[conite]

Probably only nominal expenditures. Kickstarter campaign with a petition should cover it.

I'll offer up the extra room in my basement.

[DonHB]

Say the financial statements.

QTR / Rev / loss
May2013 / 3.1B / $84M
Aug2013 / 1.6B / $965M
Nov2013 / 1.2B / $4.4B
Feb2014 / 976M / $423M

That was crippling. And if the BlackBerry BoD didn't decide to dump BB10 in Sep of 2013, they should have all been arrested.

No sane person would have invested another couple of $billion into BB10 and some new scheme to try and "make it work".

Slash and burn time. Goodbye BB10.

Do you think the cost of inventory (including the fraction on accessories) far exceeded the R&D of both software and hardware?

[glwerry]

CEO Chen's experience began in hardware. He has a BS and MS in Electrical Engineering and prior to Sybase he worked for companies whose business was primarily hardware. However, I don't think any of these had consumer products. Important distinction, when business people were looking to carry a single device and BYOD was becoming prevalent.

Why does working on Android indicate a complete transition to becoming a software company while continuing work on BB10 would mean it did not complete that transition? An OS is software. With the partnership with Qualcomm to support their modems in QNX software makes you wonder how much extra it would cost to get BB10 working on the Motion.

The transition to a software company was FAR MORE than the Android effort. There were all sorts of other products, mostly security related.

Even the Android programming that was done was done with minimal hardware effort.

[conite]

Do you think the cost of inventory (including the fraction on accessories) far exceeded the R&D of both software and hardware?

Everything having to do with devices was a stinking pile.

[DonHB]

Everything having to do with devices was a stinking pile.

Interesting--redirect--tangential.

[conite]

Interesting--redirect--tangential.

Actually no. The whole thing was a horrible unmitigated disaster.

It was far beyond the point of choosing any other action apart from scorched earth - and it had to be done yesterday.

They took their shot, and it brought them to the brink. Game over. No time for talk.

[markmall]

Say the financial statements.

QTR / Rev / loss
May2013 / 3.1B / $84M
Aug2013 / 1.6B / $965M
Nov2013 / 1.2B / $4.4B
Feb2014 / 976M / $423M

That was crippling. And if the BlackBerry BoD didn't decide to dump BB10 in Sep of 2013, they should have all been arrested.

No sane person would have invested another couple of $billion into BB10 and some new scheme to try and "make it work".

Slash and burn time. Goodbye BB10.

Oh, jeez. More of the exaggerations. BlackBerry already had the sunk costs. All it had to do differently was attempt to breath some life into the brand through marketing. It didn't have to write the OS again or produce too many Z10s.

(Aren't you including the write down Chen took when he came in? That isn't fair. Every CEO does that in a turnaround scenario.)

They over compensated and didn't spend enough. They had almost no Passports to sell at launch because Chen apparently thought he could pull off just in time manufacturing after launch. That device was the company's last best chance at relevancy and Chen blew it because he was too cheap or too cautious. By the time there was product to sell it was too late. With no advertising people never knew that the phone existed or that even BlackBerry still existed.

In fact, for most of BB10's life people thought BlackBerry was defunct. A talented management team might have been able to keep the company alive rather than turn it into a tech incubator.

I need to stop taking the bait but I don't want visitors to not know there are two sides to the issue. I don't know why some people are so passionate about defending current management when they did a horrible job with handsets and have reduced the company to a holding company for a few small software outfits.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

Oh, jeez. More of the exaggerations. BlackBerry already had the sunk costs. All it had to do differently was attempt to breath some life into the brand through marketing. It didn't have to write the OS again or produce too many Z10s.

They over compensated and didn't spend enough. They had almost no Passports to sell at launch because Chen apparently thought he could pull off just in time manufacturing after launch. That device was the company's last best chance at relevancy and Chen blew it because he was too cheap or too cautious.

You can't market something that was already dead in the water with no developer buy-in, no enterprise buy-in, and no ecosystem. It's shovelling even more cash into a fire. Chen would have been taken away in cuffs.

By the fall of 2013, and laughably by the time the Passport came out, it was long over with.

Chen just ordered the minimum units he could to clear the component commitments - and did just enough to unload them.

A billion dollars of marketing the Passport would have been p1ss in the wind.

[markmall]

You can't market something that was already dead in the water with no developer buy-in, no enterprise buy-in, and no ecosystem. It's shovelling cash into a fire.

By the fall of 2013, and laughably by the time the Passport came out, it was long over with.

Chen just ordered the minimum units he could to clear the component commitments - and did just enough to unload them.

We're repeating another thread. I was watching and don't agree. I think the brand could have survived, and the Passport was probably the ticket back in the game. The app gap was not so big a deal for the core market. OK, I'm done.

Posted via CB10

[conite]

We're repeating another thread. I was watching and don't agree. I think the brand could have survived, and the Passport was probably the ticket back in the game. The app gap was not so big a deal for the core market. OK, I'm done.

Posted via CB10

If the massive slashing and burning hadn't started in the fall of 2013, BlackBerry wouldn't have even made it to the Passport launch a year later.

[anon(9803228)]

Uh, I've never heard anyone say that the demise of Windows phone killed the MS brand. I have heard rumors though that they have other substantial and profitable business ventures going then just their phone business.

Posted via CB10

Well, that view is widespread among hardcore Windows Phone / Mobile handset fans. Just check out Windows Central for example. Not only they believe Satya Nadella is the Antichrist (for ditching their beloved mobile OS), but a lot of them even say that MS has no long-term future without mobile.
So I was talking about hardcore handset fans, not the general public or simply informed observers

[markmall]

Well, that view is widespread among hardcore Windows Phone / Mobile handset fans. Just check out Windows Central for example. Not only they believe Satya Nadella is the Antichrist (for ditching their beloved mobile OS), but a lot of them even say that MS has no long-term future without mobile.
So I was talking about hardcore handset fans, not the general public or simply informed observers

Oh, OK. But BlackBerry giving up on handsets is something like GM giving up on cars. For Microsoft it's not nearly as big a deal. In another generation or two they will be able to put Windows on smartphones. Microsoft can try to jump back in if it really wanted and it might not.

Posted via CB10

[bb10adopter111]

Oh, jeez. More of the exaggerations. BlackBerry already had the sunk costs. All it had to do differently was attempt to breath some life into the brand through marketing. It didn't have to write the OS again or produce too many Z10s.

(Aren't you including the write down Chen took when he came in? That isn't fair. Every CEO does that in a turnaround scenario.)

They over compensated and didn't spend enough. They had almost no Passports to sell at launch because Chen apparently thought he could pull off just in time manufacturing after launch. That device was the company's last best chance at relevancy and Chen blew it because he was too cheap or too cautious. By the time there was product to sell it was too late. With no advertising people never knew that the phone existed or that even BlackBerry still existed.

In fact, for most of BB10's life people thought BlackBerry was defunct. A talented management team might have been able to keep the company alive rather than turn it into a tech incubator.

I need to stop taking the bait but I don't want visitors to not know there are two sides to the issue. I don't know why some people are so passionate about defending current management when they did a horrible job with handsets and have reduced the company to a holding company for a few small software outfits.

Posted via CB10

They weren't just sunk costs. Their operating overhead was causing the losses, not just their over commitment to hardware volumes. They had to lay off thousands of engineers and designers and sell properties to stop the bleeding. At that point, there was little more they could do. This isn't controversial. It's simple arithmetic.

Posted with my trusty Z10

[Chuck Finley69]

Oh, jeez. More of the exaggerations. BlackBerry already had the sunk costs. All it had to do differently was attempt to breath some life into the brand through marketing. It didn't have to write the OS again or produce too many Z10s.

(Aren't you including the write down Chen took when he came in? That isn't fair. Every CEO does that in a turnaround scenario.)

They over compensated and didn't spend enough. They had almost no Passports to sell at launch because Chen apparently thought he could pull off just in time manufacturing after launch. That device was the company's last best chance at relevancy and Chen blew it because he was too cheap or too cautious. By the time there was product to sell it was too late. With no advertising people never knew that the phone existed or that even BlackBerry still existed.

In fact, for most of BB10's life people thought BlackBerry was defunct. A talented management team might have been able to keep the company alive rather than turn it into a tech incubator.

I need to stop taking the bait but I don't want visitors to not know there are two sides to the issue. I don't know why some people are so passionate about defending current management when they did a horrible job with handsets and have reduced the company to a holding company for a few small software outfits.

Posted via CB10

To support development, sales and services of just 1,000 people would cost BlackBerry at least $200 million per year. 1 million devices with $100/device profit would generate $100 million/profit. The problem is you can't build and support OS ecosystem with just 1,000 people and $200 million if your competitors are spending 10x that and locking you out from the carriers. That's already losing you $100 million per year.

BlackBerry was too small to compete and didn't have a reason for people to move os. Microsoft has the resources and could have purchased BlackBerry with Bill Gates spare change in the cushions of his couch. They passed because the only thing worse than wasting cash on a third OS would be wasting on a fourth OS.

Problem I see here is that I don't think you see how small BlackBerry was compared to Apple, Google and Microsoft. You wish Chen had gambled more but he couldn't because you have to at least have the minimum buy-in to play at poker table. Chen had $1, when the buy in was $100 and the other guys had that in cash with another $200 each in credit. The only play was to leave the casino, buy water for a $1/bottle, sell it for $2/bottle in the parking lot and keep repeating until he's bought out the other parking lot hustlers while evading the casino police.

Every Chen strategy has been a huge gamble since their economic position has been perilous from start. The company doesn't enjoy a margin of error still because of their existing overhead. Even now, the share price is based on where gamblers think Chen will take company in future, not current profits.

[anon(10321802)]

[johnny_bravo72]

Oh, lookie here... An upside down piñata! 😉

[Invictus0]

Oh, jeez. More of the exaggerations. BlackBerry already had the sunk costs. All it had to do differently was attempt to breath some life into the brand through marketing. It didn't have to write the OS again or produce too many Z10s.

(Aren't you including the write down Chen took when he came in? That isn't fair. Every CEO does that in a turnaround scenario.)

They over compensated and didn't spend enough. They had almost no Passports to sell at launch because Chen apparently thought he could pull off just in time manufacturing after launch. That device was the company's last best chance at relevancy and Chen blew it because he was too cheap or too cautious. By the time there was product to sell it was too late. With no advertising people never knew that the phone existed or that even BlackBerry still existed.

In fact, for most of BB10's life people thought BlackBerry was defunct. A talented management team might have been able to keep the company alive rather than turn it into a tech incubator.

I need to stop taking the bait but I don't want visitors to not know there are two sides to the issue. I don't know why some people are so passionate about defending current management when they did a horrible job with handsets and have reduced the company to a holding company for a few small software outfits.

Posted via CB10

BlackBerry left the consumer market under Heins, when you tell potential customers, developers, carrier and retail partners, etc that you're leaving their target market (i.e., their bread and butter) they tend to look elsewhere. In practical terms, years of investment and brand building in the consumer market essentially disappeared overnight. Here's an example from Indonesia (one of BlackBerry's biggest markets), you can't just throw money at a problem like this and expect to recover.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...ticle21432165/

When Chen joined one of BlackBerry and BB10's key advantages were the number of certifications they had that other platforms and OEM's didn't. Essentially, they may have been the only major vendor that could have provided devices for these clients and that's where they attempted to refocus BB10. In hindsight we know they still couldn't sell enough devices to continue sustainable development of BB10 and their devices business.

http://blogs.blackberry.com/2014/06/...y_and_android/

With BB10 no amount of investment would bring BlackBerry back to their consumer standing in early 2013 and I doubt you can find examples of OEM's in similar positions that pulled it off either. IMO the best BlackBerry could have done in the short term was focus and attempt to secure their foothold in markets where they still had a competitive advantage and that's basically what they tried doing.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-b...A3822M20140410

[DonHB]

Actually no. The whole thing was a horrible unmitigated disaster.

It was far beyond the point of choosing any other action apart from scorched earth - and it had to be done yesterday.

They took their shot, and it brought them to the brink. Game over. No time for talk.

Of course management of the products introduction--inventory in particular, not delivering version 10.2.1 as 10.0.1, allowing the influx of sub par Android apps to BlackBerry World and not providing a means for Android apps to have the Flow UX had nothing to do with it?

You seem to emphasize defects in the product rather than management's belief that it would have an immediate positive impact in the market and spent money accordingly. What did they do with the written off inventory? Could have considered using them to add to the pool of developers with free or low cost devices.

[conite]

Of course management of the products introduction--inventory in particular, not delivering version 10.2.1 as 10.0.1, allowing the influx of sub par Android apps to BlackBerry World and not providing a means for Android apps to have the Flow UX had nothing to do with it?

You seem to emphasize defects in the product rather than management's belief that it would have an immediate positive impact in the market and spent money accordingly. What did they do with the written off inventory? Could have considered using them to add to the pool of developers with free or low cost devices.

They essentially gave devices away to developers like tic tacs - from the very beginning.

[DonHB]

To support development, sales and services of just 1,000 people would cost BlackBerry at least $200 million per year. 1 million devices with $100/device profit would generate $100 million/profit. The problem is you can't build and support OS ecosystem with just 1,000 people and $200 million if your competitors are spending 10x that and locking you out from the carriers. That's already losing you $100 million per year.

BlackBerry was too small to compete and didn't have a reason for people to move os. Microsoft has the resources and could have purchased BlackBerry with Bill Gates spare change in the cushions of his couch. They passed because the only thing worse than wasting cash on a third OS would be wasting on a fourth OS.

Problem I see here is that I don't think you see how small BlackBerry was compared to Apple, Google and Microsoft. You wish Chen had gambled more but he couldn't because you have to at least have the minimum buy-in to play at poker table. Chen had $1, when the buy in was $100 and the other guys had that in cash with another $200 each in credit. The only play was to leave the casino, buy water for a $1/bottle, sell it for $2/bottle in the parking lot and keep repeating until he's bought out the other parking lot hustlers while evading the casino police.

Every Chen strategy has been a huge gamble since their economic position has been perilous from start. The company doesn't enjoy a margin of error still because of their existing overhead. Even now, the share price is based on where gamblers think Chen will take company in future, not current profits.

What if from the beginning they expected it would take a long time to grow the market and managed inventory and marketing accordingly? No one here separates the cost of R&D (software and hardware) and operations (BBW, etc.) from the production of inventory. Would you say inventory cost more than R&D and operations over the lifetime of BB10?

[DonHB]

They essentially gave devices away to developers like tic tacs - from the very beginning.

No details. Dev Alphas were not as good as Z10s and I think 10.2.1 was available at the time the inventory was written off.

[howarmat]

No details. Dev Alphas were not as good as Z10s and I think 10.2.1 was available at the time the inventory was written off.

10.2.1 didnt come until almost 1 full years after the release in Jan 2013. Writeoffs of ver 1 billion happened months before that

And they gave away thousands of z10s and q10s at every conference and such on top of the alphas

[Chuck Finley69]

What if from the beginning they expected it would take a long time to grow the market and managed inventory and marketing accordingly? No one here separates the cost of R&D (software and hardware) and operations (BBW, etc.) from the production of inventory. Would you say inventory cost more than R&D and operations over the lifetime of BB10?

The company was negative cash flow without the economic resources to EVER compete with Big 3.

Losing BIS revenue with each BB10 device switch over accelerates this problem. BlackBerry revenue shared trajectory of Saturn rocket.

[DonHB]

10.2.1 didnt come until almost 1 full years after the release in Jan 2013. Writeoffs of ver 1 billion happened months before that

And they gave away thousands of z10s and q10s at every conference and such on top of the alphas

So, they had about three months to plan a program.

[Chuck Finley69]

So, they had about three months to plan a program.

What??