Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24
  1.    #1  
    I just heard a radio ad this morning in Canada for staples talking about the playbook available tomorrow, when describing the features they mention full web browsing experience and "TRUE MULTITASKING"!!!
    Last edited by projectpete19; 04/18/2011 at 07:53 AM. Reason: add
  2. #2  
    I guess I don't understand what they are taking too far from your description. The phrase True Multitasking isn't a trademarked slogan or anything... and from their description it sounds like they've implemented something similar to webos and may have a good version of multitasking...
  3. #3  
    You combat this by creating your own names for it and trademarking them. If HP came up with True Multitasking, it's on them to trademark it. This should have been done long ago. Even Visual Multitasking would have worked.

    Can RIM be sued though? I'm thinking they have their own patents to throw back at HP perhaps. I think if i'm HP, i sue them anyways just for the PRPRPR. $It$'$d$ $be$ $interesting$ $to$ $see$ $RIM$ $CEO$'$s$ $respond$ $to$ $those$ $questions$
  4. #4  
    Hp definitely should have trademarked the term. RIM using market confusion as a tactic... Pretty shameful, but HP allowed it. All is fair in war.
  5. #5  
    I see other companies copying the good parts of other OSes as a good thing.

    I donít own HP stock and if more options are in the market with WebOS features, thatís to my benefit.

    -Suntan
  6. #6  
    The term "True Multitasking" cannot be trademarked!! It's too generic. It's the implimentation of multitasking that could be copyrighted.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by projectpete19 View Post
    I just heard a radio ad this morning in Canada for staples talking about the playbook available tomorrow, when describing the features they mention full web browsing experience and "TRUE MULTITASKING"!!!
    I watched an interview last week with one of the co-ceo's, and he used the same phrase "True Multitasking". I know the phrase can't be trade marked, but whenever I hear it, I automatically think webOS. It's like if another tech company starts saying "magical". No Apple can't trademark it, but the word is often used in Apple's ad campaigns.

    I think RIM just doesn't want to innovate much. They copy webOS, they market the Playbook being compatible with Android Apps; I guess their new philosophy is "why re-invent the wheel? We just copy what works". I wish RIM well, but I really hope HP dominates enterprise marketshare.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  8. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by Smartfah View Post
    I think RIM just doesn't want to innovate much. They copy webOS, they market the Playbook being compatible with Android Apps; I guess their new philosophy is "why re-invent the wheel? We just copy what works". I wish RIM well, but I really hope HP dominates enterprise marketshare.
    But using your argument, HP did even less --- because all they did was just bought Palm. At the very least, RIM only bought an OS company and port their Blackberry stuff to the new OS platform. HP did nothing.
  9. #9  
    The term "True Multitasking" has been in use since the early 1960's when it meant "True Multitasking": a separate CPU, IO, and memory applied to each task in parallel with no tasks taking resources from another task.

    It was Honeywell who first commercialized the term "Multitasking." In response, IBM said they had "True Multitasking."

    All any phones do, even dual core, is save state. They temporarily save your work on one app until you come back. It is like a juggler with five balls in the air but is only touching one at a time.

    With true multitasking if you had 5 balls in the air, there would be five jugglers.
    Last edited by milominderbinder; 04/18/2011 at 06:09 PM.
  10. #10  
    Here is where Blackberry surprised everyone by not copying the general agreement that apps are important... here is a fun look at how bad the playbook app store is:

    BlackBerry PlayBook Apps
  11. #11  
    So standard BB apps are not usable on the PlayBook? Is it because of the different platform? I wonder why some app developers couldn't get some of the most popular BB apps ported over.
    HP has officially ruined it's own platform and kicked webOS loyalists and early TouchPad adopters to the curb. You think after you drop it like a hot potato and mention it made no money and is costing you money, anyone else wants it??? Way to go HP!!

    And some people are fools to keep believing their hype. HP has shown they will throw webOS under the bus and people are still having faith in them??? News flash: if it's own company won't stand behind it, it's finished!
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by samab View Post
    But using your argument, HP did even less --- because all they did was just bought Palm. At the very least, RIM only bought an OS company and port their Blackberry stuff to the new OS platform. HP did nothing.

    HP purchased Palm (mostly for webOS), and RIM pruchased QNX; but to say HP has done nothing and that they aren't innovating isnít accurate. Sure HP did not create webOS, but they are carrying out and expanding upon the vision that Palm had when webOS was created. HP is bringing webOS to tablets, PCís, etc. and is doing what Palm couldnít do financially.

    RIM purchased QNX, integrated their Blackberry features into it; however it seems to me that RIM doesnít want to be innovative enough to have their Playbook stand on itís own. If someone can pick up your product and mistake it for running a competitors OS, then thatís not showing innovation. If you spend time marketing how your tablet can run your competitors apps more than your own, to me thatís lacking innovation.

    I watched a couple interviews last week from RIMís Co-CEO Jim Balsillie, one was on CNBC, the other was online (i forget the source), but on both interviews I recall him being asked what differentiates the PlayBook from other tablets, & why should people other than Blackberry users pick one up. He stressed ďTrue MultitaskingĒ, the full web (i.e. flash), OTA updates, and the ability to pair with Blackberryís.


    So after seeing the interviews, reading the Playbook reviews, seeing videos of how the OS mimics webOS, and hearing about how the Playbook will support Android apps, Iíve come to the conclusion that RIM is not being innovative enough with the Playbook. Iím sure they put a lot of work into it, however I am not compelled to pick up a Playbook over a TouchPad or an iPad 2.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by slbailey1 View Post
    The term "True Multitasking" cannot be trademarked!! It's too generic. It's the implimentation of multitasking that could be copyrighted.
    Microsoft trademarked True Skill... seems even more generic
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    Microsoft trademarked True Skill... seems even more generic
    Also don't forget Apple's trademark of "App Store", which seems just as generic.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  15. #15  
    Apple sued Samsung over its galaxy phones and touchwhiz UI. Would seem HP has even more reason to go after RIM which was more blatant.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    Apple sued Samsung over its galaxy phones and touchwhiz UI. Would seem HP has even more reason to go after RIM which was more blatant.
    Yep, I say since TouchWiz looks so much like iOS' UI, and the Playbook's multitasking UI looks so much like webOS cards, if Apple can sue, so can HP. One of my Android friends was talking about how someone asked him for help with their Android friend. When my Android friend saw the phone, he said, "But this is iPhone..." until he had a closer look. We also have reports of some sales reps claiming that the Playbook has webOS.

    Innovation is great, blatant and obvious copying is not.

    -- Sent from my Palm Pre using Forums
  17. samab's Avatar
    Posts
    743 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,060 Global Posts
    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by Smartfah View Post
    HP purchased Palm (mostly for webOS), and RIM pruchased QNX; but to say HP has done nothing and that they aren't innovating isnít accurate. Sure HP did not create webOS, but they are carrying out and expanding upon the vision that Palm had when webOS was created. HP is bringing webOS to tablets, PCís, etc. and is doing what Palm couldnít do financially.

    RIM purchased QNX, integrated their Blackberry features into it; however it seems to me that RIM doesnít want to be innovative enough to have their Playbook stand on itís own. If someone can pick up your product and mistake it for running a competitors OS, then thatís not showing innovation. If you spend time marketing how your tablet can run your competitors apps more than your own, to me thatís lacking innovation.

    I watched a couple interviews last week from RIMís Co-CEO Jim Balsillie, one was on CNBC, the other was online (i forget the source), but on both interviews I recall him being asked what differentiates the PlayBook from other tablets, & why should people other than Blackberry users pick one up. He stressed ďTrue MultitaskingĒ, the full web (i.e. flash), OTA updates, and the ability to pair with Blackberryís.


    So after seeing the interviews, reading the Playbook reviews, seeing videos of how the OS mimics webOS, and hearing about how the Playbook will support Android apps, Iíve come to the conclusion that RIM is not being innovative enough with the Playbook. Iím sure they put a lot of work into it, however I am not compelled to pick up a Playbook over a TouchPad or an iPad 2.
    If the definition as being "innovative" means that your competitors cannot easily copy you, then RIM is "innovative" in that sense. To do that little "true multitasking" thing means that you have to turn IOS, Android and WebOS to a realtime operating system. Otherwise your video would stutter in the background. Simple as that. Nobody else will copy that "innovative" feature. You won't see it in IOS version 10, WebOS version 10 or Android version 10 --- because that is a huge job to yank out the existing non-realtime kernels and put in a realtime kernel.

    QNX is a POSIX-Certified COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) RTOS (realtime operating system). It means that some embedded device manufacturer want to swap chip family from x86 to ARM, swap the underlying COTS RTOS from vxworks to QNX --- they can still keep their own codes. COTS means easily exchangeable parts --- there is nothing "innovative" or sexy about it. But it also means that if they want to make a Dalvik virtual machine, a Java virtual machine, a flash virtual machine --- then it is within their ability to make them.

    RIM can copy everybody easily, but nobody can copy RIM without massive efforts.
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by rsanchez1 View Post
    Yep, I say since TouchWiz looks so much like iOS' UI, and the Playbook's multitasking UI looks so much like webOS cards, if Apple can sue, so can HP.
    They might have a case, but suing a company for a product that is currently being lambasted is probably not a great idea.
  19. #19  
    If I was hp I wouldn't stand for it. I was the major differentiator they had.
    Blackberry has no shame. I remember seeing a video when they first demoed the playbook and Josh said :so you are throwing cards away? The blackberry guy said :Yes, I am.

    I couldnt see Josh in the video but I bet he was rolling his eyes, since has many times said that it is just a rip off of webos
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by finngirl View Post
    They might have a case, but suing a company for a product that is currently being lambasted is probably not a great idea.
    Sue them anyway. I am not a part of palm/hp and I feel violated. Reminds of when they stole my car stereo.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions