[JSmith422]

There are no scenarios where BB10 would or could have survived. No one has ever made offer to buy company or license BB10 that has been completed in any way. This was offered before Chen was hired. BB10 has always been there, but the company doesn't and didn't have the money to support and develop the OS. Just to stop losing enormous amounts of money, BB10 staff was either let go or redeployed to profitable areas.

The conflict of interest really isn't conflict since it was disclosed as part of loan offer. It would be issue, only if not disclosed, or if loan was accepted when other available options existed. Nobody else stepped forward to help company. No lending institutions of any kind were going to loan BlackBerry any money if bankruptcy looming on horizon.

This company had gone past the stage of possibilities for happy BB10 ending and was in the stage of probabilities for bankruptcy unless it stopped BB10. The end of BB10 was already written at introduction when it was evident the ecosystem would never satisfy consumer demand. That was beyond the control of BlackBerry. Customers of major companies were instructed daily to buy Android/IOS hardware if apps desired. These companies told customers, they weren't supporting a new fifth OS. Many already supported Windows and BBOS.

Chen's turnaround looks simple in hindsight. It was a tightrope walk because the company needed more cash for a buffer and was only given amount to allow for no significant margin of error.

At this point, many including myself have explained in detail, the reasons for why other strategies would fail and with the reasons why.

Perhaps you or markmall could explain in similar detail how you in the role of management could have followed a realistic different path within the actual limitations the company faced.

You're trying to change the scope of the debate into something that it's not, and you're stating as "fact" what is actually just your opinion. You have no idea what went on behind the scenes at blackberry and neither do I....we're all guessing....but again, at least from my perspective, this was about a potential conflict of interest, not how you, I, or markmall would have managed the turnaround.

You acknowledge the conflict exists, so we CAN agree on that.

You disagree that it's of any significance because you indicate it was approved by shareholders.

Was this explicitly approved?

[Chuck Finley69]

You're trying to change the scope of the debate into something that it's not, and you're stating as "fact" what is actually just your opinion. You have no idea what went on behind the scenes at blackberry and neither do I....we're all guessing....but again, at least from my perspective, this was about a potential conflict of interest, not how you, I, or markmall would have managed the turnaround.

You acknowledge the conflict exists, so we CAN agree on that.

You disagree that it's of any significance because you indicate it was approved by shareholders.

Was this explicitly approved?

By accepting terms of the debenture agreement, the shareholders imply approval. If they disagreed, shareholders could have launched proxy fight.

If there's any significance, unless illegal, the opposed can fight the decision. If enough shareholders commit support to board, there's no requirement to hold proxy vote for all shareholders. It was approved de facto by not opposing.

The company was broke. Not my opinion. They were hemorrhaging cash. The financial reports are public record. The actual statements of company up for sale and the actual bids are documented in regulatory filings. The company declared exploring alternative options due to lack of bids.

If there was any chicanery, regulators and securities lawyers would file actions just like any other time stuff happens. Shareholders wanted to save whatever equity possible.

[markmall]

They don't have to be fully aligned. Shareholders can't agree on everything so it's the golden rule. The person with the most gold makes the rules. As far as board seats go, board members aren't exclusive to shareholders. The company was on the brink of failure. Closer to filing bankruptcy than most realize. The board knew this and they knew that creditors and other vulture capitalists were circling. It's a reason, no actual buyers emerged and even Fairfax pulled their offer. Any lines of credit and other short-term lending the company utilized contains debt covenants which if violated, then could trigger bankruptcy proceedings. Very likely, this caused many interested parties to predict, assets would be purchased much cheaper.

Again, BB was in a bad position with no realistic options. Third down pass was dropped in the end zone, quarterback was pulled out injured, field goal ties game, and best kicker in the league joined team day before the game.
C
In bankruptcy, you pretty much cede all control to lenders and equity is wiped out. Shareholders chose Fairfax and Watsa because it was the only deal on table.

I think the disconnect is that you don't understand what a fiduciary duty is. All board members owe this duty to the shareholders, including little old ladies with 100 shares. It's not the person with the gold makes the rules.

Whether Chen's decisions were the right ones is a separate question.


Posted via CB10

[markmall]

By accepting terms of the debenture agreement, the shareholders imply approval. If they disagreed, shareholders could have launched proxy fight.

If there's any significance, unless illegal, the opposed can fight the decision. If enough shareholders commit support to board, there's no requirement to hold proxy vote for all shareholders. It was approved de facto by not opposing.

The company was broke. Not my opinion. They were hemorrhaging cash. The financial reports are public record. The actual statements of company up for sale and the actual bids are documented in regulatory filings. The company declared exploring alternative options due to lack of bids.

If there was any chicanery, regulators and securities lawyers would file actions just like any other time stuff happens. Shareholders wanted to save whatever equity possible.

Imply approval? That the CEO is now managing the company in the interests of creditors or is cutting back risks that would be in the best interests of the shareholders? That can't be approved, and of course it was not.

Also, we don't know that BlackBerry was trying to secure debt financing and could not get it before Watsa came along. This is speculation, and I don't believe it. That is a side issue, but I'm tired of people exaggerating or making up facts to make an argument.

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

Imply approval? That the CEO is now managing the company in the interests of creditors or is cutting back risks that would be in the best interests of the shareholders? That can't be approved, and of course it was not.

Also, we don't know that BlackBerry was trying to secure debt financing and could not get it before Watsa came along. This is speculation, and I don't believe it. That is a side issue, but I'm tired of people exaggerating or making up facts to make an argument.

Posted via CB10

I don't make securities regulations. I'm just telling you how it goes. It's my profession and has been for 25 years. If shareholders don't agree with something, all they have to is call any regulatory body to file a complaint. Not everyone is going to agree with any company strategy always.

Creditors do call the shots with debt covenants in debentures and other loan products. If debt covenants are broken, the loan can be immediately called due for the violation.

Seriously, why do you think securities prospectus are so thorough and lengthy?

You stated you're familiar with BB so you realize company was put up for sale because of their distressed financial situation. There was all kind of analyst reports and commentary published at time clearly explaining the company's problems and possible outcomes.

[Chuck Finley69]

I think the disconnect is that you don't understand what a fiduciary duty is. All board members owe this duty to the shareholders, including little old ladies with 100 shares. It's not the person with the gold makes the rules.

Whether Chen's decisions were the right ones is a separate question.


Posted via CB10

As long as board and management can explain how their decisions benefit all shareholders and protect their equity, they meet the fiduciary standard. The fiduciary standard is not about maximizing return for everyone. It's about protecting all shareholders ownership interests equally in each share class. Watsa the shareholder can't have Fairfax common shares valued differently than other shareholders. His debenture holdings are treated differently than his common shares. Anyone that owns the same debentures as him, also have the same rights and treatments as him.

If someone wants to remove his debt, they can offer to underwrite new debt cheaper and for call provisions and extinguish his debtors.

Again, minority interests can make changes by getting other shareholders on their side to get majority control.

[dpgo]

I had one idea

One thing that BlackBerry can do is to create something that no one did before. There is still some of old good BlackBerry phones out there and I belive they are still in some of the drawers. Let's say 9900 Bold, Z10, Z30, Passport, Leap. They have a hardware that can run maybe not latest android but BlackBerry can create some new "BlackBerry lite system". All they need is create a team of ten people and make all most common apps from Play store market. Imagine that you can use faster Facebook, Twitter, Instagram etc. . . on old Bold which battery goes longer than most of the android phones. Those phones worth now 20 or 50$. BlackBerry can put an update on that system for let's say 5 or 10$ and all the apps can cost some 1 or 2$.

I would love to use my old Bold touch screen fat boy once again with all great apps for totally 20+ dollars

All the best and never give up of your dreams in this New Year

Stefan, similar ideas came before and some people here said that it is necessary hundred/s developers and millions of dollars. I agree that 10 guys can do it, but I don't think that BlackBerry want to spend this money.

And unfortunately it is closed/private source code, so community cannot try to manage this project

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Stefan, similar ideas came before and some people here said that it is necessary hundred/s developers and millions of dollars. I agree that 10 guys can do it, but I don't think that BlackBerry want to spend this money.

And unfortunately it is closed/private source code, so community cannot try to manage this project

Posted via CB10

Even if I believed your "10 developers" theory (which I find laughable for the record), what about all of the other components that would have to be rebuilt from scratch? Support and repair infrastructure, physical plant, a management team, etc, etc.?

And what about this golden nugget: "All they need is create a team of ten people and make all most common apps from Play store market."

[glwerry]

Stefan, similar ideas came before and some people here said that it is necessary hundred/s developers and millions of dollars. I agree that 10 guys can do it, but I don't think that BlackBerry want to spend this money.

And unfortunately it is closed/private source code, so community cannot try to manage this project

Posted via CB10

Bull****. 10 guys cannot do it.

Let's start with the first issue. "faster Facebook". The Facebook app is developed BY FACEBOOK and they are KEEPING THEIR APIs PRIVATE.

So, the only way to have the official Facebook app is to have FULL ANDROID operating system.
Wait, BB is ALREADY doing that! So WHY would they spend money to go back to all these old phones and develop something that THEY ALREADY HAVE???!!

By the way, what background do you have in software development, that gives you the confidence to say that "10 guys can do it"?

[Troy Tiscareno]

Facebook has teams of over 500 people on EACH of their Android, iOS, and Web apps for Facebook - and that's just upgrades and maintenance! That's a *single app*, not an entire OS.

At one time, BB had 3800 employees working on BB10 alone - separate from the QNX team. Several thousand more working on maintaining BBOS. Why would they have all of those people, at huge expense, if they weren't needed? Why buy a whole campus worth of buildings when 10 guys could do it in a basement? LOL.

Some folks here are VASTLY underestimating the complexities involved...

[anon(9697770)]

Double posted.

[anon(9697770)]

The horse is alive until BlackBerry says it is dead. Oh wait...

Absolutely!

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

Facebook has teams of over 500 people on EACH of their Android, iOS, and Web apps for Facebook - and that's just upgrades and maintenance! That's a *single app*, not an entire OS.

At one time, BB had 3800 employees working on BB10 alone - separate from the QNX team. Several thousand more working on maintaining BBOS. Why would they have all of those people, at huge expense, if they weren't needed? Why buy a whole campus worth of buildings when 10 guys could do it in a basement? LOL.

Some folks here are VASTLY underestimating the complexities involved...

Fake truth fake truth!!!!

[glwerry]

Fake truth fake truth!!!!

Uh, remember, Dude. I'm from CANADA, eh!

We do NOT do fake truth / news.

Instead we do meaningless selfies with our constituents.

[eshropshire]

con·jec·ture/kənˈjekCHər/
noun
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

Unless he has some inside knowledge from shareholders and the SEC, then it's conjecture. Plain and simple.

I've made the point many times, but nobody knows what would have happened or could have happened with Blackberry. If blackberry never brought Chen in would bb10 have survived? Maybe, maybe not. Would the company have gone bankrupt? Maybe, maybe not. Would shareholders have filed suit? Maybe, maybe not. It's all speculation and conjecture. All we know is what did happen.

But what Markmall is talking about is exactly that, what did happen. His point is that there appears to be a conflict of interest. You say this has been disclosed and doesn't matter. It may not matter to many, but it obviously matters to some.

No what he is doing is accusing BlackBerry and it's officers of violations of their fiduciary duties and possibly criminal violations based on his con-jec-ture and an interesting interpretation of BlackBerry's audited released financial statements. As BlackBerry Limited is traded in the US Markets he is also accusing the SEC of ignoring what he claims are glaring violations of BlackBerry fiduciary duties.

Many of us disagree with his con-jec-ture. Until the moderators feel the need to close this thread everyone is free to offer their interpretations and con-jec-tures.

[dpgo]

I think my post was confusing, of course I was not speaking about reinventing the wheel and create custom apps for a new custom OS. i just use the bb10 hw/sw and android

Stefan said a little blackberry with no the last android, and it is what we have now,but also abandoned for long time and containing defects.

Ten skilled developers for:
- Polish the current android runtime and increase a bit the performance, i.e some android apps have problem accesing files so they don't work or they do too slowly.

- Collaborate with producers of those main software that every one wants/needs, it is mainly a testing task, for many reasons there is no way to write facebook code.

Anyway, I am aware that there is no other future than use what we have, but I really think that before close down BlackBerry os, keeping few good developers could make a big difference for us.



Posted via CB10

[glwerry]

I think my post was confusing, of course I was not speaking about reinventing the wheel and create custom apps for a new custom OS. i just use the bb10 hw/sw and android

Stefan said a little blackberry with no the last android, and it is what we have now,but also abandoned for long time and containing defects.

Ten skilled developers for:
- Polish the current android runtime and increase a bit the performance, i.e some android apps have problem accesing files so they don't work or they do too slowly.

- Collaborate with producers of those main software that every one wants/needs, it is mainly a testing task, for many reasons there is no way to write facebook code.

Anyway, I am aware that there is no other future than use what we have, but I really think that before close down BlackBerry os, keeping few good developers could make a big difference for us.



Posted via CB10

I doubt that there is any way to "Polish the Android run-time".
It is not a full implementation of Android. Furthermore, I doubt that you could make it a full implementation legally, since BlackBerry is publishing Android and they would have an agreement with Google that does not allow them to develop or market a " fork" of Android.

So, there is just no way forward.

Even if there was, who is going to pay for the 10 developers?

[markmall]

No what he is doing is accusing BlackBerry and it's officers of violations of their fiduciary duties and possibly criminal violations based on his con-jec-ture and an interesting interpretation of BlackBerry's audited released financial statements. As BlackBerry Limited is traded in the US Markets he is also accusing the SEC of ignoring what he claims are glaring violations of BlackBerry fiduciary duties.

Many of us disagree with his con-jec-ture. Until the moderators feel the need to close this thread everyone is free to offer their interpretations and con-jec-tures.

More false facts. This is why I'm so skeptical of you guys. You make things up.

I said this was my personal opinion. I also said that it could never be proven for a number of reasons, and we will never see any lawsuits.

I never said anything about "glaring" violations or any criminal prosecution.

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

I doubt that there is any way to "Polish the Android run-time".
It is not a full implementation of Android. Furthermore, I doubt that you could make it a full implementation legally, since BlackBerry is publishing Android and they would have an agreement with Google that does not allow them to develop or market a " fork" of Android.

So, there is just no way forward.

Even if there was, who is going to pay for the 10 developers?

They could take them from the moribund Android project. Or put an ad in Craigslist.

Posted via CB10

[Chuck Finley69]

They could take them from the moribund Android project. Or put an ad in Craigslist.

Posted via CB10

LMFAO... Craigslist...Really??

[glwerry]

They could take them from the moribund Android project. Or put an ad in Craigslist.

Posted via CB10

You're sadly ignoring the legalities of it.

[DonHB]

...since BlackBerry is publishing Android and they would have an agreement with Google that does not allow them to develop or market a " fork" of Android.

So, there is just no way forward.

Would the people who actually read BlackBerry's license for Google Play Services & Framework please stand up? In the immortal words of:

More false facts. This is why I'm so skeptical of you guys. You make things up.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Would the people who actually read BlackBerry's license for Google Play Services & Framework please stand up? In the immortal words of:

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.zdnet....-open-android/

[DonHB]

https://www.google.ca/amp/www.zdnet....-open-android/

No mention of BlackBerry in your link. What about BlackBerry's license? Five years ago in the tech world is history. Anything closer to the present?

[conite]

No mention of BlackBerry in your link. What about BlackBerry's license? Five years ago in the tech world is history. Anything closer to the present?

Omg.

If anything, Google has been tightening its grip on Android over the last few years.