[savingblackberry]

Chen quote in FT:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e38c7...#axzz3Iboeklid
�What is big or small? That�s a question for the board. Remember when I came in we were teetering, we weren�t sure if we were going to make it or not.�

I am surprised there are some people who argue and defend Heins, Mike and Jim... and justify their loot from Blackberry shareholders. I wont be surprised if its them posting here and defending the daylight robbery they committed (with the help of the board).

You destroy the company and then justify multimillion dollar bonuses? Nobody is to be blamed for destroying 100% of the value (Enterprise value).

Disinformation, misinformation, sheep mentality is so bad.

[potatoguy]

can't read the article, wants me to sign up and pay then it will let me read it.

[dguy123]

Yup. Pay wall.
The sure fire way to prevent a publication from enjoying the benefits of being available online.

Newspapers need to wise up and make money from the adds viewed along with articles.

Stupid stuff like this is why newspapers are in so much trouble.

Posted via CB10

[Prem WatsApp]

Mmhh, registered with an email alias and logged in, but can't seem to locate which article you (OP) were referring to.

It doesn't seem to link properly, even though I'm logged in and I'm sure they've got their silly cookie placed.

:-)

Edit:
works now, did it a second time, needed to supply login credentials again, how silly...

? ? ? Passposted via CB Chen ? ? ?

[bungaboy]

Early Termination Blues . . .

[cbvinh]

Chen quote in FT:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e38c7...#axzz3Iboeklid
“What is big or small? That’s a question for the board. Remember when I came in we were teetering, we weren’t sure if we were going to make it or not.”

I am surprised there are some people who argue and defend Heins, Mike and Jim... and justify their loot from Blackberry shareholders. I wont be surprised if its them posting here and defending the daylight robbery they committed (with the help of the board).

You destroy the company and then justify multimillion dollar bonuses? Nobody is to be blamed for destroying 100% of the value (Enterprise value).

Disinformation, misinformation, sheep mentality is so bad.

Are you saying that the purchase of QNX, which lead to having a stable OS that's not based on Java, during Mike and Jim's tenure was a mistake? You believe that the performance of BBOS7 was enough to turn the company around?

Are you saying the development of BB10, Z10 and Q10, and the beginnings of the Passport and Blend were a mistake of Heins?

Mistakes were made, but not everything was a mistake or a conspiracy to destroy the company.

Justify the looting of BlackBerry shareholders? The stock market is legalized gambling, unless you're buying stock directly from the company to fund them; otherwise, you're making a /bet/ that the shares will have a higher value than when you bought it. If you've lost money, it's your own sheep mentality.

Why would Heins, Mike and Jim bother to come here to defend themselves against armchair CEO's? They've been well compensated and most likely, have way more interesting things to do.

Please detail your plans had you been CEO, like developing the perfect mobile OS back in 2004, three years before the iPhone, then making billions in sales before anyone else was able to jump in! Hindsight is only good if you can see what went wrong... and what went /right/!

[ymb]

Are you saying that the purchase of QNX, which lead to having a stable OS that's not based on Java, during Mike and Jim's tenure was a mistake? You believe that the performance of BBOS7 was enough to turn the company around?

Are you saying the development of BB10, Z10 and Q10, and the beginnings of the Passport and Blend were a mistake of Heins?

Mistakes were made, but not everything was a mistake or a conspiracy to destroy the company.

Justify the looting of BlackBerry shareholders? The stock market is legalized gambling, unless you're buying stock directly from the company to fund them; otherwise, you're making a /bet/ that the shares will have a higher value than when you bought it. If you've lost money, it's your own sheep mentality.

Why would Heins, Mike and Jim bother to come here to defend themselves against armchair CEO's? They've been well compensated and most likely, have way more interesting things to do.

Please detail your plans had you been CEO, like developing the perfect mobile OS back in 2004, three years before the iPhone, then making billions in sales before anyone else was able to jump in! Hindsight is only good if you can see what went wrong... and what went /right/!

They did everything right but they were research too slow in motion

Z30STA100-3/10.2.1.3289

[savingblackberry]

So everything is so well and good, so you are saying Chen is an ***** for saying company was in bad shape? It seems either you are Heins or a paid hack of Heins, not sure. IMHO.

Are you saying that the purchase of QNX, which lead to having a stable OS that's not based on Java, during Mike and Jim's tenure was a mistake? You believe that the performance of BBOS7 was enough to turn the company around?

Are you saying the development of BB10, Z10 and Q10, and the beginnings of the Passport and Blend were a mistake of Heins?

Mistakes were made, but not everything was a mistake or a conspiracy to destroy the company.

Justify the looting of BlackBerry shareholders? The stock market is legalized gambling, unless you're buying stock directly from the company to fund them; otherwise, you're making a /bet/ that the shares will have a higher value than when you bought it. If you've lost money, it's your own sheep mentality.

Why would Heins, Mike and Jim bother to come here to defend themselves against armchair CEO's? They've been well compensated and most likely, have way more interesting things to do.

Please detail your plans had you been CEO, like developing the perfect mobile OS back in 2004, three years before the iPhone, then making billions in sales before anyone else was able to jump in! Hindsight is only good if you can see what went wrong... and what went /right/!

[savingblackberry]

its people like you who encourage bad behavior and greed and corruption. $75 Billion in value lost and you think nothing wrong was done?

Are you saying that the purchase of QNX, which lead to having a stable OS that's not based on Java, during Mike and Jim's tenure was a mistake? You believe that the performance of BBOS7 was enough to turn the company around?

Are you saying the development of BB10, Z10 and Q10, and the beginnings of the Passport and Blend were a mistake of Heins?

Mistakes were made, but not everything was a mistake or a conspiracy to destroy the company.

Justify the looting of BlackBerry shareholders? The stock market is legalized gambling, unless you're buying stock directly from the company to fund them; otherwise, you're making a /bet/ that the shares will have a higher value than when you bought it. If you've lost money, it's your own sheep mentality.

Why would Heins, Mike and Jim bother to come here to defend themselves against armchair CEO's? They've been well compensated and most likely, have way more interesting things to do.

Please detail your plans had you been CEO, like developing the perfect mobile OS back in 2004, three years before the iPhone, then making billions in sales before anyone else was able to jump in! Hindsight is only good if you can see what went wrong... and what went /right/!

[BanffMoose]

its people like you who encourage bad behavior and greed and corruption. $75 Billion in value lost and you think nothing wrong was done?

I think you just need to get over it. They aren't the first to do this nor will they be anywhere near the last.

The past CEOs and boards did what they felt was right for the company to succeed by making what is now looking to have been very good investments for the future. Virtually every product out or coming out today and all the cost cutting was directly attributed to their tenure. They just weren?t good at the external aspects of management which was reading the market, marketing their wares, and handling the media.

So far Chen is proving himself to be the right CEO to handle the marketing and media and handling the second part of the turnaround which is the return to growth part.

Giving Chen all the credit for the turnaround is just as wrong as vilifying the past CEOs. Pointing fingers and focusing on the negativity serves no purpose now. Give credit where due and just move on.

[theRock1975]

its people like you who encourage bad behavior and greed and corruption. $75 Billion in value lost and you think nothing wrong was done?

They were also there for the creation of the wealth.

Do you enjoy your BB10 phone, bbm, super stable and responsive QNX RTOS, the unified messaging hub, peek and flow from TAT?

The Z30, the Passport, the work and personal perimeters securely built into the kernel...

It was all them. Show some respect.

Posted via CB10

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Thorsten Heins got what the board agreed to give him.

While I don't think he was the right choice... I do think he was the choice (yes man) that the Board, along with Mike and Jim wanted, that is why they hired from within. It took the failure of BB10 to wake the Board up and make them realize that there had to be some MAJOR changes.


Did Mike, Jim and Thor make mistakes that cost investors... YES! Were those investors caught totally off guard..... they should not have been. One look at the iPhone and how popular it was becoming in those first few months should have been a big warning for investors. But BlackBerry was seeing record sales and growth throughout the world, so for a while the iPhone could be ignored. But then Google got in the game (they were originally going to release a BlackBerry like device, but changed once they saw the iPhone), a few quarters of Android sales and comparing the stagnate BlackBerry to these two new and fresh platforms. Many investors saw it was wise to pull their money out in 2008... even as sales for BlackBerry continued to grow. The Storm did provide some hope for a while, and then the move to a new OS along with the PlayBook gave some a false sense of hope.

[BanffMoose]

This can be debated ad nauseum. Just because the board agreed to an outrageous severage package doesn't make it ethical, it just makes the matter clear that the board is spineless.

Of the 8 members of the board, all were with BBRY while Heins was CEO except one (Mike Daniels, who joined Oct 2014).

The board has 7 members. vs a peer company average of 12. It has 5 non-employee directors vs 10 average, only 3 members own shares (43%) vs an average of 9 members per per board (i.e. 75% of board members at peer companies hold shares). Their average tenure is 2.4 years vs 8.4 years at peers.

This is a pathetic, inexperienced board and there isn't a good excuse for their abhorrent behavior. I don't own BBRY shares, and that lack of experience or ability to supervise management is a big part of the reason why.

Inexplicable insouciance.

Thank you for the statistics. Now, can you please tell us what exactly does a board member do and how many hours a week they devote to being on the board?

Please, use your 12 member, peer company's board as an example. Tell us how not having those 5 extra people hurt BlackBerry.

[Bla1ze]

Chen quote in FT:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/e38c7...#axzz3Iboeklid
“What is big or small? That’s a question for the board. Remember when I came in we were teetering, we weren’t sure if we were going to make it or not.”

I am surprised there are some people who argue and defend Heins, Mike and Jim... and justify their loot from Blackberry shareholders. I wont be surprised if its them posting here and defending the daylight robbery they committed (with the help of the board).

You destroy the company and then justify multimillion dollar bonuses? Nobody is to be blamed for destroying 100% of the value (Enterprise value).

Disinformation, misinformation, sheep mentality is so bad.

What does any of that have to do with Thorsten? The exact quote is actually about the pay Chen gets, something Thorsten wouldn't have even negotiated.

The award of about $85m of restricted stock when he joined – a huge sum for a company of BlackBerry's size – must have helped seal the deal, but he bats aside the question of whether it was too generous. “What is big or small? That's a question for the board. Remember when I came in we were teetering, we weren't sure if we were going to make it or not.” He says it takes a certain temperament to assume the top job at a failing company. “When you do turnrounds, you have to have this very compartmentalised view of life. You do all you can to make a difference, but you cannot let everything drag you down.”

[exiledcanadian]

Rather than debate the merit of board members, what is it you think at most companies they ARE doing? And, in your mind is that what they SHOULD be doing?

Non-employee directors are critical because they don't in any way report to management. I should also point out that NYSE listed companies require a minimum of 3 non-employee directors. Do you know how many people make up the comp committee of the board at blackberry? 2 They're not a NYSE listed company, but point being - their corporate governance standards are so low they couldn't list on the NYSE tomorrow if they wanted to. And it's not like the NYSE has over-the-top standards here.

Interesting reading re: corporate governance and SEC rules around compensation committees: https://www.law.stanford.edu/sites/d...K.18330.11.pdf

BlackBerry is listed on the NASDAQ. As such, the majority of their board members must be independent and not employed by the company.

Refer to Rule "IM-5605-1 - Majority Independent Board" at the following link: NASDAQ Stock Market

[savingblackberry]

So lame on your part.. those who ignore history do so at their own peril.
Tell you what... let me come and rob your house and then a week later we will just fuggedabout.. say what Einstein?

I think you just need to get over it. They aren't the first to do this nor will they be anywhere near the last.

The past CEOs and boards did what they felt was right for the company to succeed by making what is now looking to have been very good investments for the future. Virtually every product out or coming out today and all the cost cutting was directly attributed to their tenure. They just weren?t good at the external aspects of management which was reading the market, marketing their wares, and handling the media.

So far Chen is proving himself to be the right CEO to handle the marketing and media and handling the second part of the turnaround which is the return to growth part.

Giving Chen all the credit for the turnaround is just as wrong as vilifying the past CEOs. Pointing fingers and focusing on the negativity serves no purpose now. Give credit where due and just move on.

[BanffMoose]

So lame on your part.. those who ignore history do so at their own peril.
Tell you what... let me come and rob your house and then a week later we will just fuggedabout.. say what Einstein?

If you're that adamant about your convictions, then research each board member's contribution to BlackBerry or lack thereof and post your thoughts on how you think shareholders should vote next year. If it's just the past CEO's compensation, most of us ranted about that last year and got over it or dumped BBRY altogether.

Keep in mind that you can probably add up all the shares of BBRY owned by all the members of Mobile Nations (not just CB) and still not have a hundredth of the percent of necessary votes needed to vote any board member out, much less effect any change.

So stop screaming into the ether because it's just. not. productive.

[exiledcanadian]

So lame on your part.. those who ignore history do so at their own peril.
Tell you what... let me come and rob your house and then a week later we will just fuggedabout.. say what Einstein?

And those who keep dwelling on the past never move forward. The only time this topic comes up is when you start a thread or post about it.

No one else is talking about Heins, Jim or Mike anymore. It's done. It's over. Nothing can change it. They're gone. They did nothing against the law. They didn't "rob the house." The "owners of the house" offered the "robbers" (as you call them) those compensation packages. What if someone offered you $80 million dollars to do a job no matter how well or poorly it came out? What if you tried your best with the resources you had but it didn't turn out as you hoped? And then they told you to leave before you could try to fix it. Would you still want to have the money that was guaranteed to you under contract?

Blackberry fell not just because of poor management but because of external factors such as increased competition, new innovations and shifting market preferences. Companies such as Samsung, Apple and many others had better R&D. They had larger marketing and sales budgets. Their production was more cost-efficient and advanced. In short, they were better than Blackberry in all aspects of the value chain. Those had A LOT MORE to do with BB's decline than who was in charge.

[cbvinh]

1. Seems the past CEO's (Laridis and Balsillie) had a good idea in 1999 and build on it. They didn't have what it look to take the company to the next level. They weren't bad, but they didn't have the skillset to build it into a global brand and maintain that market share.

What? They did build BlackBerry/RIM into a global brand and in some ways, they got trapped in the success, like Apple is today with iPhones. Apple can't do a dramatic shift, lest alienate their current userbase (see BBOS7 user resistance to BB10 as an example).

[cbvinh]

Description:
Research in Motion (RIM) is a high technology firm that is experiencing explosive sales growth. David Yach, chief technology officer for software at RIM, has received notice of an impending meeting with the co-chief executive officer regarding his research and development (R&D) expenditures. Although RIM, makers of the very popular BlackBerry, spent almost $360 million in R&D in 2007, this number was low compared to its largest competitors, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of sales (e.g. Nokia spent $8.2 billion on R&D). This is problematic as it foreshadows the question of whether or not RIM is well positioned to continue to meet expectations, deliver award-winning products and services and maintain its lead in the smartphone market. Furthermore, in the very dynamic mobile telecommunications industry, investment analysts often look to a firm's commitment to R&D as a signal that product sales growth will be sustainable. Just to maintain the status quo, Yach will have to hire 1,400 software engineers in 2008 and is considering a number of alternative paths to managing the expansion. The options include: (1) doing what they are doing now, only more of it, (2) building on their existing and satellite R&D locations, (3) growing through acquisition or (4) going global.

Link: https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/product/908M46-PDF-ENG

Edit: I just googled the case study name "Research in Motion: Managing Explosive Growth" and it seems to be freely available online at a few various sites.

While Nokia spent $8.2 billion in R&D, they didn't fair well...

[BanffMoose]

What? They did build BlackBerry/RIM into a global brand and in some ways, they got trapped in the success, like Apple is today with iPhones. Apple can't do a dramatic shift, lest alienate their current userbase (see BBOS7 user resistance to BB10 as an example).

If there's a good enough reason, Apple will. They have a history of doing so. Over the years, they switched from Motorola cpus to PowerPoint CPUs to Intel CPUs. Each switch was probably painful to both ISV's and end users, but they all switched. Given Apple's size now, it may be a little harder, but if they do it while they're still on top, I'm sure people will complain, but the masses will switch with Apple.

[systemvolker]

Pressure and lost of patience because of the deadline and revenue losses.

TH's issue I suppose ^

He was smart enough to be the ceo but he seemed to be lacking of focus while under pressure. He looks calm in front of the camera but we dont know how he reacts out of it. Wew. Liz? Idk about that guy.

I'm not defending him though. Just sharing my thoughts.

Hehehe

[skibnik]

I totally agree. Assigning blame isn't a priority for me, it's an interesting learning experience but the past doesn't impact the plans the company created in the past 1-2years and what they have planned going forward.

I think you'll find this Harvard case study an interesting read (it's $4.16 to download), but effectively says a lot of what you just wrote out.

Description:
Research in Motion (RIM) is a high technology firm that is experiencing explosive sales growth. David Yach, chief technology officer for software at RIM, has received notice of an impending meeting with the co-chief executive officer regarding his research and development (R&D) expenditures. Although RIM, makers of the very popular BlackBerry, spent almost $360 million in R&D in 2007, this number was low compared to its largest competitors, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of sales (e.g. Nokia spent $8.2 billion on R&D). This is problematic as it foreshadows the question of whether or not RIM is well positioned to continue to meet expectations, deliver award-winning products and services and maintain its lead in the smartphone market. Furthermore, in the very dynamic mobile telecommunications industry, investment analysts often look to a firm's commitment to R&D as a signal that product sales growth will be sustainable. Just to maintain the status quo, Yach will have to hire 1,400 software engineers in 2008 and is considering a number of alternative paths to managing the expansion. The options include: (1) doing what they are doing now, only more of it, (2) building on their existing and satellite R&D locations, (3) growing through acquisition or (4) going global.

Link: https://cb.hbsp.harvard.edu/cbmp/product/908M46-PDF-ENG

Edit: I just googled the case study name "Research in Motion: Managing Explosive Growth" and it seems to be freely available online at a few various sites.

Came across this in the Globe and Mail it seems Canada has fallen behind on R&D spending.
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/report-...service=mobile

Loving my Passport!

[Superfly_FR]

So everything is so well and good, so you are saying Chen is an ***** for saying company was in bad shape? It seems either you are Heins or a paid hack of Heins, not sure. IMHO.

its people like you who encourage bad behavior and greed and corruption. $75 Billion in value lost and you think nothing wrong was done?

Thorsten Heins got what the board agreed to give him.

While I don't think he was the right choice... I do think he was the choice (yes man) that the Board, along with Mike and Jim wanted, that is why they hired from within. It took the failure of BB10 to wake the Board up and make them realize that there had to be some MAJOR changes.


Did Mike, Jim and Thor make mistakes that cost investors... YES! Were those investors caught totally off guard..... they should not have been. One look at the iPhone and how popular it was becoming in those first few months should have been a big warning for investors. But BlackBerry was seeing record sales and growth throughout the world, so for a while the iPhone could be ignored. But then Google got in the game (they were originally going to release a BlackBerry like device, but changed once they saw the iPhone), a few quarters of Android sales and comparing the stagnate BlackBerry to these two new and fresh platforms. Many investors saw it was wise to pull their money out in 2008... even as sales for BlackBerry continued to grow. The Storm did provide some hope for a while, and then the move to a new OS along with the PlayBook gave some a false sense of hope.

Let me come and rob your house and then we will not dwell on it. Okay! lol! Another hack for the past management who robbed this company. How can they live with themselves with those $7 million departing bonus? If they have an ounce of decency, they will return that money and the board members who approved that money should be fired.

Seems you cannot understand what a company is and - more specifically - what latency and competition are.

Chen is doing an amazing job in an area Heins had - almost - no lever to deal with at the beginning and has been then instructed to prepare. As Chen and Prem stated in multiple occasions, "Heins had to play a hand he didn't deal".

How to split ?
Heins executed pretty well with all things BB10. He was also here to be the "bad guy", take the beat and leave with a smile (I spoke about it in a CB webcast). Just look around you and you'll find numerous examples of this type of job.
Just ask yourself how difficult it is to:
a) Launch a brand new platform (device + OS + Back-end) on par with former legacy devices/OS/Backend in terms of security and compliance (just as examples). So easy we've seen dozen of competitors doing the same, in the same time-frame right ? . Even with deep pockets they either failed (Hello ? Anyone ? Tizen ?) or obtained a mixed result (WP), partly due to BlackBerry vacuum.
b) Seduce as much as possible of developers to achieve the critical numbers in BBWorld (the greatest number for a platform launch, ever)
c) make QNX a recognized entity and set the basis of the IoT strategy
d) Set up a brand new supply chain and partnership organisation (not sure when the Foxconn deal was initiated, you may know ?)
e) Reduce the costs with a drastic head cut, while maintaining enough energy in the company and keep the most valuable heads in place.
Now add the overall pressure "RIM is dead" - live way before Heins landed - mix the six and - maybe - revise slightly your definitive and insulting statements.
Did he performed sufficiently to make BlackBerry "strike back" ? No. Could he ? I sincerely doubt.
Did he set all the fundamentals that enables what we see today ? for most, yes.

Chen arrived with HIS vision, clearly aimed at the enterprises and promoting services as the cash machine.
BlackBerry 10 was out, Z10/Q10 were out, BES10 was out, CORE program was on its last leg.
His task is not easy either and implies strategic choices and moves that are on the company level (V.S product/marketing level for Heins). Chen has the keys of the house.
These choices can kill the company, that simple. And that level of authority wasn't in Heins' hands.
I applause Chen's and team work, it's an amazing performance and I do believe they're only a few step from definitive (as much as it can be) recovery.

You compare two different profiles, carrots and navels if you prefer.
Now for the "golden parachute" refer to the status of Heins I described above. Part of it is assuming - undocumented IMHO - reactions like yours. This contractual arrangement gave him some time to let the dust settle before he can find a (non competitive) valid position.
Do you really believe $7 million has changed even slightly the nature of the problems for the company ? Do you have an idea of how many months of salary (charges included) this is for a CEO like Heins ?

But you're probably already ... nah ... never mind.

EDIT : finally, just listen to Thorsten ... it's only 20 seconds long (unless you wanna hear about wireless charging, of course !).

"What we were trying to do is to separate the enterprise software from the handset business [...] to allow them to go from two different paths [...] I think John is executing against this strategy and I whish him all the best" ...

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/cnbc/56449386/#56449386

Edited 2014-11-24
And, FTR I would like to add some kudos to Frank Boulben for the partnership he signed with F1 team Mercedes AMG Petronas. I'd like all 1st class armchair C.E.Os to evaluate how many $million in free media exposure and positive image this has generated. Not to mention the very specific relations between Mercedes and #QNX Automotive solutions.