling only to your friends. That way lies death.
0 Votes
+ -
too small
tiderulz 13th Apr 2011
just too small to me. Barely bigger than my smart phone, why would i want it?
@tiderulz

Some suggestions are that the 7" Samsung Galaxy Tab sold something like 1 million or more devices in the first two months and that it has sold in the region of 2 million to date. If that is correct, then it indicates something of a market for 7" devices.
Hi @tiderulz

Douglas from RIM here. The nice thing about the PlayBook being 7-inches, 0.9 pounds and 0.4 inches thin is that it allows you to have a truly portable experience, enabling ?thumb-typing,? one-handed operation and the ability to slip it into a coat pocket or purse when you?re ready to go. And with this portability also comes a superior 1080p HD multimedia experience via PlayBook's 1,024 x 600 high resolution display and 3MP/5MP cameras (front/back), enabling HD video recording and videoconferencing.

You can also check out this new video which shows the PlayBook in action (http://bbry.lv/ifElYd).

Cheers,
Douglas, RIM Social Media Team
Look, I'm a developer, there's 2 main OS when it comes to phones and tablets and that is IOS and Android. Now, it's great that they're releasing something of their own, but having to write mobile software and keep in mind 3-4 (counting Windows Mobile) it's just so dam time consuming that it's just not worth it. For this reason, one of the main problem they will face right of the bat, is the amount of app. in their app store.

I wish them the best of luck, but I don't think they will get far.
@reyonlines
iOS, Android, WP7, Bada, WebOs, MeeGo, Symbian and so forth. Far too many.
Hi @reyonlines,

Douglas from RIM here. The BlackBerry Tablet OS is an open platform. That means more than 350,000 current BlackBerry developers, as well as an expanded community working in Adobe Flash/AIR, HTML5, CSS and JavaScript, are able to leverage the technologies they already know to develop for the PlayBook. In addition to the thousands of apps that will be available at launch, by the summer users will also have access to a large catalog of apps built especially for the PlayBook, plus BlackBerry JDE and Android apps via application players.

For the latest developer updates for PlayBook, check out our Inside BlackBerry Developer?s Blog (http://bbry.lv/bsbpYQ).

Cheers,
Douglas, RIM Social Media Team
0 Votes
+ -
@tr0ndizzle

Dude, can you please can it. You are just embarrassing yourself we do not need this kind of marketing on tech blogs. No one really cares about the recited marketing stuff you are parroting back at us.
@reyonlines
Does it not matter that your Android version "should" run as-is? Plus the fact that if it is enterprise-relevant, you should be looking at purchases in $1,000 multiples, not 99-cent multiples.
While all of those are valid points, I think the other problem is price. BB has it listed for pre-order for $499 for a 16GB, WiFi only, 7" model. Somehow I doubt that will fly. We'll see.
0 Votes
+ -
Regarding question number 2, I think it is a salient question, but I think you missed one of its implications. It looks to me as though explicitly for one of its target market sectors, RIM does not want the PlayBook to cannibalize its phones. They limited their risk. Will it limit the upside in a material way?

As to developers, a minimal cost for porting Android apps will mean PlayBook buyers will have more apps to choose from and more owner-selected functionality. But, developers will for a foreseeable future target Android devices and then if the revenue, resources, and PlayBook units sold suggest it, port. Beyond popularity, there are questions of cost/benefits for selling to PlayBook buyers, as marketing and deployment channels are developed and brought to the attention of the consumer. Here, though, your question has a second part: will consumers find the user experience of the ported app equivalent to its native counterpart? Will RIM devote the resources to ensure that the Android app will look just as good, respond just as well, and not impact the PlayBook's battery life?

Will users be able to work around the corporate e-mail speed bump with an Android app?

Yet, if the Android app runs just as well with no fussing on behalf of the developer, why develop QNX-native? With an app universe that is a proper subset of Android's, where is the PlayBook differential?
You know, RIM is really keeping the Playbook's tech specs close to their corporate vests, so to speak. I suspect it will be a great product.
@kenosha7777
I doubt they even have any, they announced this thing last year! 7 month later... nothing to show, all vaporware. Apple delivers...
@Hasam1991
Chuckle.... think back to the original iPhone....
That was vaporware for a very long time......

happy
@rhonin: ... competition.

RIM is in totally different situation, having the product announced, delayed and redone few times already.

Nothing to do with Apple's situation in 2007.
@rhonin - original iPhone was announced in January, shipped in June - hardly a long time.
@Hasam1991
I held one in BestBuy yesterday. It is real.
It's RIM,

so it will have more bugs than Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom.
This whole PlayBook sounds fishy. Why would a consumer want to spend $500 on a 7 inch tablet with no apps, track record and no native email, if they can go Ipad2.
I shorted RIMM at $62, doing well so far...
@prof123
Consumer - maybe.... the Galaxy is not doing bad....

Looking more at Enterprise. That is the main playground for this.
0 Votes
+ -
Double down
Robert Hahn Updated - 13th Apr 2011
They certainly have bought a lot of parts. It sounds like RIM committed to $3 billion worth of tablet-related deliveries before the Motrola XOOM even shipped. They have got to be desperately trying to find out how the XOOM is doing, because if it's true that only 100,000 have sold so far, then the $3 billion bet on the Playbook is about to sink the company.

One advantage RIM has is that their sales force has already queried their enterprise customers, and they probably have a pretty good idea of how many Playbooks they'll sell to corporate customers, and when. But 7 million of them? This year? That sounds awfully high. That sounds like a plan to sell a whole bunch in the consumer market as well. With the "success" seen so far by Samsung and Moto, that's looking more and more like one hugely risky bet.

They could get lucky. It does seem as though the Android tablets are 'snake bit' in some way, and maybe QNX will turn out to be the Apple alternative that people actually like. In which case the RIM CEOs look like geniuses.

It's just as well either way, because The Blackberry has clearly gone down the same set of tracks that Nokia is on, so it was only a matter of time before they croaked anyway. Might as well bet the company now, while they still have money to bet.
The key issue is what will Mossberg, the WallStreet Journal, Time magazine and other pundits who have no knowledge of technology say about this product...That seems to be the way consumer devices are being judged now-a-days!
@tech_ed@... That's not even close to the reality of this situation. Another more accurate way of describing Walt Mossberg, the WallStreet Journal, Time magazine and other pundits' assessments is to recognise that they see the bigger picture.

In many ways the techie's view is incredibly narrow, and ultimately less than 10% of that picture. A device that has been conceived too small and too late, with an inadequate operating system is not only flawed, it's a complete non-starter.

A device with what looks like decent specs, but lacks basic functionality is flawed. The company that produces a device that lacks basic functionality for what appears to be marketing reasons [to retain, and to generate new Blackberry users] - is flawed.

And that's clearly the verdict here. Of the 29 comments, I can't find 10% that are even vaguely enthusiastic about this product. And this is a techie forum.

People and companies don't just buy products or devices, they buy the whole package. In a world in which everyone played along with the same lazy game for years, the likes of RIM and Dell and Microsoft and Nokia can all have a share of what is an old market.

But when a new player moves into a sector with a more dynamic, disruptive business model, and the incumbents are not only not prepared, they don't know how to compete, their products don't sell.
RIM appears to be confounded by its own limitations. The list is long and growing.

Their phone devices are notoriously limited by their screen sizes and adherence to physical keypads. Amongst other things, their frequently delayed, proposed tablet device is limited by its screen size AND ludicrously, the need for a second RIM device in order to do something as basic as email!

This not only fatally limits the usefulness of the Playbook, it naturally automatically limits the potential market to existing Blackberry owners. I guess the theory was that this would open up new sales opportunities for Blackberries, but any 8th grader could tell you it won't.

Whoever thought up this business model should be fired. And if anyone is in any doubt who that person is, they need look no further than the serial interview choking CEO Michael Lazaridis. For the second time today, he refused to address questions relating to security issues with RIM devices.

Two years ago, I predicted the decline of RIM, siting their internal issues and deficiencies meeting a perfect storm in the market that includes external forces such as Apple.

The one thing we know about Apple's business model is it's based on very long term planning, is adaptable where it needs to be, but is rock solid on focus and message. These are not RIM qualities. Nor are they qualities RIM is equipped to do battle with. If Apple was the only opponent, RIM would have a massive fight on their hands. But there's also Android and MS and HP/Palm.

RIM, with their current business model and their current CEO may not be actually dead, but it is on the operating table in a serious condition, suffering from a fatal disease.
That analyst numbers might be a bit off, when you consider the $500 PlayBook is just one of 3 models and there is a $600 32 GB version and $700 64 GB version.

As for e-mail, in some of the PlayBook demos a GMail and Hotmail app icon can be seen. Also RIM have said that they are updating the native PlayBook e-mail app to handle e-mail without a BlackBerry phone and that it will come in a patch after launch.

Since the PlayBook won't just play Android apps right off the bat, but developers have to submit their Android apps to RIM, this means most will be testing to make sure their apps work.

The majority of apps don't need to be native QNX C++ apps. A very large chunk of iOS apps aren't using Objective-C, but unless the developer is particularly bad, then most users can't tell. There are certain use cases, such as high-end 3D games, or say a stock trading or any app that is really pushing the limit in the amount of resources it is using, where using the native SDK to go as low level as possible is important. The vast majority of apps, this really isn't needed. Most developers I talk to are loving RIM's approach where they can create apps in whatever language or tools that they like.

Final question... will the PlayBook sell? I have no idea how it will do in the consumer market. That said, from what I've seen it will do well in the enterprise. There seems to be many companies who would like to get an iPad, but are concerned over security and find the PlayBook fits their security needs.
0 Votes
+ -
Holds all your corporate secrets
Robert Hahn 13th Apr 2011
@Matt_Fabb@... Most people seem to agree that it will do well in the enterprise. My question is how many enterprises will buy the 32 or 64G models? To store songs and videos? 16G is more data than most IT departments want running around out there in user devices... even ones that can be remotely wiped.
0 Votes
+ -
We've started rolling out the BB Torch as a replacement for a fleet of Palm 750's. Both devices give good "phone" which, believe it or not, is kinda important in corporate land... The other key feature was very tight integration with Notes/Domino, which we use as a platform to build a lot of our key systems.

If RIM can bring Notes/Quickr/Activities (and whatever Microsoft has) as native on the PlayBook; they're cooking. But if I see Angry Birds they're just wasting oxygen.

Apps for the Torch & PlayBook are just not that important. I see a lot of my competitor's staff, head down over their iPhones & iPads, texting, gaming, posting, wsatching vids on YouTube -- even in the office. Makes me feel good, because my competitors are paying 30% of their salary $$$ for zip outcome, which inflates their costs, [torches] their budgets and sends their stock into the crapper. God! I just looove apps on other people's phones...
We've just started rolling out BB Torches as replacements for a fleet of Palm 750s A key buying point for us was that these devices give great "phone" -- a very important feature in corporate land.

The Torch also plays with BB's Enterprise Server and Notes/Domino, and that allows us integrates the Torch tightly with many of our mainstream systems which use Notes/Quickr as the development platform.

The relative lack of apps in the BB world is not a big problem. In fact, when I see our competitor's staff bent over their iPhones & iPads, texting/playing/watching vids, even in the office, I also see 30% of my competitor's salary spend being energetically wasted. I just love apps (not).
@LarrySouth And square wheels on yer wagon will be just dandy! Here's a nosebag for yer horse there partner.
RIM Stockholders - Sell !!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix