[conite]

as I said--remains much lower to it's historical low than high.

So?

They made massive mistakes in 2008-2013. They barely survived by the skin of their teeth - and managed to do it by changing their entire business.

[KAM1138]

So?

So, when someone talks about Chen's leadership being a success, as that it would take a "Magical" person to match his success, or that it would be "miraculous" to have done better--I find that kind of laughable.

As I said way back--I don't see Chen as a Savior or a villain. I see him as the guy who was around when Company hit bottom, and the Company had enough inherent value left to survive.

I don't see Chen as particularly standing out as a success compared to Blackberry's other CEOs--he's just lucky enough to be wading in a shallow pool, and therefore looking like his head is above water.

This doesn't mean he is HORRIBLE, or that he has done NOTHING, but the same could be said of various Executives--one could argue that all of them did SOMETHING good, and a lot of bad.

[conite]

So, when someone talks about Chen's leadership being a success, as that it would take a "Magical" person to match his success, or that it would be "miraculous" to have done better--I find that kind of laughable.

As I said way back--I don't see Chen as a Savior or a villain. I see him as the guy who was around when Company hit bottom, and the Company had enough inherent value left to survive.

I don't see Chen as particularly standing out as a success compared to Blackberry's other CEOs--he's just lucky enough to be wading in a shallow pool, and therefore looking like his head is above water.

This doesn't mean he is HORRIBLE, or that he has done NOTHING, but the same could be said of various Executives--one could argue that all of them did SOMETHING good, and a lot of bad.

Then I don't think you have followed the company much since 2013. He has completely re-engineered the entire organization from the ground up - all from a position of financial despair.

[KAM1138]

So?

They made massive mistakes in 2008-2013. They barely survived by the skin of their teeth - and managed to do it by changing their entire business.

I think you look at Blackberry as being "saved" and I look at it as a husk. Not WORTHLESS, but worth less, and showing no strong signs of growth.

Since you're so fond of charts--look at Blackberry's stock price--it's a pretty flat Trend line, even taking the bottom in 2013. Look at it slightly before and it's a downward trend.

[conite]

I think you look at Blackberry as being "saved" and I look at it as a husk. Not WORTHLESS, but worth less, and showing no strong signs of growth.

Revenues are flat because they have been trying to grow software as fast as declining SAF.

They managed 14% software and services growth year over year - with over 80% of total software revenues recurring.

[KAM1138]

Revenues are flat because they have been trying to grow software as fast as declining SAF.

They managed 14% software and services growth year over year - with over 80% of that recurring.

Congratulations?

[conite]

Congratulations?

Absolutely. Few people said it could be done. SAF formed the bulk of the old business model.

[KAM1138]

Absolutely. Few people said it could be done. SAF formed the bulk of the old business model.

It seems this makes you happy, so I'm glad.

Don't answer if you don't want (privacy and all), but are you a Blackberry Shareholder?

[Chuck Finley69]

No one will believe that.

Are you saying you're not involved with securities, compliance or securities law? I'm just stating what I know from my profession and career background.

People ask why the courts are filled with lawsuits and why they always receive the wierd contingency settlements from all types of class action claims. I explained to you, actual reasons from actual experience.

You don't have to agree with opinions I have, but actual facts that are irrefutable and part of proposed tort reforms everytime someone decides to propose reform is pretty easy to look up. Again, sorry if the demise of BB10 is causing some pain, I didn't invent reality. My explaining it to you doesn't mean I'm the cause of your pain. I'm just one person hoping to help you understand the reality of things. If there was a place where up was down and BB10 had a chance at success, I'd help you find it. Unfortunately, that doesn't exist.

Remember, I supported BB10 more than most, I have at least 9 devices. I never sell them so, it's sunk money. But reality is that it never had a snowballs chance in Floriduh of survival. I enjoyed using the devices as they came out, but realistically, we all knew the excitement of BlackBerry was in cache days of previous when only certain people had email and web on mobile pocket device. The mortals lugged around laptops and stuck close by to public WiFi. Those days are in the past. Accept this and move on.

[conite]

It seems this makes you happy, so I'm glad.

Don't answer if you don't want (privacy and all), but are you a Blackberry Shareholder?

I have a few shares in my mutual funds I'm sure.

It makes me happy to the extent that it is a Canadian company that still employs a lot of people, and that I still get to buy BlackBerry-branded devices with BlackBerry software.

[KAM1138]

I have a few shares in my mutual funds I'm sure.

It makes me happy to the extent that it is a Canadian company that still employs a lot of people, and that I still get to buy BlackBerry-branded devices with BlackBerry software.

But no direct stock ownership? If not, why not? Did you miss the bottom that would have allowed you the sorts of gains that you're crediting Chen with creating? I myself bought at a time that wasn't wise in retrospect, but I wasn't forced to sell at a loss (as I would if I sold today).

Again--not trying to challenge your financial planning strategies, but if you've got such high confidence in what Blackberry is doing as a company, then perhaps it would be a good choice for you to invest in.

Ok, onto happiness. Well, I'm not Canadian, but I have to admit that I thought it was nice to see a Canadian company have such a presence as Blackberry once did.

I tend to be a person who is "brand loyal" and enjoy a company that has a nice product line--especially if they are high quality, which tends to be somewhat rare these days. That's one reason that I was drawn to Blackberry. I was very pleased with the quality.

But I've learned that the continuation of a Brand (essentially or largely in name only) tends to be a disappointment, and in fact--sometimes an outright sham. A cheap company buying a respected name as a means of making their garbage product look better. Not saying that's the exact case with Blackberry.

However, I personally look at the Blackberry Brand as being a shadow--a nostalgic reminder rather than having much actual being Blackberry. The PKB being the exception--that's still very Blackberry--for the phones that have it.

[Zidentia]

Chen came in and he did what had to be done. He cut costs, redirected resources into software and established new enterprise relationships. They fleshed out the strategy and started licensing as well. He increased shareholder value. That is what any decent CEO does.

The problem we have now is Chen is facing a plateau and he knows it. This is why he threw out the "9900 handset" comment. If you look at the gains it is a much easier transition from nearly dead to having a decent pulse which is where Blackberry is now. He/they must not have any big deals brewing because so far most of what he has secured have been small to medium deals, which is a great foundation for a company, and these only move the needle so far. The hardware licensing, possibly a good income generator, is in the beginning stages and much of this is still unknown. The enterprise deals have been solid but minimalistic and enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on.

The real problem is the QNX division. This is the best growth engine and the competition in this sector is intense with much bigger players than Blackberry. They do have a legacy here which helps but the licensing fees are so small it barely makes an impact unless they can get several global customers. They do claim to have over 4000 employees though many of those are most likely contract workers. In addition the environment there is still toxic according to some people I know so the full time people still feel uncertainty on the direction. If we are looking through the eye of the shareholder it may be time to sell.

[conite]

Chen came in and he did what had to be done. He cut costs, redirected resources into software and established new enterprise relationships. They fleshed out the strategy and started licensing as well. He increased shareholder value. That is what any decent CEO does.

The problem we have now is Chen is facing a plateau and he knows it. This is why he threw out the "9900 handset" comment. If you look at the gains it is a much easier transition from nearly dead to having a decent pulse which is where Blackberry is now. He/they must not have any big deals brewing because so far most of what he has secured have been small to medium deals, which is a great foundation for a company, and these only move the needle so far. The hardware licensing, possibly a good income generator, is in the beginning stages and much of this is still unknown. The enterprise deals have been solid but minimalistic and enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on.

The real problem is the QNX division. This is the best growth engine and the competition in this sector is intense with much bigger players than Blackberry. They do have a legacy here which helps but the licensing fees are so small it barely makes an impact unless they can get several global customers. They do claim to have over 4000 employees though many of those are most likely contract workers. In addition the environment there is still toxic according to some people I know so the full time people still feel uncertainty on the direction. If we are looking through the eye of the shareholder it may be time to sell.

Software growth does seem to be fairly consistent at 15%, so that's not bad.

As far as qnx is concerned, that's the reason why they are moving hard into autonomous auto where the fees are much higher.

[conite]

But no direct stock ownership? If not, why not? Did you miss the bottom that would have allowed you the sorts of gains that you're crediting Chen with creating? I myself bought at a time that wasn't wise in retrospect, but I wasn't forced to sell at a loss (as I would if I sold today).

Again--not trying to challenge your financial planning strategies, but if you've got such high confidence in what Blackberry is doing as a company, then perhaps it would be a good choice for you to invest in.

Ok, onto happiness. Well, I'm not Canadian, but I have to admit that I thought it was nice to see a Canadian company have such a presence as Blackberry once did.

I tend to be a person who is "brand loyal" and enjoy a company that has a nice product line--especially if they are high quality, which tends to be somewhat rare these days. That's one reason that I was drawn to Blackberry. I was very pleased with the quality.

But I've learned that the continuation of a Brand (essentially or largely in name only) tends to be a disappointment, and in fact--sometimes an outright sham. A cheap company buying a respected name as a means of making their garbage product look better. Not saying that's the exact case with Blackberry.

However, I personally look at the Blackberry Brand as being a shadow--a nostalgic reminder rather than having much actual being Blackberry. The PKB being the exception--that's still very Blackberry--for the phones that have it.

I don't really dabble with individual stocks.

If your only definition for success involves recreating a whole new BlackBerry to match what it was long ago, then you are asking for the impossible. That business model no longer exists.

You have to get your mind around the fact that this is a new, smaller company, and growth starts from here. If they can continue growing software sales at 15% a year, they should be in pretty good shape.

[KAM1138]

I don't really dabble with individual stocks.

If your only definition for success involves recreating a whole new BlackBerry to match what it was long ago, then you are asking for the impossible.

You have to get your mind around the fact that this is a new, smaller company, and growth starts from here.

Not dabbling with individual stocks--ok, fair enough.

I don't think that Blackberry would have to match what it was. I agree--that's (essentially) impossible.

I don't have to "get my mind around" anything with Blackberry--it's abundantly clear that it is a smaller (likely weaker) company and has a very damaged brand name--at least broadly among consumers. So, I guess it's good that they're not really focusing on that.

That also means that whatever they do outside of Making phones that I want, means very little to me. If this new company grows 50% a year--it does me no good, if they don't change their goals.

Their goals do not include producing an alternate option for Mobile Customers, and due to that choice (necessity?), they have very little to offer me.

That doesn't mean they have NOTHING to offer me--and in fact, even despite offering so little, it is STILL perhaps the best option I have. Not because the options are good, but because the options are so lacking.

I listened to an interview when Chen talked about our personal data, and his belief that that belongs to us, and it being sold is wrong. It's OURS and if anyone is to benefit from it's sale, it is us. I think he's got a great point there. Oddly, it seems that Blackberry's former competitors (Google, Apple) benefit greatly from doing the exact opposite--rejecting this.

[KAM1138]

This thread has gotten FAR off track, fine, but back to the point.

If Blackberry decided to come up with a business plan that offered a product that did what I wanted--yes, yes 1000 times yes, I would be willing to pay for it. I don't have infinite money, so there is a limit however.

I read recently that the US Government employs around 14 million people. Chen's FORMER target for supporting an OS was 10 million units a year.
If anyone's been following politics in the US, they'd know that there has been a LOT of talk about hacking, non-secure e-mail servers, as well as privacy, etc.

It doesn't SEEM as if it should be THAT hard of a sell to come up with a plan that would serve THAT market (even if no other) with a simple, secure device. I'm sure this isn't a NEW idea, and that Blackberry at one time supplied phones to the US Government (and perhaps still does).

Google and Apple get a lot of money from selling information...I'd love it if Blackberry could figure out a way to make money by making sure information DOESN'T get sold/stolen/hacked, etc. That's a niche that would seemingly have SOME value. Of course, the US government isn't the only market.

I'm not really that familiar with how Blackberry lost that market, but on the other hand...it's not a consumer market that needs convincing. An entity like the US government that was convinced to REQUIRE Blackberry devices for ALL mobile communications (for example) doesn't need to give an option. Use this, and nothing else, or you're fired.

Now, I'm sure some really smart folks with a lot of information can tell me why that didn't work--and how Blackberry lost governments as customers, but maybe that was a mistake for government to do that too. Maybe they haven't been sufficiently hacked to make them go "oh no" and maybe Blackberry no longer offers superior security.

[conite]

Now, I'm sure some really smart folks with a lot of information can tell me why that didn't work--and how Blackberry lost governments as customers.

After BBOS, BlackBerry did not have a compelling product to sell them that could run on the various EMM platforms, and had the app support that was required.

It was also apparent from anyone that paid attention, that BlackBerry was in dire straights by 2013, and governments were not confident in investing long-term with BlackBerry. You may recall that BlackBerry lost a billion dollars in a single quarter during the summer of 2013.

[KAM1138]

After BBOS, BlackBerry did not have a compelling product to sell them that could run on the various EMM platforms, and had the app support that was required.

It was also apparent from anyone that paid attention, that BlackBerry was in dire straights by 2013, and governments were not confident in investing long-term with BlackBerry. You may recall that BlackBerry lost a billion dollars in a single quarter during the summer of 2013.

I don't actually recall how much the losses were, although I recall that they were bleeding money. What you seem to be indicating here is that confidence was an issue, but that's sort of circular--lack of confidence leads to loss of business leads to less confidence.

So, in terms of apps that are required for Government work--what would an example of that be that isn't possible to run on BB10. I don't work in government, so I don't know what sorts of software they use that's different from consumers.

You say that After BBOS, they didn't have a compelling product. What features/functions made other products MORE compelling? And compelling to who?

Bear in mind, that I'm thinking about a situation, ASSUMING (and perhaps this just isn't the case) that Secure communications was A) highly desired and B) what Blackberry did better than anyone else).

What feature overrides that or would override that?

I've heard people talk about pressure from users who didn't want to carry Blackberries and wanted to carry their iPhones--I'm sure that was something that happened, but with Government, I'm saying they could say "No--you do it our way." But NOT if Blackberry couldn't offer functionality NEEDED for the government work itself.

Perhaps a shorter question would be to say--did USER (govt employees) pressure (from a consumer standpoint) play a part, or did the actual Government functions (as defined by Government) also change?

[conite]

Perhaps a shorter question would be to say--did USER (govt employees) pressure (from a consumer standpoint) play a part, or did the actual Government functions (as defined by Government) also change?

Both.

As BYOD took the market by storm, most people wanted to bring their iPhones.

Corporate/government devices needed EMM compatibility for AirWatch, Mobileiron, SAP, Cisco, etc. BB10 support for those was marginal to non-existent.

Corporations and governments were started to build their own apps like crazy.

Here's an article from 2014:
https://www.inkling.com/blog/2014/08...oost-business/

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

This thread has gotten FAR off track, fine, but back to the point.

If Blackberry decided to come up with a business plan that offered a product that did what I wanted--yes, yes 1000 times yes, I would be willing to pay for it. I don't have infinite money, so there is a limit however.

I read recently that the US Government employs around 14 million people. Chen's FORMER target for supporting an OS was 10 million units a year.
If anyone's been following politics in the US, they'd know that there has been a LOT of talk about hacking, non-secure e-mail servers, as well as privacy, etc.

It doesn't SEEM as if it should be THAT hard of a sell to come up with a plan that would serve THAT market (even if no other) with a simple, secure device. I'm sure this isn't a NEW idea, and that Blackberry at one time supplied phones to the US Government (and perhaps still does).

Google and Apple get a lot of money from selling information...I'd love it if Blackberry could figure out a way to make money by making sure information DOESN'T get sold/stolen/hacked, etc. That's a niche that would seemingly have SOME value. Of course, the US government isn't the only market.

I'm not really that familiar with how Blackberry lost that market, but on the other hand...it's not a consumer market that needs convincing. An entity like the US government that was convinced to REQUIRE Blackberry devices for ALL mobile communications (for example) doesn't need to give an option. Use this, and nothing else, or you're fired.

Now, I'm sure some really smart folks with a lot of information can tell me why that didn't work--and how Blackberry lost governments as customers, but maybe that was a mistake for government to do that too. Maybe they haven't been sufficiently hacked to make them go "oh no" and maybe Blackberry no longer offers superior security.

BlackBerry only offered device security.... What hackers are after are the servers and that's where most the problems take place. And BlackBerry isn't in the network or server security business.

One person didn't decide that what BlackBerry offered didn't meet their needs.... it was thousands of IT and Security experts that approved iOS and Android use with the proper UEM. Maybe they are all wrong, but you should consider that maybe you simply don't have a full understanding of the situation either.

[KAM1138]

Both.

As BYOD took the market by storm, most people wanted to bring their iPhones.

Corporate/government devices needed EMM compatibility for AirWatch, Mobileiron, SAP, Cisco, etc. BB10 support for those was marginal to non-existent.

Here's an article from 2014:
https://www.inkling.com/blog/2014/08...oost-business/

I don't deal with this sort of stuff myself. Isn't this an Area Blackberry is currently still working in?

As far as BYOD: I'm surprised that governments were so willing to NOT lay down the law on that, and say--your private time, do what you want. For Work, you're using the Device we tell you to use.

Also--it seems like BYOD would CREATE complexity in the management of all of this. Would it be easier to NOT deal with BYOD?

[conite]

I don't deal with this sort of stuff myself. Isn't this an Area Blackberry is currently still working in?

As far as BYOD: I'm surprised that governments were so willing to NOT lay down the law on that, and say--your private time, do what you want. For Work, you're using the Device we tell you to use.

Also--it seems like BYOD would CREATE complexity in the management of all of this. Would it be easier to NOT deal with BYOD?

EMM takes most of the concern away from BYOD. Devices are totally locked down, and corporate data is containerized.

And yes, BlackBerry currently sells the 2nd most popular EMM solution (and arguably the best). But pretty much all the devices it manages are iPhones and Android. BB10 had a negligible penetration into government or enterprise.

[KAM1138]

BlackBerry only offered device security.... What hackers are after are the servers and that's where most the problems take place. And BlackBerry isn't in the network or server security business.

One person didn't decide that what BlackBerry offered didn't meet their needs.... it was thousands of IT and Security experts that approved iOS and Android use with the proper UEM. Maybe they are all wrong, but you should consider that maybe you simply don't have a full understanding of the situation either.

As far as Servers--ok, but presumably using Blackberry wouldn't be any LESS secure at the Server would it?

I'm not claiming to have ANY understanding of the situation, other than being vaguely aware of it existing. That's why I'm asking questions.

Does everyone assume that people asking questions are NOT actually looking to gain information?

[KAM1138]

EMM takes most of the concern away from BYOD.

Ok--again--I'm not really familiar with this. EMM is a way of dealing with all of these devices right? I'm assuming this is not a simple endeavor?

So, you can have BYOD, but isn't it a big expense/effort? Does it create vulnerability as opposed to not allowing BYOD?

[KAM1138]

BTW--this is not being "Obtuse" I'm a Consumer user, not in IT.

I'm just trying to understand that if in fact it would be simpler (more secure, less expensive) for a Large Entity (such as governments) to say "No BYOD," and greatly simplify their problems.

Or is the scale of this not really that large. I was under the impression that this was a significant issue/problem to manage.