[birdman_38]

Again, I don't disagree with anything you have said but IMHO I would rather him just talk less or use more guided words when talking to the media.

Hopefully this will be a lesson to him.

[kbz1960]

Again, I don't disagree with anything you have said but IMHO I would rather him just talk less or use more guided words when talking to the media. There are many Spin Doctors out there.

***EDITED**** I guess I am very correct because BlackBerry (AKA John Chen) has now made a press release to rectify things

"Yesterday, Reuters published an article that said I would consider selling our Devices business. My comments were taken out of context."

BlackBerry is Not Leaving the Handset Market: John Chen clarifies | Inside BlackBerry

Posted via CB10

Why are BBRY always taken out of context? Do they speak with forked tongue?

[wincyUt]

Why are BBRY always taken out of context? Do they speak with forked tongue?

When someone knows that they are not loved so much, they have to exercise a lot of caution when they speak in public.

[anon(5828343)]

There is nothing mixed about it... if it doesn't make money hardware sector for BlackBerry is over. if it makes money it will continue to make devices... i dont understand how people are still confused.

Z10STL100-3/10.2.1.2141

The mixed messages is when Chen speaks about promoting and talking about new BB devices like Classic/Jakarta etc then within a few days talking about willing to abandon handset for whatever reason. You don't see any manufacturer talking up a product then in short order talking about closing shop. Even Chen sees the error of his ways and has issued a statement saying that Reuters took his comments out of context.

What Chen has basically told the market is: "We're launching these great new devices. They're so awesome that they are going to really set the smartphone market on fire." Then a few days later, he says: "But I'm a really shrewd and hard nosed CEO so if any of these products flop, I've got the balls to shut down that unprofitable division."

Unfortunately, a CEO isn't just a company's chief of investor relations, he is also the company's chief communicator, chief salesman and chief marketer. Chen seems to have serious trouble being all those things at the same time. Sadly, he doesn't quite get it and seeks out media attention, oblivious to the contradictory messages he sends whenever he opens his mouth.

It's surprising that BBRY CEOs seem to be the ones that are constantly misquoted or misunderstood by the media. Their statements are always taken out of context and require some type of correction. You can add poor corporate communications to poor marketing and poor sales to the list of lousy BBRY management skills.

[val_lixembeau]

If anyone needs to see any further proof of why Chen's "turnaround" strategy is completely convoluted, just have a look at this article:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/bl...0--sector.html

I thought that by jettisoning handset manufacturing to Foxconn, BBRY would be able to take advantage of economies of scale and ensure that it could "manufacture" handsets at a profit or at least not at a loss.

Then, Chen talks about BBRY handsets like his "Classic".

Now, Chen is hedging his bets yet again and, in doing so, at least in my opinion, undermines any future device that BBRY sets out to produce. The simple fact is, aside from the true BBRY loyalists, customers, especially enterprise customers, will find the prospect of a manufacturer no longer producing a device too much of a risk. Some of my clients would drop BBRY because of the cost of transitioning to a new platform if BBRY suddenly stopped producing devices, stopped supporting devices or stopped upgrading devices. So how can this type of commentary from Chen be helpful?

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't know why you see a contradiction.

Everything stems from the immediate need to conserve cash and make money where they can. Unless they can stabilize the finances in the short term, nothing else matters.

1) BlackBerry doesn't have enough volume to get good pricing on components so they have to partner with an ODM like Foxconn for low margin devices. No controversy there right? HTC can't even get good pricing and they have higher volume and closer ties to Chinese suppliers.

2) BlackBerry needs to keep their own DNA in the high end devices, and they have a little more leeway with margin there, so they are keeping the design of those for now.

3) Since BlackBerry doesn't have the scale or ecosystem to take on Apple or Android (or even WinPho really) in the consumer space they have to find a niche they can win. That is going to be end-to-end services/solutions to enterprise. The margins here will be better than on hardware; BlackBerry still has presence and are competitive in this space.

4) Until service revenue ramps up, they need to generate revenues in any way possible. They have obviously gone to their enterprise customers to find out why upgrades to BB10 are going slowly and heard back "toolbelt" and "Bold". Hence the Q20/Classic and starting up the 9900 production again. They need to hang on to their enterprise customers at any cost until enterprise BBM and BES picks up and this is the way they plan to do it.

So it seems pretty clear that the plan is to depend on services and solutions revenue in the future. Part of that is in devices, but likely less and less as time goes on. The ones coming out this year are probably a rear-guard action to hold on to whatever share they have until their brand image improves enough to drive sales again.

[kbz1960]

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't know why you see a contradiction.

Everything stems from the immediate need to conserve cash and make money where they can. Unless they can stabilize the finances in the short term, nothing else matters.

1) BlackBerry doesn't have enough volume to get good pricing on components so they have to partner with an ODM like Foxconn for low margin devices. No controversy there right? HTC can't even get good pricing and they have higher volume and closer ties to Chinese suppliers.

2) BlackBerry needs to keep their own DNA in the high end devices, and they have a little more leeway with margin there, so they are keeping the design of those for now.

3) Since BlackBerry doesn't have the scale or ecosystem to take on Apple or Android (or even WinPho really) in the consumer space they have to find a niche they can win. That is going to be end-to-end services/solutions to enterprise. The margins here will be better than on hardware; BlackBerry still has presence and are competitive in this space.

4) Until service revenue ramps up, they need to generate revenues in any way possible. They have obviously gone to their enterprise customers to find out why upgrades to BB10 are going slowly and heard back "toolbelt" and "Bold". Hence the Q20/Classic and starting up the 9900 production again. They need to hang on to their enterprise customers at any cost until enterprise BBM and BES picks up and this is the way they plan to do it.

So it seems pretty clear that the plan is to depend on services and solutions revenue in the future. Part of that is in devices, but likely less and less as time goes on. The ones coming out this year are probably a rear-guard action to hold on to whatever share they have until their brand image improves enough to drive sales again.

I just hope it doesn't turn into....... The playbook will be running BB10. No we can't do it.

[anon(5828343)]

Seems pretty straight forward to me. Don't know why you see a contradiction.

Everything stems from the immediate need to conserve cash and make money where they can. Unless they can stabilize the finances in the short term, nothing else matters.

1) BlackBerry doesn't have enough volume to get good pricing on components so they have to partner with an ODM like Foxconn for low margin devices. No controversy there right? HTC can't even get good pricing and they have higher volume and closer ties to Chinese suppliers.

2) BlackBerry needs to keep their own DNA in the high end devices, and they have a little more leeway with margin there, so they are keeping the design of those for now.

3) Since BlackBerry doesn't have the scale or ecosystem to take on Apple or Android (or even WinPho really) in the consumer space they have to find a niche they can win. That is going to be end-to-end services/solutions to enterprise. The margins here will be better than on hardware; BlackBerry still has presence and are competitive in this space.

4) Until service revenue ramps up, they need to generate revenues in any way possible. They have obviously gone to their enterprise customers to find out why upgrades to BB10 are going slowly and heard back "toolbelt" and "Bold". Hence the Q20/Classic and starting up the 9900 production again. They need to hang on to their enterprise customers at any cost until enterprise BBM and BES picks up and this is the way they plan to do it.

So it seems pretty clear that the plan is to depend on services and solutions revenue in the future. Part of that is in devices, but likely less and less as time goes on. The ones coming out this year are probably a rear-guard action to hold on to whatever share they have until their brand image improves enough to drive sales again.

The clear contradiction is in trying to sell devices one day and undermining those devices the next. Again -- even Chen has seen the impact his comments have had and is now posting a "clarification" saying that his words were "taken out of context". Whatever the circumstances of those words, the basic fact is, that even Chen himself sees how much trouble his apparent contradiction has created and has gone to great lengths in his blog posts to correct them.

[badiyee]

The clear contradiction is in trying to sell devices one day and undermining those devices the next. Again -- even Chen has seen the impact his comments have had and is now posting a "clarification" saying that his words were "taken out of context". Whatever the circumstances of those words, the basic fact is, that even Chen himself sees how much trouble his apparent contradiction has created and has gone to great lengths in his blog posts to correct them.

Did John Chen said the exact phrase Reuters wrote in the video: NO.

Did Reuters claim it did happened? : According to them, it happened off camera.

Can Reuters prove the quote off camera concretely? NO.

And people still talk here that it has to be John Chen's fault, and claim that the world is not out there to kill BlackBerry as their supporting statement.

I wonder all these people, how the heck did they even pass basic comprehension tests.

Speculative much. Analytical much, opinionated much, but if the basic proof is there, and they still claimed "but it has / was indeed spoken" when the only way to prove it doesn't even there, or rather the quote did not exist and the only claim was there is that there was a claim it did happened, then I think the bias is already apparent that there are more vocal people who want to insist that BlackBerry and John Chen is wrong, despite the very fact that the actual evidence which it was supposedly based on, dos not even exist in the first place.



Posted via CB on BB10

[CpE CKS]

Misunderstanding is due to media focusing on some point of the topic and not the whole.

Chen won't be depending on something alone. He tries to make a profit out of everything he can. That's why it's never on Classic or Z3, rather it's all of what BlackBerry as a company can offer that can be profitable.

BlackBerry by choice. Powered by BlackBerry 10. I choose BlackBerry. Keep moving.

[birdman_38]

Did John Chen said the exact phrase Reuters wrote in the video: NO.

Did Reuters claim it did happened? : According to them, it happened off camera.

Can Reuters prove the quote off camera concretely? NO.

And people still talk here that it has to be John Chen's fault, and claim that the world is not out there to kill BlackBerry as their supporting statement.

I wonder all these people, how the heck did they even pass basic comprehension tests.

Speculative much. Analytical much, opinionated much, but if the basic proof is there, and they still claimed "but it has / was indeed spoken" when the only way to prove it doesn't even there, or rather the quote did not exist and the only claim was there is that there was a claim it did happened, then I think the bias is already apparent that there are more vocal people who want to insist that BlackBerry and John Chen is wrong, despite the very fact that the actual evidence which it was supposedly based on, dos not even exist in the first place.

Chen didn't deny the quote.

[badiyee]

Chen didn't deny the quote.

So? It does not matter. The supposedly proof does not, technically exist. You can go word by word, but it still does not exist.

What do you think courts will do? Go by a "John Chen does not deny it" or, there wasn't any of such in record?

Because no matter how, a recorded evidence is always stronger, than a spin on the evidence. Because it is without doubt, that Reuter's statement that John Chen said it is in doubt, because initially they did not made the statement off camera: John Chen said that BlackBerry will go out of business. Instead, you get that one sensational headline and when confronted only the additional "fact" (disputable when no record exists) comes into picture. In other words, Reuters have not been forthcoming in reporting entirety, and therefore without a doubt, it is reasonable to suspect Reuters of slander and foul play.

Posted via CB on BB10