[markmall]

Looking more closely at a chart on Google that pinpoints the share price by date, $10 is a fairer benchmark. The daily fluctuations were huge when he was announced. $10 was the conversion price (for a reason) and the rough moving average if you discount the drama and uncertainty with Fairfax. It was at $10 before and went back up to $10 after the financing deal.

But to be precise as to whether it's gone up or down since his tenure -- starting Nov 4, 2013 -- it looks like it was right around $7. I can't get an exact quote without digging further. I would sell at $7.50 and take a profit if I bought the day he started. That is a 2% annual return.

Edit:

It closed on Friday, Nov. 1, 2013 at $7.77. So as of the day Chen started, the share price has gone down even giving him the benefit of the recent fluctuation.

[markmall]

Choosing the stock's lowest point in its history is gaming the numbers. Sort of fitting for Chen.

[conite]

Choosing the stock's lowest point in its history is gaming the numbers. Sort of fitting for Chen.

Pinning him with the stock price the moment he stepped across the door threshold is even worse.

Either way, even your numbers show he stopped the hemorrhaging.

[markmall]

Yes. But that campaign cost Apple half a billion dollars a year.

Was that the cost of running those ads or Apple's entire marketing budget?

Posted via CB10

[markmall]

Pinning him with the stock price the moment he stepped across the door threshold is even worse.

Either way, even your numbers show he stopped the hemorrhaging.

I don't have know what you mean by that. The company didn't go bankrupt? He has been so risk averse that would never have happened with the Watsa financing in place. That is not a credit in my book. Being an auctioneer and firing people does not a successful CEO make.

But the company has been unprofitable every quarter with no transparency by Chen.

Posted via CB10

[Denise in Los Angeles]

I don't have know what you mean by that. The company didn't go bankrupt? He has been so risk averse that would never have happened with the Watsa financing in place. That is not a credit in my book. Being an auctioneer and firing people does not a successful CEO make.

But the company has been unprofitable every quarter with no transparency by Chen.

Posted via CB10

Chen is still CEO, and the company BlackBerry is still in business. He is doing what the Board of Directors want, or he would be gone already.

[Kamika007z]

As I see it, BlackBerry's device strategy was a continuous stream of too little too late, before during and after BB10's time in the sun.

And as for the Android player, you might want to note that it first appeared in PlayBook OS 2.0 (October 2011), well before BB10 launch.

Exactly.

Well said.

Also add to the mix "over promise, under deliver" ...and extremely late for that matter.

Posted via CB10

[app_Developer]

I don't have know what you mean by that. The company didn't go bankrupt? He has been so risk averse that would never have happened with the Watsa financing in place. That is not a credit in my book. Being an auctioneer and firing people does not a successful CEO make.

But the company has been unprofitable every quarter with no transparency by Chen.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first step is often to stop digging.

They've gone from a business that put them into a tailspin to one that has a decent chance of working. I totally agree with you that they don't know if the new products will let them fly again, but at least we know they won't end in a fiery crash.

[markmall]

When you find yourself in a hole, the first step is often to stop digging.

They've gone from a business that put them into a tailspin to one that has a decent chance of working. I totally agree with you that they don't know if the new products will let them fly again, but at least we know they won't end in a fiery crash.

Chen jettisoned all the things that set Blackberry apart. As I have said before even during Apple's darkest days they did not start abandon their OS. BB10 was not costing the company billions; bad decisions were.

[app_Developer]

Chen jettisoned all the things that set Blackberry apart. As I have said before even during Apple's darkest days they did not start abandon their OS. BB10 was not costing the company billions; bad decisions were.

Actually, Apple did abandon their OS. Jobs brought their new OS and the new OS team with him when he returned. That was a key part of his turnaround plan. Many of the NeXT team became the new leadership at Apple and they migrated from MacOS to OS X, which was essentially the next version of NeXTSTEP. This was also the foundation of iOS. The non-touch iPods used a 3rd OS that was also unrelated to any Apple OS at the time.

People joked that Apple/NeXT was actually a reverse merger. In reality, it kind of was.

Remember they also moved to Intel. Apple had spent years drilling into people's heads that the 68k family was superior to x86. "Wide >> Deep" and all that stuff. Then here come the NeXT guys with their new OS and they started making Macs that were much closer to PC's under the hood than they were to the original Macintosh or Lisa. Oh, the horror! "They aren't even real Macs anymore!"

Interestingly, there were a lot of upset fans on Apple forums and newsgroups back in those days. Some vocal developers were pretty upset, too.

Then Mac users got upset when the focus of the company shifted to iPod and then iPhone, and away from Mac. Developers at WWDC for years complained about how "their" conference was being overrun with all these ********* iPhone developers. Apple Computers wasn't about computers anymore and a lot of people didn't like it.

Now one thing Apple did better was they had a reasonable migration path for developers with Carbon, but the only reason they really did that was because of Adobe. The Mac simply could not lose Photoshop. I don't know if there really was a BBOS equivalent to Photoshop, the one app on BBOS that BB couldn't afford to lose?

[eshropshire]

What was the price when he was announced and what is the price now? It looks to me like it has gone down from a 5 year chart. He started in early-November -- not December -- 2013. The price dipped to about $6.50 at some point after Fairfax didn't do a buyout but did the financing deal instead. As of two days ago it hovered at $7. It's had a good two days but the stock has returned nothng it looks to me.

Of course it is going down why does this surprise anyone. BlackBerry was a very different company in 2013. The a huge part of the revenue was BIS. The company w I would sink with their new path. BlackBerry still has tons of shares on the market. Way to many shares. My guess is the stock prices will be lower, but start picking up in the next 18 to 24 months as all of the hardware is cleaned out. The finacial dynamics of an enterprise software company are almost 180 degrees different from a hardware company.

I think the BoD is just thrilled the stock has value in 2017.

[markmall]

I don't know if there really was a BBOS equivalent to Photoshop, the one app on BBOS that BB couldn't afford to lose?

I don't know either. Or for BB10 although people here will say that everyone had to have Instagram in 2013.


Posted via CB10

[markmall]

There is a parallel I think with Next and Apple and QNX and BB10.

Posted via CB10

[StephanieMaks]

Apple had spent years drilling into people's heads that the 68k family was superior to x86.

There was a step in between 68k and x86 though. They went from the 68k to Power PC architecture in the '90s, which required something of its own migration. I remember the PPC Macs could emulate a 68030 to ensure older software kept running. Then they migrated from their legacy OS to OS X while everything was running on PPC hardware, and then migrated from there to x86.

I do agree with everything else in your post, just that one clarification. 68k was dropped in the 90's, OS X came in the early 00's, then x86 came later in the 00's.

[app_Developer]

There was a step in between 68k and x86 though. They went from the 68k to Power PC architecture in the '90s, which required something of its own migration. I remember the PPC Macs could emulate a 68030 to ensure older software kept running. Then they migrated from their legacy OS to OS X while everything was running on PPC hardware, and then migrated from there to x86.

I do agree with everything else in your post, just that one clarification. 68k was dropped in the 90's, OS X came in the early 00's, then x86 came later in the 00's.

Yes, you're right! In fact, I remember now that a lot of the wide v deep discussions were actually about PPC vs x86.

Thanks for the correction.

[CBCListener]

I believe you, but that narrative is probably one of the most oft repeated anecdotes on Windows Central, CrackBerry and even webOS Nation: folks in public that are surprised by a device they didn't know existed.

Not surprised enough to actually get one, but just enough to make the owner happy.

The problem here is not that they're motivated to get one, but because they already did get a new phone, they're no longer in the market for one. And therefore a missed opportunity...had BlackBerry made a decent effort in marketing, one might suppose that the interested party would have known about the Passport, say, and bought it instead of what he/she settled for.

[markmall]

The problem here is not that they're motivated to get one, but because they already did get a new phone, they're no longer in the market for one. And therefore a missed opportunity...had BlackBerry made a decent effort in marketing, one might suppose that the interested party would have known about the Passport, say, and bought it instead of what he/she settled for.

Good point. People need to know about a product when they are still in the market for one. "Hey, cool car! I'll just sell the one I bought last year and buy one of these!" Not many people are like this with cars or phones.

It should be clear to anyone that understands business that BlackBerry has never had marketing artists in its ranks. My belief is that this has doomed everything it has done since at least the launch of BB10. Once it lost the backing of the carriers it was all over. Apple paid a lot of attention to its sales channels after Jobs came back. BlackBerry seemed to ignore this, although Chen did start a stupid public fight with T-Mobile. Remember? Didn't Chen pull BlackBerry phones from T-Mobile? Like a starving man refusing a scrap of bread because it wasn't to his liking. Hilarious.

Posted via CB10

[early2bed]

The T-Mobile spat came up because they started sending emails to BlackBerry users telling them to trade-in their BlackBerry for an iPhone for $0 down ($200 trade-in). Then they announced that 94% of BlackBerry customers traded in for a non-BlackBerry phone.

The problem here is not that they're motivated to get one, but because they already did get a new phone, they're no longer in the market for one. And therefore a missed opportunity...had BlackBerry made a decent effort in marketing, one might suppose that the interested party would have known about the Passport, say, and bought it instead of what he/she settled for.

Isn't this the case for all marketing for any smartphone brand? I don't see how this applies to BlackBerry more than other smartphone companies. Presumably, BB10 users seeing all that great iPhone advertising were all in various stages of their smartphone contracts before they switched. People here seem to envision that there was some kind of marketing that would have worked if only delivered to the ideal consumer at the ideal time.

[app_Developer]

It should be clear to anyone that understands business that BlackBerry has never had marketing artists in its ranks.

Yes, I think we can all agree with that!

BlackBerry seemed to ignore this, although Chen did start a stupid public fight with T-Mobile. Remember? Didn't Chen pull BlackBerry phones from T-Mobile? Like a starving man refusing a scrap of bread because it wasn't to his liking. Hilarious.

And I would agree this is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen an executive do. Chen really screwed up there.

[markmall]

The T-Mobile spat came up because they started sending emails to BlackBerry users telling them to trade-in their BlackBerry for an iPhone for $0 down ($200 trade-in). Then they announced that 94% of BlackBerry customers traded in for a non-BlackBerry phone.

94%? That does not sound like a credible number. I do remember this incident though. I think many of us on this website were saying that lack very should have done the same type of incentive to migrate people to BB10 from BBOS.

Isn't this the case for all marketing for any smartphone brand? I don't see how this applies to BlackBerry more than other smartphone companies. Presumably, BB10 users seeing all that great iPhone advertising were all in various stages of their smartphone contracts before they switched. People here seem to envision that there was some kind of marketing that would have worked if only delivered to the ideal consumer at the ideal time.

I don't understand your point. As to the last sentence, I don't think there was a silver bullet slogan or ad campaign that necessarily would have worked. My point -- and I think a few others' point -- is that with virtually no marketing consumers did not know about BB10 phones and how they worked. There are lots of strategies and many more in 2013-15 than in 2000. Apple used to use a lot of product placement in movies and TV. Not sure if they do as much now since they can afford to run as many ads as they want.

Chen, on the other hand, refused to do almost ANYTHING. I heard him at a shareholder meetings when asked if he would spend more on marketing the phones by a small shareholder, and he talked about targeted banner ads giving him the "best bang for the buck." I was still investing in BBRY at the time and was very disappointed to hear this answer. I realized that the phones likely had no chance.

Apparently, he spent more on advertising the Priv but that phone did not work so well for more reasons that I can count. And there still was little to no consumer awareness of this phone. I'll bet the same thing happens with Mercury.

[markmall]

double post

[Denise in Los Angeles]

94%? That does not sound like a credible number. I do remember this incident though. I think many of us on this website were saying that lack very should have done the same type of incentive to migrate people to BB10 from BBOS.

What I remember very clearly about the T-Mobile incident is that at the time of the offer, T-Mobile had an existing partnership with BlackBerry. For John Legere/T-Mobile to entice customers to trade in their BlackBerrys was an unfair practice to undercut your partner by promoting the change to another partner's product.

The reason why it was 94% of customers trading to a non-BlackBerry was because the only way to get a BlackBerry was online, and only refurb Q10s were on the website. If you walked into a T-Mobile store with a BlackBerry, you could walk out the SAME DAY with a new iPhone.

[markmall]

What I remember very clearly about the T-Mobile incident is that at the time of the offer, T-Mobile had an existing partnership with BlackBerry. For John Legere/T-Mobile to entice customers to trade in their BlackBerrys was an unfair practice to undercut your partner by promoting the change to another partner's product.

The reason why it was 94% of customers trading to a non-BlackBerry was because the only way to get a BlackBerry was online, and only refurb Q10s were on the website. If you walked into a T-Mobile store with a BlackBerry, you could walk out the SAME DAY with a new iPhone.

It was more reasonable if no blackberry phones were in stores but still... what did Chen/Blackberry gain from this? Did any other carrier say, "Oh, I better not mess with Chen over at BlackBerry"?

Posted via CB10

[Tre Lawrence]

It was more reasonable if no blackberry phones were in stores but still... what did Chen/Blackberry gain from this? Did any other carrier say, "Oh, I better not mess with Chen over at BlackBerry"?

Posted via CB10

I tend to agree with you in this instance. I don't think the T-Mobile standoff helped BlackBerry at all.

[mrfreeze]

I tend to agree with you in this instance. I don't think the T-Mobile standoff helped BlackBerry at all.

It's not like they were getting shelf space at T-Mobile anyway... Any publicity is good publicity and honestly going to bat for your brand just looks good.