[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

I guess the clearest evidence that they intend to continue manufacturing devices for now is the fact that they didn't split the company. It could be argued that the handset business, while not making money right now, is the glue that holds everything else together.

BlackBerry could also easily have entered into an agreement with Lenovo that would not have sold the hardware division, but would have given Lenovo the right to produce BlackBerry devices, running BB10. ... That would have been a logical step if they intended to shut down hardware production, and still could be a logical step even if they don't intend to. ... Lenovo clearly was interested in the handset business, but no agreemetn was reached.

Where is there evidence of Lenovo offering to buy the handset business or showing any desire to buy just handset? For that matter any evidence that Lenovo made ANY offers!

Lenovo talked with BlackBerry, maybe they kicked a few tires and looked over the books.... that was about it.

[BeautyEh]

Troy - You have yet to respond to any of the counterpoints I made, especially regarding Blackberry handsets' unique role in high-level military/security ops. I take it that you have not thought out that aspect of the situation and what a complication it represents?

[DenverRalphy]

How? By creating hooks into the kernel which is GPL'd? Then they have to release said code for everyone to use.

Not really. Only the GPL code needs to be available. You can fork a GPL project, and keep your own contribution to the code proprietary. The only requirement is that you recognize and give credit to the contributors of the GPL'd portion of the code, as well as point to or make available for download the GPL'd portion.

SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta

[danprown]

Just what do you think debenture means?

It means a document which acknowledges debt.

While you can say it is an "investment deal" it is essentially a loan without collateral at 6% per year. To put it in perspective, BBRY has to pay one full quarter of current-level combined QNX and BES revenue in interest every year.

Since when did BB get in debt? They would have been if they went private (which didn't happen). In fact, they are adding to their cash stockpile through the investment and the early tax break they are trying to get. I don't think the recent investment deal can be considered debt, but I could be wrong.

[Dunt Dunt Dunt]

Troy - You have yet to respond to any of the counterpoints I made, especially regarding Blackberry handsets' unique role in high-level military/security ops. I take it that you have not thought out that aspect of the situation and what a complication it represents?

The USA, "high-level military/security ops" units us devices much more secure (don't rely on outside networks) than BlackBerry's. And you must have missed the news the last few months.... most of the US military is already "testing" other platforms and some commands in the US Army seems to be going ahead with plans to use other Platforms (both devices and MDM)..... not sure what you want Troy to say.

There is no doubt that there is a market for BlackBerry... the question is how big is that market and how long can BlackBerry even hold that niche.

[Jerry A]

Not really. Only the GPL code needs to be available. You can fork a GPL project, and keep your own contribution to the code proprietary. The only requirement is that you recognize and give credit to the contributors of the GPL'd portion of the code, as well as point to or make available for download the GPL'd portion.

SwiftKeyed/Flowed via Tapatalk 4 Beta

Check out the Linux kernel mailing list for why this isn't as easy as you say for kernel items.

There's a reason they don't have great driver support for a lot of items. There's a reason there are limited hooks for non-userspace inclusions.

It's not quite as easy as just forking in this case.

[FeralCat1]

The original post was MY OPINION, which is why it is stated in the title. But that post contains a number of pieces of evidence. They are listed in bullet points.

I haven't seen any evidence to refute them, which is why I formed the opinion that I did. I'm open to investigating evidence to the contrary.

Okay, for sense of a debate, let us agree to your point.

Discussion,
BB HW is proprietary and includes many owned patents and technology. Can we agree on this? Now, your thesis is that BB HW division is going bye-bye. I will agree to disagree, however, BB not going anywhere with it's software and BES services. We on the same page still?

BB proprietary devices CAN be manufactured w/LICENSES and shared engineering to maintain exact specifications required for the HW? Still on same music?

Even if, BIG IF right now, BB decides not to stay directly involved in day to day production of BB devices, they will LICENSE (=REVENUE STREAM) another global company to manufacture their devices for them. These devices will be required to meet or exceed BB requirements. Providing ability to minimize operations day to day within BB and continue the potential revenue stream with a partner who focuses solely on production of a device.

Or NOT! Continue the restructure and move on, hopefully staying a little more ahead of the pack in the years to come.

All in all, is a WIN/WIN for BB and anyone involved. Outside the folks who worked within this wing of the BB platform, for them, apologies.

Comments invited...

Z30, my first BB device, VERY HAPPY! Disclosure: I am a LONG investor.
pin# 334C7251

[Tim Heard]

The extent of my direct knowledge of Lenovo is that I really like their computers.

Having said that, there were plenty of articles that stated that Lenovo was serious, and I even saw an article
that mentioned an offering price, but the bottom line was that the Canadian government nixed the deal.

All of that could have been based on rumors, but this whole thread is an example of how people can make grand inferences
based on minimal evidence and create rumors.

Where is there evidence of Lenovo offering to buy the handset business or showing any desire to buy just handset? For that matter any evidence that Lenovo made ANY offers!

Lenovo talked with BlackBerry, maybe they kicked a few tires and looked over the books.... that was about it.

[Nine54]

http://forums.crackberry.com/news-ru...erryos-877917/

I don't generally start threads here, and I debated whether to start this one, especially given the topic, which I know isn't going to be received with open arms by many Crackberrians. Still, I think it needs to be said.

BB eliminated the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO) and Chief Operations Officer (COO) positions today. They didn't just fire the folks in those positions, they dissolved those positions. Think about that for a second: they no longer feel that Marketing and Operations divisions are important enough to be led by a C-suite-level position. How is that possible if they plan to continue to be in the hardware business? In my opinion, it isn't.

Instead, I see this as yet another strong piece of evidence that BB does not plan to be in the hardware business going forward, and in fact has ALREADY exited the market. Let's look at the reasons why I believe that is true:

• Massive losses in hardware, with nearly $2 billion in write-downs over the last couple of years, between the Playbook and the Z10.
• Continued bleeding of marketshare, and particularly low sales of BB10 devices (BBOS has outsold BB10 each quarter, by a wide margin).
• At the end of September, BB canceled its contract with the OEM manufacturer, Jabil Circuit, who actually made the BB handsets, leaving them without a manufacturing partner.
• John Chen's repeated statements about focusing on software and services going forward, and refusing to outright deny that BB was exiting the hardware business (it makes sense not to do so while they still have existing inventory to sell).
• And now, eliminating the CMO and COO positions entirely.

In the face of all of that evidence, I don't see how anyone can believe that hardware is in BB's (near) future.

I don't believe that BB is going to cease to exist, mind you. Rather, I see BB pretty quickly becoming a sub-1000-person software company (maybe closer to 500 employees, total), focusing on QNX, XBBM, and BES/MDM. It's also possible that one or more of these lines of business may be spun off into a separate company. Clearly, there is value in these areas and potential for profits, but BB's days as a company that makes billions in revenue and competes in the smartphone market are, IMO, clearly over, at least for the foreseeable future.

Could they jump back in 5 years down the road? Who knows? Maybe HTML6 (7? 8?) will have made native apps truly obsolete, and the smartphone OS world will be broken wide open again, with lots of new competition. For the current cycle, though, BB took WAY too long to take multi-touch, web, media, and app-enabled smartphones seriously, and by the time they made a real effort to get back into the game, it was too little and WAY too late. 95+% of the blame for that rests with Mike and Jim, without a doubt. Thorsten was obviously not the right guy for the CEO job, but to be fair, his task was nearly impossible to begin with, due to the situation Mike and Jim left him with.

I get that this is a BB fan site, and this post isn't going to be popular, but can anyone really say it's not realistic? Is there any real, substantial evidence that points in the other direction?

Interesting analysis; although I don't always agree with them, I enjoy reading your posts. Although it's not quite empirical, I think the only "evidence" suggesting BBRY might not completely exit hardware is basically the lack of concrete evidence supporting viable, software-only alternative business models. This is why I think the company was difficult to value and why the board struggled to find a buyer that didn't want to break it up.

Take the notion of BBRY being a MDM player. Sounds great on paper, but the irony is that the main reason BBRY is so good at MDM is because it makes both the hardware and software, and each has been designed with MDM in mind. Take BB hardware out of the picture and then compare BES/Fusion to the likes of Good, Mobile Iron, Citrix, etc. The playing field gets a lot more even when it comes to MDM of iOS and Android because developers are limited to the functionality exposed by the APIs and SDKs from Apple and Google. Sure, one solution does some things better than other solutions and vice-versa, but none of them are as good as BES paired with BB hardware. If Apple wanted to get serious about MDM, it could integrate it more deeply and then offer an MDM service itself.

One software-only possibility is if BBRY develops a hardened version of Android with Balance-like capabilities and strikes deals with OEMs like Samsung. Maybe BB10 sits at the bare-metal with Android running as a virtual machine of sorts, but right now, BB10 doesn't seem thin enough...maybe QNX can do it, though. Ironically, I think BBRY could have done this with a hybrid Android-BBOS platform where BBOS runs as a VM and is the "work" part of Balance.

Regarding BBM, I want to see the business plan for how this is monetized. The value prop of Channels as a new social platform and advertising vehicle is questionable, competition is stiff and fast-moving, and the market already is saturated with similar offerings that have yet to turn a profit. Everyone just says "advertising," but the platform must take off with users for that to be viable. And even then, it's not a guarantee. Basically, BlackBerry might just be too late to the party for this to be a compelling business.

QNX? Sure, there's still a business there, but it obviously wasn't enough for QNX to grow into a substantial software player on its own; the company was acquired twice. Maybe BBRY could go after the embedded space full-throttle, but there is a definite industry trend of software+hardware moving under the same roof. And where in the embedded space would it play? It currently doesn't have the ecosystem to compete in the high-end device space (smartphones, tablets, game consoles, etc.), but would be battling Cisco, F5, and others if it moves too far down the stack. So, it would be left to do battle with the various embedded Linux and BSD OSes for single-purpose devices that place a premium on up-time. Viable? Sure, but not very "sexy" and a complete waste of BlackBerry as a brand.

Bottom line: I'm not debating that there is evidence suggesting a future Blackberry that is less dependent on hardware for revenue growth. What I'm not seeing, though, is how the move away from hardware is being equally off-set by a greater move towards software and services. It hasn't acquired anyone of note, is still reducing headcount (vs. recruiting software engineers), and has not indicated a vastly different product strategy. xBBM and Fusion were old-regime ideas that didn't need a reformed, software-only BBRY to execute on--what's changed now?

[Bluenoser63]

You're absolutely correct. But I think you're forgetting one important fact. A BB10 handset is no better or worse than its competition in terms of architecture or security or email access.

So that leaves the Work sandbox as a differentiator. Which is good if you have the MDM market cornered. Which BlackBerry doesn't (it was late to that game too).

So, for BES10, BlackBerry makes the sandbox container support available for Android and iOS. Same as their competition.

That means they can offer an end-to-end solution to enterprizes for competing platforms. No BB10 device required for the security of which we speak.

Add to that BBM4ALL and you now have a cross-platform communication tool that just works without a competitor's backend (potentially eroding Lync, Facetime and Yammer). Hey, they're first to something now and have a real shot at making great inroads.

Solid plans. All of which don't require BB10 handsets - just BlackBerry software and services.

Is this the path forward? Who knows? But let's not kid ourselves and think they can't survive without handsets.

I think the OP is onto something. The lack of clear details on the handset front is troubling. No new device pipeline does make me feel like BB10 is the new PlayBook - it's obituary is obvious to everyone but won't be announced until 2-yr old stock is no longer in the warehouse.

Time will tell and I think we all hope we're wrong on this one.

Close, but it is much better to have the sandbox integral to the OS and not an app add on. You can better secure it that way.

[Bluenoser63]

I predict BlackBerry will forge ahead with hardware in the form of a BlackBerry Android phone. It'll feature Android 4.4, full out Google Play and Google apps. We're almost there already. It's something Mr. Chen hasn't ruled out.

Question is, will we see only a touch BlackBerry Android in 2014 or a qwerty model alongside it?

If that happens, I'm off to Windows phone.

[Bluenoser63]

Points I bolded within your quote:

1 - Agreed. The key is to correctly forecast market demand and make enough devices. In this scenario HW can be a small but profitable division for them. They can then slowly build back up. The Z10 write down was just poor forecasting on their part. Had they not made so many devices they would not have the write down to begin with. It seems they did not learn from the playbook fiasco.

2 - The big mistake was not making BES 10 backwards compatible with BBOS. This would have made the transition to BB10 easier. Now organizations are forced to go all in on BB10 and BES 10 and cannot slowly migrate without running old and new BES in parallel.

3 - In what way do you see it as a horrible business product? If BB10 is horrible then so is iOS and Android. and we know that they actually already have taken over via BYOD. Companies got smart. Instead offer to buy iPhones for their work force they have duped them into using their own. Genius. And organizational demand for BB10 is low due the need for a BES 10 installation as well as uncertainty over the future of the company.

2. We had BES 5 and BES 10 running side by side and managed with one console. So your statement is incorrect.

[Troy Tiscareno]

Troy - You have yet to respond to any of the counterpoints I made, especially regarding Blackberry handsets' unique role in high-level military/security ops. I take it that you have not thought out that aspect of the situation and what a complication it represents?

Sure I did. I said that BB has enough handsets in inventory to continue to sell them for more than a year at the current rate, and even that rate may not be sustainable, so the existing inventory could last quite a bit longer. Also, if you don't think the competition is going to take a big bite out of that market (actually, they already have), then you haven't been paying attention. Samsung's Knox even has their version of Balance, with a "corporate" and a "personal" partition, and Samsung is working hard to continue improving it. It's not like BB is the only player in that space. This isn't 2008 anymore.

[srzjumper]

Those that use the physical qwerty keyboards will have to have their BlackBerry's pried from their cold dead hands. In the US, in the middle class, house owning population, the physical keyboard BBs are still very popular, see them all the time. That is the only place I do see them however. But still, as long as these people are alive, they will not get them to switch to all touchscreen. I myself, loved the Pearl physical keyboard, but I am very satisfied with the Z10. The forces were so great against the Z10, coming from many sides, that you end up with the 1B+ write-down. I don't know what the future holds for BB handsets, but I know the last one's to go will be the physical qwerty ones, I don't doubt that.

[stabstabdie]

I haven't seen any evidence to refute them, which is why I formed the opinion that I did. I'm open to investigating evidence to the contrary.

You have said this twice in the first seven posts. So, counting the OP and the two posts you said this, there have been four responses.
Relax dude.
You go from saying "you're not proving me wrong" to "well this is just my opinion" , if it's your opinion, no one should have to prove you wrong, you've already decided.
Did you come for a discussion or did you come to try and look intelligent?

You keep using the CMO and COO positions to back you up.
You asked how many billion $ companies don't have these positions. How about you do some research and tell us which ones DO??? Seriously, put your time where your opinion is and get online and make us a list of the top 100 billion $ companies with the names of their COO and CMO.
How many of those companies have almost 4 billion in CASH? or and INTERIM CEO?

[Troy Tiscareno]

You keep using the CMO and COO positions to back you up.
You asked how many billion $ companies don't have these positions. How about you do some research and tell us which ones DO??? Seriously, put your time where your opinion is and get online and make us a list of the top 100 billion $ companies with the names of their COO and CMO.

It will be 100 out of 100. That's the point.

[Tim Heard]

I've worked in HR for a while. By the looks of you, my career started before you were born.
I say it won't be 100 out of 100. But I also say it doesn't matter. It's a huge leap to go from
2 leadership positions being eliminated to the conclusion that handset production is going
away.
That said, handset production *could* go away. ... It doesn't make sense to me though that
one is a predictor of the other. Let's see if he replaces C level positions with vice presidents,
of gives existing vice presidents some of the duties that they had.
My take on the COO issue is that the new CEO wants to be very involved in operational issues,
at least for the time being. So there may not be a need for someone to draw a C level salary
with corresponding stock options. Additionally, he may have specifically felt (likely did) that those
two individuals were specifically a hindrance to moving forward. In situations like that, it is far easier
to eliminate a position than to terminate an executive for performance issues.

It will be 100 out of 100. That's the point.

[Tim Heard]

LOL. Just found your profile online. Congrats on looking WAY younger than you are. :-D
(I'm a little older than you are, but not a lot.)

[Bluenoser63]

It will be 100 out of 100. That's the point.

And you say this without checking and think it is a fact. That is why you are wrong. You have done nothing by making assumptions and guesses.

[Troy Tiscareno]

If the CMO and COO eliminations were the only issues at hand, I'd agree with you: it wouldn't prove much of anything. But when you look at all of the other decisions that BB has made over the last couple of months, as I've discussed at length in this thread, then a pretty clear picture begins to emerge.

Do I have absolute proof? Of course not, and I never pretended to. Is there a preponderance of evidence? I think there is.

[stabstabdie]

It will be 100 out of 100. That's the point.

OK. Make the list then.

Usually when one makes an argument such as the one you are, it goes like this:
"I think blah because of facts x, y and z'
You have said this :
"I think blah based on my assumption. I'm right unless you can prove me wrong. "
In the academic world, one must assume something is false until proven true. You're taking a faith approach. It's true until proven false.

One is based on fact, the other not so much. I'll let you decide which has more value.

[Omnitech]

The fact that BBRY is eliminating the position of Chief Marketing Officer isn't evidence of any kind? Of any kind?? I mean, I understand if you think that there's a way forward for BBRY in the hardware business without a CMO or COO (understand in the sense that I understand there are folks who don't understand how corporations work, so you might believe that) but to claim that this is 'no evidence of any kind'...

As I posted earlier, EVERY company that makes a product has to market it. Has nothing to do with whether they are in the mass consumer electronics industry or not.

Eliminating the CMO position is no more evidence that they are exiting the handset market than they are:

1. Going out of business entirely
2. Starting a new line of cowboy boots
3. Changing the title of the person who handles marketing
4. Simply eliminating people hired by Heins to put his regime behind them
5. Etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Whatever the alleged "meaning", the financial markets seem to be responding positively to the move the past couple of days.

If for that reason alone, it might not have been such a bad idea.

[Omnitech]

By no measure I've seen - MSFT has BB10 beaten in every first world nation as far as I'm aware in terms of marketshare.

There was a discussion here recently about a credible survey that had shown the BB userbase was still ahead of Microsoft's in the USA.

Can't find it now unfortunately.

[stabstabdie]

If the CMO and COO eliminations were the only issues at hand, I'd agree with you: it wouldn't prove much of anything. But when you look at all of the other decisions that BB has made over the last couple of months, as I've discussed at length in this thread, then a pretty clear picture begins to emerge.

Do I have absolute proof? Of course not, and I never pretended to. Is there a preponderance of evidence? I think there is.

Not all of your points are accurate.
The manufacturer cut the ties, not blackberry AFAIK, not to mention your every company has a cmo and coo argument.

[cgk]

OK. Make the list then.

Usually when one makes an argument such as the one you are, it goes like this:
"I think blah because of facts x, y and z'
You have said this :
"I think blah based on my assumption. I'm right unless you can prove me wrong. "
In the academic world, one must assume something is false until proven true. You're taking a faith approach. It's true until proven false.

One is based on fact, the other not so much. I'll let you decide which has more value.

An academic notes: that's simply wrong and you are applying something from the natural sciences to all of the academy, the humanities and social sciences (including management theorists) don't have a lot of time for 'proven true' as conceptually it is an idea that doesn't make much sense - all we'd actually look at is does Troy provide decent support for his central thesis - now I'd say he does and you might say he doesn't but neither involve 'proof'.