11-07-11 01:01 AM
31 12
  1. Economist101's Avatar
    Lest we all forget, the worlds most valuable (or second most cant keep up) company was near bankruptcy as well and turned it around. RIM needs radical change, but that doesnt necessarily mean new CEOs.
    When Apple was in that trouble, they fired their CEO and hired Steve Jobs, so in Apple's case, it did mean a new CEO. In other words, not the best comparison to offer in support of the "radical change doesn't mean new CEO" argument.

    The Rise and Fall of Gil Amelio at Apple
    11-03-11 10:50 PM
  2. twelvezero8's Avatar
    i just have to agree... something is not right at the top. you always start at the top.
    11-06-11 10:32 PM
  3. tchocky77's Avatar
    Not taking Apple seriously as a competitor in the beginning, and then allowing them to run away with almost all your business proves that the game has changed to the point that Ballsille and Lazardis no longer recognize it and aren't competent to play. Since I began paying attention to RIM back in June when I bought (and returned) a playbook, it's been one fiasco after another. They should have been fired long ago. I don't think it matters now. RIM is beyond saving.
    mustangv8 likes this.
    11-06-11 11:02 PM
  4. southlander's Avatar
    Possibly, at least one of the CEO's might have to go in the short term. But as for the stock market's wisdom about future prospects of a company. In 2008, it looks like RIM's share price was what $140? I'd say the market was a bit off in that vote of confidence. I mean if the author is saying the current low price is a no confidence vote, I would have to argue a very high share price is a vote of confidence.
    Last edited by southlander; 11-07-11 at 12:49 AM.
    11-07-11 12:47 AM
  5. mustangv8's Avatar
    They needed to go a year ago. When rimm had two disappointing quarters in a row and lowered guidance, and not to mention the huge flop with the playbook that put all handheld owners behind in our waiting for a new phone.
    11-07-11 12:57 AM
  6. mustangv8's Avatar
    First, yes, RIM can become the world's most valuable company by the end of December. Anything is possible. What is likely is an entirely different matter altogether.

    Secondly, RIM has three main assets right now. Their name, their patents, and their security apparatus. They can't monetize the last two, and have failed to capitalize on their name.

    If the people aren't the issue, and the products aren't the issue, what and/or who is?

    Lets be honest, RIM has been a two trick pony. They put e-mail on a mobile phone (and revolutionized the technology world by doing so) and they created BBM. After that, they've not only missed the boat, but they've been adamant the boat was leaving at a different time from a different place. They deemed cameras on phones worthless, they laughed at the idea of apps, they thought that the iPhone was successful simply because it had a touchscreen and they thought the iPad was successful simply because it's a tablet.

    If Mike and Jim hadn't been and weren't so stubborn, and if they hadn't been and weren't so defensive, RIM would probably be a bigger company right now than Google or Apple. They have, however, missed opportunity after opportunity for years now (both hardware and software wise, consumers and corporate users).

    I am squarely in the camp that believes that the only way that RIM can turn things around is if the culture of complacency and the defensive attitude are purged from the company. And, the two most complacent and defensive people within that company are Mike and Jim. They have shown us absolutely nothing technology wise over the last 5 years that should make us think otherwise. They have shown us absolutely nothing as a company over the last 5 years that should make us think otherwise.
    Funny, look at the market cap of aapl and rimm. It's funny how people that no nothing about the stock market can make posts like this. While the shorts laugh all way to the bank.
    11-07-11 01:01 AM
31 12