SharperDingaan Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Heins has no choice other than publicly support BB10 - but it is highly likely that BB10 will never actually see the light of day. Supposedly BB10 runs off the QMX team’s technology; so what is to stop somebody making the team an offer they simply cannot refuse? Get paid in the shares of a ‘real’ company, they indemnify against the inevitable lawsuits, you keep your benefits, & your job is ‘safe’. Clean break from the misery of layoffs, & the certainty of more to come if BB10’s launch is not beyond spectacular. They’ve all seen the Nortel experience, & even if somebody pays well over the going rate – it is still dirt cheap. Supposedly RIM has the value of its cash & patents, & that value will subsequently flow to its shareholders. But what is to stop somebody simply taking RIM private via a stink bid? Not exactly a new experience for some of their shareholders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_capital54 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Heins has no choice other than publicly support BB10 - but it is highly likely that BB10 will never actually see the light of day. Supposedly BB10 runs off the QMX team’s technology; so what is to stop somebody making the team an offer they simply cannot refuse? Get paid in the shares of a ‘real’ company, they indemnify against the inevitable lawsuits, you keep your benefits, & your job is ‘safe’. Clean break from the misery of layoffs, & the certainty of more to come if BB10’s launch is not beyond spectacular. They’ve all seen the Nortel experience, & even if somebody pays well over the going rate – it is still dirt cheap. Supposedly RIM has the value of its cash & patents, & that value will subsequently flow to its shareholders. But what is to stop somebody simply taking RIM private via a stink bid? Not exactly a new experience for some of their shareholders. What about RIMM announcing that they are moving to Android and turning BBM into an APP ? Wouldn't this be very interesting and at this stage pretty asymmetric from a risk/reward stand point. Android would reinvograte the "growth potential" while keeping BBM which is the core userbase accessible to all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Heins has no choice other than publicly support BB10 - but it is highly likely that BB10 will never actually see the light of day. Supposedly BB10 runs off the QMX team’s technology; so what is to stop somebody making the team an offer they simply cannot refuse? Get paid in the shares of a ‘real’ company, they indemnify against the inevitable lawsuits, you keep your benefits, & your job is ‘safe’. Clean break from the misery of layoffs, & the certainty of more to come if BB10’s launch is not beyond spectacular. They’ve all seen the Nortel experience, & even if somebody pays well over the going rate – it is still dirt cheap. Supposedly RIM has the value of its cash & patents, & that value will subsequently flow to its shareholders. But what is to stop somebody simply taking RIM private via a stink bid? Not exactly a new experience for some of their shareholders. What about RIMM announcing that they are moving to Android and turning BBM into an APP ? Wouldn't this be very interesting and at this stage pretty asymmetric from a risk/reward stand point. Android would reinvograte the "growth potential" while keeping BBM which is the core userbase accessible to all. On the low end, they'll get into price wars with other Android vendors and won't be able to sustain. On the high end, they won't be able to compete on hardware with Samsung. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Heins has no choice other than publicly support BB10 - but it is highly likely that BB10 will never actually see the light of day. Supposedly BB10 runs off the QMX team’s technology; so what is to stop somebody making the team an offer they simply cannot refuse? I will say this -- the underlying QNX Neutrino OS is very interesting and could potentially be a diamond overshadowed by RIM's problems. After all, QNX software is in a lot of interesting places, from the latest Porsches to US army drones, and that bodes well for RIM's ability to put BB10, which is built on top of QNX Neutrino, on multiple devices. BB10 also has some very interesting features. Repackaging Android apps in the blink of an eye? HTML5 apps that have access to core client capabilities? Walls between personal and corporate data/apps? It is possible that the OS being built and the QNX subsidiary, generally, will be worth more to an acquirer if RIM/QNX is given the time to actually finish the damn thing. Most likely, that's why RIM wouldn't even consider the MSFT and AMZN overtures last summer. I'm sure Mike Lazaridis -- who has been called a genius by Prem Watsa -- really believed that the new OS would (and will) be a truly great work of engineering. We can only speculate as to whether that was the right decision, but you have to admire what they are attempting from a "building stuff" standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCG Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 but you have to admire what they are attempting from a "building stuff" standpoint. Attempting and executing are 2 very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 but you have to admire what they are attempting from a "building stuff" standpoint. Attempting and executing are 2 very different things. And your point is . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooskinneejs Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Article on Slate.com titled "The BlackBerry Is 99 Percent Dead. Here’s the one thing that could maybe, possibly save it." It basically suggests linking up with Microsoft... http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/07/the_blackberry_is_dead_could_research_in_motion_bring_it_back_to_life_by_partnering_with_microsoft_.html You do have to wonder at what price this becomes so cheap (in absolute dollars, not in comparison to an incalculable intrinsic value) that Softy tries to grab it and make something of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Heins writes an article for Globe & Mail on RIM. Good letter, but he'll have to back it up. They are way behind and it's going to take alot to just remain in the game, let alone catch up. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/rim-will-empower-people-like-never-before-heins/article4385940/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Heins writes an article for Globe & Mail on RIM. Good letter, but he'll have to back it up. They are way behind and it's going to take alot to just remain in the game, let alone catch up. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/rim-will-empower-people-like-never-before-heins/article4385940/ That was a pretty good letter. He said much of what I wanted to hear. You can say much about the RIM situation, but one thing it is not is boring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Heins writes an article for Globe & Mail on RIM. Good letter, but he'll have to back it up. They are way behind and it's going to take alot to just remain in the game, let alone catch up. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/rim-will-empower-people-like-never-before-heins/article4385940/ That was a pretty good letter. He said much of what I wanted to hear. You can say much about the RIM situation, but one thing it is not is boring! Well shareholders definitely aren't bored right now. Not sure they are entertained either! ;D Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 More bad news: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-04/rim-cutting-carrier-fee-shows-spiral-concern.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordoffh Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 Well bought my first shares of RIM today. Not absolutely sure but honestly can we have 2 tech giants go down. Maybe it,s just the Canadian in me. Just a flyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Customers preparing contingency plans in case RIM goes out of business: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-09/rim-s-customers-working-on-contingency-plans-corporate-canada.html This demonstrates how negative sentiment in the market is affecting RIM's various lines of business, including its network access business. It's a negative feedback loop. Even though service disruption is remote, I expect that there will be a lots of unwarranted talk about how RIM's balance sheet is terrible and how it is at risk of filing for BK in the near term, and therefore people should dump RIM's network services entirely. Just watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Thorsten Heins interview in CIO: http://www.cio.com/article/710295/RIM_CEO_on_What_Went_Wrong_and_the_Future_of_BlackBerry?page=1&taxonomyId=3061 It was an okay interview, but one answer was sort of disturbing to me: Something I hear very often is that RIM "failed to innovate" and that a "lack of innovation" led to the fix that RIM's now in. Is it that simple? Did RIM fail to innovate? I would not say that we failed to innovate. RIM is still a very innovative company. BlackBerry 10 will absolutely prove this. I think that the reason is something else. We had a very, very successful recipe of what BlackBerry was all about. There were four main pillars: battery life; typing; security; and compression. Then there was a shift with LTE. With LTE it was important actually not to save network resources, it was important to load the networks, to sell data plans and sell data volume. We didn't miss on innovation. I think we missed on understanding, specifically in the U.S., that this trend was shifting, and that our positioning and our value proposition in the U.S. market was not following that trend shift. Uhh, it wasn't really the shift to LTE that caused the RIM value proposition to decline in the US. He's gotta know that, right? Why the heck would he say that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Uhh, it wasn't really the shift to LTE that caused the RIM value proposition to decline in the US. He's gotta know that, right? Why the heck would he say that? :o That answer doesn't make any sense to me either, on more than one level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valueInv Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Thorsten Heins interview in CIO: http://www.cio.com/article/710295/RIM_CEO_on_What_Went_Wrong_and_the_Future_of_BlackBerry?page=1&taxonomyId=3061 It was an okay interview, but one answer was sort of disturbing to me: Something I hear very often is that RIM "failed to innovate" and that a "lack of innovation" led to the fix that RIM's now in. Is it that simple? Did RIM fail to innovate? I would not say that we failed to innovate. RIM is still a very innovative company. BlackBerry 10 will absolutely prove this. I think that the reason is something else. We had a very, very successful recipe of what BlackBerry was all about. There were four main pillars: battery life; typing; security; and compression. Then there was a shift with LTE. With LTE it was important actually not to save network resources, it was important to load the networks, to sell data plans and sell data volume. We didn't miss on innovation. I think we missed on understanding, specifically in the U.S., that this trend was shifting, and that our positioning and our value proposition in the U.S. market was not following that trend shift. Uhh, it wasn't really the shift to LTE that caused the RIM value proposition to decline in the US. He's gotta know that, right? Why the heck would he say that? The LTE excuse is total BS. LTE networks are just being deployed across the world. The vast majority of customers are on 3G networks today. LTE won't be a majority for another 3-4 years at least. These guys are in total denial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The LTE excuse is total BS. LTE networks are just being deployed across the world. The vast majority of customers are on 3G networks today. LTE won't be a majority for another 3-4 years at least. These guys are in total denial. Well, I wouldn't say they're in total denial. Clearly, the push for BB10 is a recognition of the sort of innovation that has caused RIM to lose a ton of market share in NA. That's why it's so incredibly strange to hear him talking about the shift to LTE in response to the question. It's not like the carriers' need to collect data revenue was what made iPhone and Android successful. It's an almost Ballmer-like denial. You know, it's not that he doesn't get it -- it's that he thinks he can't admit how the competition has done so well in comparison. I've never really got that mindset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bargainman Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 What he's referring to, rather badly I might add, is that they didn't anticipate that there would be such a big shift to large data transferred over the network. When the iPhone came out with a full scale web browser (minus Flash of course), no one knew what to make of it, since they thought the data load would kill the phone companies (or the company - ATT). But then when people started buying iphone in droves they realized they needed to drive up bandwidth. BB was 'betting' that super tight data efficiency would still be very important for the ATTs of the world, and also the customers since no one wants to wait around for data.. Surely people would want fast browsing, which meant BB had an advantage. However.. iPhone, then android drove customer demand which drove the phone companies to build the networks to support the new demand. I vaguely remember reading something about Apple killing the phone companies with their price for the phone since they had to make much larger capital investments in the network than the might have originally anticipated.. Ie, Apple sells them the iPhone, pocketing a huge margin, then the phone company gets a customer for 2 years, but then that customer, with unlimited data starts overloading the network, then the phone company has to build out more towers etc, hence the iPhone ends up costing the company more than it thought... Hopefully that makes sense.. Kind of tired so sorry if it doesn't. I think that's the point, but that was probably the case before LTE! Started with 3G I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 It does make sense, but I think it's still not a very good excuse and that he could have said many better things in that interview.. the iPhone came out in 2007! Either they missed the switch to more bandwidth-intensive uses because they are totally blind and incompetent, or they saw it but are so clunky that they can't react fast enough to competitive threats (I mean, they already had a successful platform at the time while Android came out of almost nothing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 What he's referring to, rather badly I might add, is that they didn't anticipate that there would be such a big shift to large data transferred over the network. When the iPhone came out with a full scale web browser (minus Flash of course), no one knew what to make of it, since they thought the data load would kill the phone companies (or the company - ATT). But then when people started buying iphone in droves they realized they needed to drive up bandwidth. BB was 'betting' that super tight data efficiency would still be very important for the ATTs of the world, and also the customers since no one wants to wait around for data.. Surely people would want fast browsing, which meant BB had an advantage. However.. iPhone, then android drove customer demand which drove the phone companies to build the networks to support the new demand. I vaguely remember reading something about Apple killing the phone companies with their price for the phone since they had to make much larger capital investments in the network than the might have originally anticipated.. Ie, Apple sells them the iPhone, pocketing a huge margin, then the phone company gets a customer for 2 years, but then that customer, with unlimited data starts overloading the network, then the phone company has to build out more towers etc, hence the iPhone ends up costing the company more than it thought... Hopefully that makes sense.. Kind of tired so sorry if it doesn't. I think that's the point, but that was probably the case before LTE! Started with 3G I think... I think I see what you mean. The problem I have with Heins' statement in that interview is that he seems to argue that RIM failed to see that the rise of data traffic on networks would cause carriers to want more data volume and a greater load on the network, thus making RIM's competitive advantage (ability to optimize the network and existing device performance such as battery life) less of an advantage. But I don't think it was that carriers wanted to have extra load on their network. Sure, carriers would love to sell data plans in addition to voice plans, but I'm pretty sure that the carriers would love users to have the same experience as an iPhone or Android phone with less of a load on the network, since that reduces their costs. Now, if he really is just saying that RIM missed the boat because it was too focused on optimizing resources on the networks and devices, versus expanding the experience of the user, then I completely agree with him. If I could sum it all up in one sentence, RIM's big mistake was failing to shift its focus from resource optimization to end user experience when it became clear to everyone (thanks to AAPL) that the "smart phone" would become a necessary computing device for everyone and, therefore, would need to vastly improve to meet the awesome possibilities going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texual Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 That answer is really indicative of the culture at RIMM and why eventually the only thing left for them is security and enterprise. There wont be a BB10 and even if there is, it will suffer a fate worse than Palm pre/web os. They are just talking delusions left and right at the company, year after year. The new guy is a creep. Everything he says is PR speak. It doesn't inspire any confidence, but I have to wait and see how the consumers react. My guess is people who buy phones will not buy a blackberry over the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustabound Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The new guy is a creep. Everything he says is PR speak. It doesn't inspire any confidence... I don't have any skin in the RIM game but how does playing the P.R. game make him a creep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texual Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 A company this far down the road needs to start being honest. LTE has nothing to do with Blackberry losing marketshare. Nobody is buying a Blackberry because they are old, lack carrier support (they are not pushed on customers) and developers choose not to develop for it. Even if BB10 is going to answer their prayers, his answer to that question makes me double take. Say what? Your the CEO of a company who's stock value has evaporated and you think were dummies? I'm mildly proficient with technology and even I can smell the bs. If I was in the audience I would be livid. For RIMM's new guy to answer questions the way he does, I just would not do that to shareholders. I honestly think he is too confident. He makes some very bold claims about BB10 changing the way we communicate forever. Really? Really. Also I should add that RIM isn't all that innovative and he keeps saying it but theres no evidence supporting it. He also said in a radio interview that his company is not in a death spiral. That's also wrong. Their are hardly enough powerful people (investors) or companies willing to support them. The activist shareholders cannot stop management from being re-elected either. Their company is on the verge of total irrelevance and will be just like Palm within a few months. For him to say there are no issues that are fatal to their company makes no sense. How can he say that when his company is now a 4 billion dollar enterprise right now? Their problems are far worse than Nokia but at least Elop has been brutally honest and forward. And that sometimes is enough to get my support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augustabound Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 He also said in a radio interview that his company is not in a death spiral. I heard that interview also (CBC radio last week, maybe two weeks ago). First he said there's nothing currently wrong, they're just refocusing. The interviewer challenged his as to why the 5000 layoffs, $500M loss and a 95% share price decline from the high if it's nothing more than a change of direction. He backtracked and the excuses came out about being a very different company that in January blah blah blah. All I heard was tap dancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 A company this far down the road needs to start being honest. LTE has nothing to do with Blackberry losing marketshare. Nobody is buying a Blackberry because they are old, lack carrier support (they are not pushed on customers) and developers choose not to develop for it. Even if BB10 is going to answer their prayers, his answer to that question makes me double take. Say what? Your the CEO of a company who's stock value has evaporated and you think were dummies? I'm mildly proficient with technology and even I can smell the bs. If I was in the audience I would be livid. For RIMM's new guy to answer questions the way he does, I just would not do that to shareholders. I honestly think he is too confident. He makes some very bold claims about BB10 changing the way we communicate forever. Really? Really. Also I should add that RIM isn't all that innovative and he keeps saying it but theres no evidence supporting it. He also said in a radio interview that his company is not in a death spiral. That's also wrong. Their are hardly enough powerful people (investors) or companies willing to support them. The activist shareholders cannot stop management from being re-elected either. Their company is on the verge of total irrelevance and will be just like Palm within a few months. For him to say there are no issues that are fatal to their company makes no sense. How can he say that when his company is now a 4 billion dollar enterprise right now? Their problems are far worse than Nokia but at least Elop has been brutally honest and forward. And that sometimes is enough to get my support. He's tap dancing around the subject -- badly, I might add. Don't think he's a creep, though. Not so sure NOK is better off than RIM. The right side of their balance sheet scares me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now