@Peter Perry
My understanding is that this is the result of RIM's servers not (yet) being able to tie more than one device to an account. Since they can't do two, and they figured a lot of the tablet buyers would already have blackberry phones, they chose to tie the tablet to the phone to work around this.
There are customers for whom this works just fine; almost anyone in a corporate setting that already uses blackberries is not likely to care very much. But for a general-purpose tablet selling to consumers who are more likely to have a non-blackberry than otherwise it's awful.
I disagree that the Playbook is failing because of this, though. I'm sure that is make or break to some people but lack of apps in general is at least as big a problem. If the app environment were rich enough you could just get someone else's e-mail app. But the icing on the cake is that the price is still too high relative to an iPad, which does a lot more no matter how you slice it. If you are really price sensitive a refurb iPad looks pretty darn good.
It's unfortunate that RIM cannot sell them more cheaply, but what can they do? HP's "dump it" approach is a market exit strategy, not a solution. You don't make up for a loss on every unit by selling in more volume. And the idea that they can make the difference up on ads, as has been suggested here, is laughable; are they going to sell home screen ads?
They'd need a lot more revenue than they could ever hope for to make the device that cheap. Look at Amazon; buy the ad-based units and you save circa $50 ... and they have a way better model to sell to advertisers (the only thing you're using that Kindle for is reading stuff into which those ads can be inserted).
General-purpose devices really need to make a profit or it's not worth being in the business. And, right now, no one can undercut Apple much on price because Apple has a supply chain and volumes that are the envy of the industry.
You may not realize it but the high degree of commonality in parts between the iPod touch, iPhone, iPad, and Apple TV means that Apple's parts volumes are huge -- in most cases (batteries, CPUs, flash memory, displays) more than an order of magnitude greater than anyone else. It's not even the same ballpark.
It sucks to be in competition with them. People point at the Android phones and say, "look, it competes just fine," but that was a severely distorted market. Apple was hindered by an inability to sell on more than one carrier in all of the major markets, and rarely even the biggest carrier, for *four years*. That's a heck of a lot of time for the competition that had cross-carrier relationships to build and market new products. On top of that you can hide a lot of pricing evils in the cell contract kickbacks.
Even so, the Android phone guys aren't making much money -- it's like the PC market, working like mad for razor-thin margins.
But once you step away from the cell market everything changes. Apple has shown it can completely dominate. It did it with mp3 players and the iPod touch long before the iPad; the iPad is just more of the same.
I happen to believe that Apple will lose their current advantage in the long term but I really don't have any evidence I can point to as to why. They never did in mp3 players and everyone, including me, expected them to. It could very well be that Apple becomes the next IBM, thoroughly dominating for a generation. I hope that open source helps keep that from happening but realistically there is only so much cost benefit that the vendors can get out of a "free" operating system. If that's not enough to make up for relatively poor hardware volumes and supply chains, and it isn't even close today, then you lose anyway.