It looks like you can only install Android apps which their developers have uploaded to Blackberry App World (their own store) -- i.e., no Market, and no side loading. I wonder how much this will matter? Android developers have two app stores to think about at the moment. Are they going to care enough to upload their app to RIM's as well? It's not an unmitigated win: it would mean dealing with another payment system and supporting another set of hardware.
If a developer could increase the reach of his apps (and thus make more money), you don't think he/she will take an extra 30 mins and submit to Blackberry App World?
If you are developing for iOS or Android, you can replace the entire preceding two paragraphs with one sentence: Press the button that says Build and Run (or the equivalent button within Eclipse for Android).
snort Sure, or at least that's what happens after you've gone through provisioning hell on the iPhone. (I don't know how the Playbook works, that may be a problem as well).
For what it's worth, the iPhone SDK was much less developer-friendly early on than it is today - an unpolished developer experience, by itself, won't be a showstopper. What will really matter is how many people buy the Playbook.
For iOS you have to provision the device and then sign the app as part of the build process. For the Playbook, you only sign the app so there are fewer things to go wrong. The tools run from the command line, but work well if you follow the instructions. My biggest complaint is that it can be tough to find documentation when you do have an error.
I'd just like to add my data point here: setting up a vendor account in the App World took less than 24 hours and was much easier than Apple. I just had to fill out a web form, email (not fax!) in some documents, and they emailed it was ready the very next day.
Mostly, the required fax machine (much less convenient than emailing a PDF) and the really badly timed phone call from their support staff to confirm me (although, admittedly that is probably my own fault).
(I'm also probably a bad data point with Apple, though: I'm sure they took longer than normal considering I am currently somewhat-visibly contributing to Cydia and some jailbreakst.)
Homestly, though, neither was particularly difficult. (Palm webOS was equally pain-free, fwiw.)
My only concern is paying $100 to another publisher. If you're developing free apps (or your apps just aren't selling that well) that's a deterrent from submitting.
This is a way to bootstrap an app economy and solve the chicken and egg problem. If they launch with their own app store (like Nokia) no one will build for it and they won't get any device sales because they have no apps for the device. This way they get 200k+ apps ready to go and if they can build a better piece of hardware, they'll get a big install base. Then they can convince developers to develop native apps for their platform.
What incentive is there to create great Playbook Native apps when you can just make 1 web app that "will work" in a "browser" for Playbook?
Developers who really care about the platform will create native apps, and ones who merely want Playbook users to be able to run their app will go with some cross platform thing. (The web, Android, etc).
It's a very smart move by Rim. This is sort of NT4 supports POSIX scenario, having say that I'm not fooling myself there will be some porting considerations how bad they are only time will tell.
For those of us doing Android dev, this actually sounds like more of a headache than anything. It can be challenging enough making an app that works on all the different possible Android versions (OEM skins, old revs.) without having to deal with a totally incompatible OS.
The alternative is to learn their native SDK, so I think this is at least a better option than that. Anything to lower the barrier to entry. I have to believe <i>some</i> headache will be involved.
Every comment here seems to be piling on RIM. The skepticism is painfully forced, really.
I haven't been a fan of RIM's products as of late, but I think the PlayBook is actually the only credible competitor to the iPad 2 right now. The pricing is right, it excels in a couple of areas that the iPad 2 does not (particularly, enterprise security), it matches or exceeds almost all of the hardware specs (including battery life, apparently), and it is very clearly targeted at the enterprise market. Plus, the OS isn't a clunky piece of crap like the versions on their current phones.
This stuff is shipping April 19th... I highly doubt that, in the less than one month between now and when it ships, the pricing will go up, the enterprise security features will break, the hardware will somehow magically degrade, and the battery life will be 1 hour, instead of the 10 advertised.
Also, what constitutes enthusiasm in your view? A factual argument as to why the product might actually be successful?
Finally, how is this product vapourware? It's in the wild - people have touched it, played with it, tested it, built apps for it. I actually have tried one in Waterloo, thank you very much.
And yet somehow they've magically managed to chop and change just about everything else, and massively delay from when they first said it would be available...
"A factual argument as to why the product might actually be successful?"
Until you get your hands on one, it's not 'factual' it is 'conjecture', or 'speculation'.
"Finally, how is this product vapourware?"
Something that is changed so much, and delayed so often is a good candidate. But these days, and especially with the appalling record of recent tablet announcements and then failure to deliver/materialise, pretty much any tablet should be regarded as vapourware right up until it appears in your hot little hands.
But that's okay, you complain about my scepticism and I'll complain about your gullibility and then we'll all be happy. :D
"This stuff is shipping April 19th... I actually have tried one in Waterloo"
To be fair, the pile-on of cynicism was a mile deep when the iPad was originally announced. Where are the feminine hygiene product jokes now, hmmmmmmm? ;-)
The cynicism about the iPad is still valid. There's some revisionist history amongst "i told you so"ers that paint pre-launch iPad cynicism as being about it's success.
The actual pre-launch cynicism was "this is just a big ipod". The reason for the the cynicism is because there was a geniune belief that the ipad was going to be something breathtakingly different, something akin to the original iphone (or the courier). I remember the coverage in the months leading up to it, and people were predicting off the wall things that didn't turn out. I remember one prediction that the ipad was going to be just screen that is powered (wirelessly) by your iphone, for example.
The cynicism was "this is all?". It's still valid today. There are many people who have written about how their ipads are collecting dust. There's a novelty to it that wears off, to some degree (to some people, certainly not every one, I still use mine fairly often).
But what I don't remember is "this thing isn't going to sell".
Jokes aside, that's not really the issue... every American I've ever asked didn't know that RIM was Canadian. Hell, they had no problem when their president was seen everywhere with a BlackBerry.
The people you asked aren't the skeptics. I'm sure almost everyone that commented here is aware that RIM is Canadian. (It's HN after all...) But yeah I get your point.
This is a pure marketing move. I can run Windows applications on Mac OS X using ["Bootcamp","VMWare Fusion","VirtualBox"] however that doesn't mean its a positive experience. I think the same will be said of Android apps on the PlayBook.
Awesome, I've also heard that 3D Realms has signed a platform exclusive to bring Duke Nukem Forever to the Playbook. Word is Playbook will be ready for the DNF launch.
This seems like a double-edged sword for RIM in that, it's a disincentive to actually develop for the Playbook when they can just create an Android app and market it to both. It seems like a very short-sighted move.
Actually, I think it's a great long term move for their QNX-based platform. End users don't care whether an app is native, Android, AIR, WebWorks or Java-based as long as it's available in some form.
Having more apps offers an incentive for early adopters and end users to invest in the platform in the near term. Eventually, as the platform grows (perhaps as a result of the various app offerings), developers will start creating native applications.
I am really not sure it is good for users. They are paying for a experience and I am not sure the Android apps will work as well as native apps. It might be much like an X windows program on OS X.
How is that bad for RIM? RIM still make their 30% of the app, they still get a lot of apps. The only downside is they do not get exclusives, and they may not get the apps that are designed for their device. A small price to pay to stay relevant.
Rim aren't confused, they know there is not enough room for more than 2 device platforms, and they are the underdog.
