[mnecpal]

Have we not seen this before? RIM announces, ahead of its official quarterly report, lower guidance/expectations and stock gets pummeled. Then, two weeks later, when the results come as expected, the stock gets pummeled again. There is NO love for RIM.

[Economist101]

This begs the question: why does RIM make this pre-announcement? Why don't they just offer reasonable guidance that they know they can make, and avoid having to announce revisions? How many times must this happen before they realize it's poor strategy?

[WinningWithLogic]

Why don't they just offer reasonable guidance that they know they can make

Delusion.

You have to remember, you're talking about Jim & Mike. The two biggest bozos in the game.

[addicted44]

Delusion.

You have to remember, you're talking about Jim & Mike. The two biggest bozos in the game.

+++

RIM stock would be valued far higher if the co-CEOs weren't so clearly delusional. Frankly, I think RIMM is a great buy right now, but with those 2 leading it, I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole.

RIM has enough in the bank, and in mindshare amongst consumers to do really well. But they are too busy sleeping with every new trend like a cheap ***** (BBM Music, Playbook) to do what really needs to be done. i.e. Release awesome new BBX based BBs as soon as possible.

[TheMimic]

This begs the question: why does RIM make this pre-announcement? Why don't they just offer reasonable guidance that they know they can make, and avoid having to announce revisions? How many times must this happen before they realize it's poor strategy?

I been pondering this all morning. They did the same thing last time. they revised guidance and warned of missing targets b4 earnings call. Stock dropped like 12% that day. Earnings call came and they dropped another 20%.

Just give us all the bad news at once!

[JasW]

Delusion.

You have to remember, you're talking about Jim & Mike. The two biggest bozos in the game.

Is it true they were the two RIM guys arrested on the Air Canada flight, but gave fake IDs?

[Rickroller]

Is it true they were the two RIM guys arrested on the Air Canada flight, but gave fake IDs?

I think they were also "on the grassy knoll" as well as behind the scenes of the fake "moon landing"

[Fat Bastage]

This begs the question: why does RIM make this pre-announcement? Why don't they just offer reasonable guidance that they know they can make, and avoid having to announce revisions? How many times must this happen before they realize it's poor strategy?

If you have been following this company for any period of time you know the answer to your question. Pride and arrogance.

here are some examples

1. when iPhone came out they laughed and said it was no threat
2. They claimed the keyboard was preferred over touchscreen
3. They claimed that Apps were a passing fad
4. The initially said they weren't sure there was much of a market for tablets
5. They said that people outside of the distortion field wanted choices like the playbook
6. They claimed the blackberry would be the choice for business and iPhone was a toy
7. As late as June they claimed that they would earn 7.50/share!
8. They claimed that carriers Jaws dropped when the saw OS7 phones
9. they said there was pent up demand of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of enterprise orders for the playbook prelaunch

[anon3396357]

If you have been following this company for any period of time you know the answer to your question. Pride and arrogance.

here are some examples

1. when iPhone came out they laughed and said it was no threat
2. They claimed the keyboard was preferred over touchscreen
3. They claimed that Apps were a passing fad
4. The initially said they weren't sure there was much of a market for tablets
5. They said that people outside of the distortion field wanted choices like the playbook
6. They claimed the blackberry would be the choice for business and iPhone was a toy
7. As late as June they claimed that they would earn 7.50/share!
8. They claimed that carriers Jaws dropped when the saw OS7 phones
9. they said there was pent up demand of tens of thousands upon tens of thousands of enterprise orders for the playbook prelaunch

To be fair, Steve Jobs himself was adamant about having apps on the iPhone initially.

[sosumi11]

To be fair, Steve Jobs himself was adamant about having apps on the iPhone initially.

To be fair, the original iPhone's screen layout said otherwise. Apple was not going to announce a product in Jan 2007, which wasn't shipping till June 2007, that the 2008 version will have third party apps.

[tumer]

How about I think ot was three years who same quarter before xmas they lowered the guidance the same way and when the earnings came out the actueay beat there initial est. The stock almost doubled I owned stock back then

[infamyx]

To be fair, the original iPhone's screen layout said otherwise. Apple was not going to announce a product in Jan 2007, which wasn't shipping till June 2007, that the 2008 version will have third party apps.

I think you're missing the point. The iPhone was never meant to have third party apps. When other executives at Apple saw what people did with the initial iPhone after jail breaking and making apps for it, executives had to convince Steve Jobs that apps would be the right move.

In a year Apple got its **** together for the app store (tools/SDK/store) and launched the 3G with it.sad that RIM still can't get it right.

[Economist101]

I think you're missing the point. The iPhone was never meant to have third party apps. When other executives at Apple saw what people did with the initial iPhone after jail breaking and making apps for it, executives had to convince Steve Jobs that apps would be the right move.

That is exactly correct. He was against native third-party apps on the iPhone, and he was also against iTunes on Windows, even after they'd decided to support iPod syncing with Windows-running computers. Luckily for him, he had people around that prevailed upon him to make the smart decision. I get the feeling that there isn't anyone at RIM that can change Mike and Jim's direction, if only because I find it hard to believe that their entire senior executive management team agrees with the course they've charted over the last few years. Even CEOs need someone to save their a$$es every so often. . .I think Mike and Jim need to let some of the people they've felt are qualified to be senior execs save theirs more often.

[kbz1960]

I think you're missing the point. The iPhone was never meant to have third party apps. When other executives at Apple saw what people did with the initial iPhone after jail breaking and making apps for it, executives had to convince Steve Jobs that apps would be the right move.

In a year Apple got its **** together for the app store (tools/SDK/store) and launched the 3G with it.sad that RIM still can't get it right.

Wow it took them a year to get that out? Yes I knew that and everyone craps on RIM for not having the same out in days rather then sooner then apple did. But I know that I'll get crapped all over for saying so. No matter to me.

[Economist101]

This is not true. The reason the iPhone did not have a SDK at launch was because of security issues. Jobs in Oct 2007 said "Making the iPhone more open while keeping it secure from viruses has been a challenge." This line alone suggests they have been working on it prior.

Yes, they were working on it prior to October 2007; that isn't disputed. The iPhone was announced in January 2007 and launched in June, so proving they were working on the SDK before October 2007 really doesn't prove what you think it does. Even without this quote, we know the SDK was ultimately launched in March 2008, and I don't think there's anyone that believes Apple threw it together in less than 6 months. The main point here is that at the time of the announcement, in January 2007, SJ had no intention of allowing 3P apps, and I think he honestly believed developers would be satisfied with web apps. By WWDC though, it was clear that wasn't the case.

[WinningWithLogic]

Yes, they were working on it prior to October 2007; that isn't disputed. The iPhone was announced in January 2007 and launched in June, so proving they were working on the SDK before October 2007 really doesn't prove what you think it does. Even without this quote, we know the SDK was ultimately launched in March 2008, and I don't think there's anyone that believes Apple threw it together in less than 6 months. The main point here is that at the time of the announcement, in January 2007, SJ had no intention of allowing 3P apps, and I think he honestly believed developers would be satisfied with web apps. By WWDC though, it was clear that wasn't the case.

To be clear here as well, the iOS SDK leverages a great deal of the Mac OS SDK - the toolset is the same (Xcode, etc.) the language Objective-C has been evolving for years and years, and Cocoa, Foundation, etc. are all well developed technologies. With iOS, it's not like Apple had to create something entirely new, so of course they've been working on it prior to 2007 - you could argue very easily they've been working on it for the last 10+ years (which is why it's so damn good today).

Anybody making a comparison between the PlayBook NDK and the iOS SDK and commenting on "time to market" does not understand the world of difference that exists between them in terms of quality, feature set, etc. The PlayBook NDK is still at the level of the most very very basic building blocks, lacking an object-model, UI framework, UI builder, rich toolset, etc.

[sosumi11]

Yes, they were working on it prior to October 2007; that isn't disputed. The iPhone was announced in January 2007 and launched in June, so proving they were working on the SDK before October 2007 really doesn't prove what you think it does. Even without this quote, we know the SDK was ultimately launched in March 2008, and I don't think there's anyone that believes Apple threw it together in less than 6 months. The main point here is that at the time of the announcement, in January 2007, SJ had no intention of allowing 3P apps, and I think he honestly believed developers would be satisfied with web apps. By WWDC though, it was clear that wasn't the case.

Here is the full story:

Walter Isaacson's authorised biography of former Apple CEO Steve Jobs – which is now on sale – explains that Jobs was initially unconvinced that apps would benefit Apple or its iOS platform.

"When it first came out in early 2007, there were no apps you could buy from outside developers, and Jobs initially resisted allowing them," writes Isaacson. "He didn't want outsiders to create applications for the iPhone that could mess it up, infect it with viruses, or pollute its integrity."Sources from Apple have told the Guardian that the first request for access to the tools write a third-party app for the iPhone was filed with Apple before the end of Jobs's keynote introducing the iPhone in January 2007.

The book (Isaacson's) claims that Jobs initially "quashed the discussion" to focus on the initial iPhone launch, with Schiller and Levinson both telling Isaacson that it was only once the device was available that Jobs relented.

"Every time the conversation happened, Steve seemed a little more open," says Levinson, who goes on to describe Apple's approvals policy on the App Store as "an absolutely magical solution that hit the sweet spot. It gave us the benefits of openness while retaining end-to-end control."

So even though Jobs resisted it, it was because he wanted a solution so that the iPhone platform would not be another Windows.

[Rootbrian]

Sh!t happens. Not all companies are perfect.