I have found that most of those who are hoping for the rise of an iPad killer are mostly fans of Android, so it shouldn't be surprising that RIM is discovering that the early reviews of its BlackBerry PlayBook are not overwhelmingly positive.
Leaving aside the "my side versus your side" aspects of tech writers, a common theme among reviews is that the lack of apps for the webOS platform severely restricts the tablet's usefulness, as does the essential features that depend on owning a BlackBerry phone.
PC World: "To say that Research in Motion's BlackBerry PlayBook is a study in contrasts is an understatement. After extensively testing a PlayBook ($500 for 16GB of storage, $600 for a 32GB version, and $700 for 64GB) that was running not-quite-final software, I'm impressed by its convenient size and novel navigation, but I found the tablet's sometimes primitive native software and selection of apps frustrating."
Wired: "RIM is banking that those who bemoan the loss of screen real estate will use the tablet as a media hub for larger devices. You can drag and drop media files from your desktop to the PlayBook the same way you'd move files to a USB flash drive. You can also transfer files wirelessly over your local network."
NYT: "Finally, there’s a wild, wireless Bluetooth connection feature called BlackBerry Bridge. In this setup, the PlayBook acts as a giant viewing window onto the contents of a BlackBerry phone. Whatever e-mail, calendar, address book and instant messages are on the BlackBerry now show up on the PlayBook’s much roomier screen — a live, encrypted two-way link...
But — are you sitting down? — at the moment, BlackBerry Bridge is the only way to do e-mail, calendar, address book and BlackBerry Messenger on the PlayBook. The PlayBook does not have e-mail, calendar or address book apps of its own. You read that right. R.I.M. has just shipped a BlackBerry product that cannot do e-mail. It must be skating season in hell. (R.I.M. says that those missing apps will come this summer.)"
I'm not sure lawyers like it when you take to the Internet to respond to a lawsuit, but when the website has your name on it I suppose you have that prerogative.
Last night Arianna Huffington responded to the lawsuit filed by Jonathan Tasini that seeks reimbursement for bloggers who contributed to the Huffington Post website prior to its acquisition by AOL.
Huffington takes down Tasini's claims mostly by quoting others who have commented on the merits of the lawsuit, but I think she intentionally missed the real issues involved in the lawsuit.
“We are going to make Arianna Huffington a pariah in the progressive community,” Tasini is quoted by Jeff Bercovici of Forbes as stating during a conference call. “No one will blog for her. She’ll never [be invited to] speak. We will picket her home. We’re going to make it clear that, until you do justice here, your life is going to be a living hell.”
You can judge Huffington's column on its own merits, but she does not mention the fact that many who wrote for, or read, Huffington Post, or saw her on MSNBC, no longer view her brand as a positive. The price she will pay for being acquired by AOL may, in the end, not be measured in page views, but in the dwindling number of times she is called upon to represent a point of view. Of course, there is always Fox News.