09-12-16 05:24 AM
364 ... 56789 ...
tools
  1. conite's Avatar
    I know because of the responses I get from my Passport and the responses other people report here. People don't know the company still exists or its products from the last three years exist.
    How many of these people went running out to buy a Passport after you made them aware of it?

    Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746
    Coachbulldog likes this.
    07-23-16 08:58 PM
  2. markmall's Avatar
    How many of these people went running out to buy a Passport after you made them aware of it?

    Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746
    I think one guy did or said that he might. He was the only person that knew that it existed though. The other strangers approaching me know nothing about the smartphone whatsoever. If one person out of the 10 or 15 that have approached me about it actually bought one, that would be incredible return on marketing.

    Of course, I have no idea of knowing for certain whether anyone acted on this one exposure to the phone because these are not people that I know. These are people that say, "that is a really cool phone! What is it?"

    I say, "it is a blackberry."

    They say, "blackberry is still in business?"

    I say, "yes, their new operating system is awesome but they might stop making phones that run on it."

    They say, "Hmm. It's like a little computer."

    I say, "Yeah, it's awesome for emails and phone calls."

    This is how the conversation goes every time. These people will never hear of Blackberry (BB10 or Android) again.

    Anyone on this website that thinks anybody in the real world knows that blackberry exists or that BB 10 exists is delusional. These are facts. You cannot argue with facts. You can post links to Formula 1 stickers but you can't challenge my facts. Facts are facts. Done.
    07-23-16 09:07 PM
  3. conite's Avatar
    Anyone on this website that thinks anybody in the real world knows that blackberry exists or that BB 10 exists is delusional. These are facts. You cannot argue with facts. You can post links to Formula 1 stickers but you can't challenge my facts. Facts are facts. Done.
    Well, at least 80 million BlackBerry users knew BlackBerry existed in 2013/14, and that converted to very few sales. There was also a report that 45% of initial sales were from users of other platforms - so the message was apparently getting out.

    The BlackBerry "keep moving" ads were constantly on TV, and BlackBerry had a ton of print during that first year.

    Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746
    Dunt Dunt Dunt likes this.
    07-23-16 09:15 PM
  4. markmall's Avatar
    Well, at least 80 million BlackBerry users knew BlackBerry existed in 2013/14, and that converted to very few sales. There was also a report that 45% of initial sales were from users of other platforms - so the message was apparently getting out.

    The BlackBerry "keep moving" ads were constantly on TV, and BlackBerry had a ton of print during that first year.

    Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746
    80 million? You mean the user base that had BBOS phones? They have no idea BlackBerry exists today or in 2014. More importantly, they had and still have no idea bb10 existed.

    There were no ads. Maybe in Waterloo. There was a bad superbowl ad. No ads when OS was mature and premium devices were out.

    The media headlines about BlackBerry going out of business are what sticks in people's minds.

    These are the facts. You can't admit the facts, that is merely a sign of something I cannot speculate on.

    Posted via CB10
    07-23-16 09:24 PM
  5. conite's Avatar
    80 million? You mean the user base that had BBOS phones? They have no idea BlackBerry exists today or in 2014. More importantly, they had and still have no idea bb10 existed.

    Posted via CB10
    Every single BBOS user got repeated direct marketing from BlackBerry regarding the new BB10 devices.

    Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746
    Laura Knotek, TgeekB and JeepBB like this.
    07-23-16 09:33 PM
  6. markmall's Avatar
    Every single BBOS user got repeated direct marketing from BlackBerry regarding the new BB10 devices.

    Priv STV100-1 AAF518 / Q5SQR100-1/10.3.3.746
    In what form? A text message? A BBM message?

    I'm sure you have seen the iPhone ads. Or the "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC." What do you think is more effective, a spam message saying "BB10 coming out this fall!" or those Apple ads? Which one gives you a better idea Idea of what sort of experience you will have with an operating system?

    I am not saying that blackberry ever had a budget nearly as large as Apple's. I am just saying that sending spam messages on your smart phone is not necessarily effective.

    The stupid targeted banner ads that John Chen likes so much ("best bang for the buck") do not do anything, in my humble opinion.
    07-23-16 10:03 PM
  7. Invictus0's Avatar
    Anyone on this website that thinks anybody in the real world knows that blackberry exists or that BB 10 exists is delusional. These are facts. You cannot argue with facts. You can post links to Formula 1 stickers but you can't challenge my facts. Facts are facts. Done.
    These types of encounters aren't facts though, certainly not ones that we can corroborate in any meaningful way.

    What are facts and opinions?

    It's also a complete coincidence that the supporting image on the site is a BlackBerry device. :P
    07-23-16 11:42 PM
  8. markmall's Avatar
    These types of encounters aren't facts though, certainly not ones that we can corroborate in any meaningful way.

    What are facts and opinions?

    It's also a complete coincidence that the supporting image on the site is a BlackBerry device. :P
    I was making a point. We also cannot corroborate in any meaningful way that BB10 would not have succeeded had it been marketed more skillfully or even that Blackberry could not keep the OS alive with a new device today. These are all opinions.
    07-24-16 05:00 AM
  9. TgeekB's Avatar
    You can make Citizen Kane but if no one who likes good movies knows that the reels are sitting in your basement, you will not sell any tickets. No one that likes good tech knew that BB10 or the best devices existed.

    I know because of the responses I get from my Passport and the responses other people report here. People don't know the company still exists or its products from the last three years exist.

    These are facts. You can disagree with what I'm saying, but you will just be denying facts that are as plain as the words on your Android device.
    They are not facts, they are your interpretation of events.
    Look at the data. Look at where Blackberry sales had been heading before that. You can clearly see people had already turned away. You can also clearly see what was on the rise and had already taken over (Apple and Android). No amount of marketing (and there was marketing as others have pointed out) was going to change what was already occurring. It was too late. End of story.
    JeepBB likes this.
    07-24-16 06:22 AM
  10. TgeekB's Avatar
    Good. Tell that to Apple's marketing team. Tell them that their fans' loyalty is one of the heart. They will escort you from the building and say, "It is for every decent brand. This is why we listen to them and give them what they want."
    Apple and Android had already done that.
    07-24-16 06:24 AM
  11. Invictus0's Avatar
    I was making a point. We also cannot corroborate in any meaningful way that BB10 would not have succeeded had it been marketed more skillfully or even that Blackberry could not keep the OS alive with a new device today. These are all opinions.
    We have a lot of evidence to show that marketing simply isn't working, no matter what they try. Previous devices weren't selling in high enough numbers to help keep the OS alive so there's no reason to believe a new device with a smaller development team, old runtime, and fewer key apps than even 6 months ago would.

    At best, we can hope for 10.3.3/NIAP to renew interest in BB10 devices from certain industries which could help extend the life of the OS.
    07-24-16 09:44 AM
  12. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    I do not agree that at the time Chen was brought it that it was expressly to kill BB10 and they knew that they were going to kill BB 10. Look at the timing of his start as CEO and the release multiple BB10 devices. Chen released the Passport and was active in designing and marketing the Classic, Leap and the one named after Jakharta or some city in Indonesia.

    Chen was appointed executive chairman of the board and interim CEO of BlackBerry Ltd in November 2013.

    The BlackBerry Classic was unveiled in December 17, 2014 and it runs BlackBerry 10 operating system.
    When Google bought Motorola Mobility, there was an assumption by many that pure Android phones would start rolling out the door shortly after. Yet, month after month, for about 20 months, every device launched was clearly not a Google design, but rather a design from the previous regime. Finally, 20 months or so in, the Moto X was launched, followed by the Moto G and Moto E. Finally, the phones people were expecting.

    Why so long? Because smartphones aren't something you slap together overnight, but also because manufacturers have to make deals with carriers about 2 years in advance for products that haven't even been designed yet, based on technology that hasn't been finalized yet. The leadtime is normally quite long to work all of that out.

    Chen came into BB and killed all existing projects except the Passport, which was so far along, with custom parts already ordered, that it didn't make sense to kill it. He also claims that he contacted or met with a number of bigger enterprise customers who he said had asked for a more traditional BB form factor, which resulted in the Classic. And he authorized the Leap as a low/mid-grade all-touch to try to satisfy that demand. These decisions were probably made within 60 days or less of his arrival to the company.

    But, why build these new devices if he was planning to kill BB10? Simple: because he needed to keep the company rolling along while he built up the software side of the company, both via organic growth and via acquisitions, so that its revenue levels were high enough to sustain a large company like BB. Even if BB10 devices lost some money, they would generate revenue (money passing through the company and keeping employees working) and allow Chen the time to build the company he wanted BB to eventually be. The alternative would be to have killed the hardware division completely and overnight become a tiny company of 200 employees - and the paperwork alone for that kind of reduction could have killed the company. Such realignments aren't made overnight, so Chen did what he had to do to keep the overall company in as good a shape as possible while kicking the can down the road for a while.

    He eventually ended development of BB10 and transitioned to Android, hoping the lower costs would be enough to keep the handset business alive for a while longer until software revenues could be built up - with the hope of being able to sustain the handset business indefinitely, because they helped to sell BB software. It's still unclear whether that's going to be possible, but what can't be disputed is that Chen has gotten several additional years to build the software side of the company and grow software revenue. That was his primary goal, and he achieved it.
    07-24-16 03:19 PM
  13. markmall's Avatar
    When Google bought Motorola Mobility, there was an assumption by many that pure Android phones would start rolling out the door shortly after. Yet, month after month, for about 20 months, every device launched was clearly not a Google design, but rather a design from the previous regime. Finally, 20 months or so in, the Moto X was launched, followed by the Moto G and Moto E. Finally, the phones people were expecting.

    Why so long? Because smartphones aren't something you slap together overnight, but also because manufacturers have to make deals with carriers about 2 years in advance for products that haven't even been designed yet, based on technology that hasn't been finalized yet. The leadtime is normally quite long to work all of that out.

    Chen came into BB and killed all existing projects except the Passport, which was so far along, with custom parts already ordered, that it didn't make sense to kill it. He also claims that he contacted or met with a number of bigger enterprise customers who he said had asked for a more traditional BB form factor, which resulted in the Classic. And he authorized the Leap as a low/mid-grade all-touch to try to satisfy that demand. These decisions were probably made within 60 days or less of his arrival to the company.

    But, why build these new devices if he was planning to kill BB10? Simple: because he needed to keep the company rolling along while he built up the software side of the company, both via organic growth and via acquisitions, so that its revenue levels were high enough to sustain a large company like BB. Even if BB10 devices lost some money, they would generate revenue (money passing through the company and keeping employees working) and allow Chen the time to build the company he wanted BB to eventually be. The alternative would be to have killed the hardware division completely and overnight become a tiny company of 200 employees - and the paperwork alone for that kind of reduction could have killed the company. Such realignments aren't made overnight, so Chen did what he had to do to keep the overall company in as good a shape as possible while kicking the can down the road for a while.

    He eventually ended development of BB10 and transitioned to Android, hoping the lower costs would be enough to keep the handset business alive for a while longer until software revenues could be built up - with the hope of being able to sustain the handset business indefinitely, because they helped to sell BB software. It's still unclear whether that's going to be possible, but what can't be disputed is that Chen has gotten several additional years to build the software side of the company and grow software revenue. That was his primary goal, and he achieved it.
    This reads like a bible passage with Chen being your Moses. How is your Priv promised land so far?

    The following statement is repeated by another here and makes no sense: Chen had to continue BB10 devices even though he knew they would lose money "to keep the company going" or "to generate revenues." This shows a lack of understanding of corporate finance or is just a dishonest argument.
    07-24-16 04:30 PM
  14. conite's Avatar
    This reads like a bible passage with Chen being your Moses. How is your Priv promised land so far?

    The following statement is repeated by another here and makes no sense: Chen had to continue BB10 devices even though he knew they would lose money "to keep the company going" or "to generate revenues." This shows a lack of understanding of corporate finance or is just a dishonest argument.
    Makes perfect sense actually. BlackBerry needed to keep its toe in the enterprise space while the software ramped up.
    Dunt Dunt Dunt likes this.
    07-24-16 04:44 PM
  15. markmall's Avatar
    Makes perfect sense actually. BlackBerry needed to keep its toe in the enterprise space while the software ramped up.
    What about keeping revenues going or generating needed revenue by losing money on a product launch? Makes a lot of sense. Not.
    07-24-16 04:59 PM
  16. Troy Tiscareno's Avatar
    This reads like a bible passage with Chen being your Moses. How is your Priv promised land so far?
    Clearly you know me really well...

    The following statement is repeated by another here and makes no sense: Chen had to continue BB10 devices even though he knew they would lose money "to keep the company going" or "to generate revenues." This shows a lack of understanding of corporate finance or is just a dishonest argument.
    While I don't claim to be an expert on corporate finance, this stuff is really quite basic.

    BB, even today after all of their cuts, is a large company with about 4800 employees worldwide. They in fact have an office not too far from where I live, located in Pleasanton, CA, which is near where Chen lives as well. Companies of BB's size need to show that they have significant revenue (money moving through the company) or investors will panic and the stock will tank. Even if they are sustaining losses, it's pretty well understood by investors that companies with a lot of revenue can usually figure out ways to extract a profit from that revenue sooner or later.

    If you lose your revenue, though, it becomes significantly harder to make a profit and pay back loans and shareholders.

    Example: A company with $1B in annual revenue only makes 2% profit ($20M in profit per year). They want to increase their profit margin, and so they implement a program to raise profit margins to 10%. At the end of the next year, they achieve their goal of 10% profit margins - but their revenues dropped to 5% if their previous revenues ($50M/year), so even though they are profiting 10%, the company is now only making $5M per year when they were making $20M last year.

    In BB's case, the bulk of BB's revenue has come from the handset business. Chen has managed inventory and risk to the point where, though they aren't making profits, their losses on the handset business are fairly small, while previously they were huge. This shows a trend of improvement that demonstrates to investors that some minor further adjustments could bring the handset business into break-even (and this isn't counting the side effect of helping to sell software), or even a small profit. The alternative would have been to shut the whole business down and see the revenues drop by 50-60% almost overnight. BB would have to get rid of a bunch more staff, and lose the potential to do many related areas of business that they might be able to do today due to having paid staff that know hardware, engineering, and design.

    I don't think BB's handset business is ever going to be a big profit center ever again, but they could hover around break-even, and the fact that they exist could (and almost certainly will) help BB sell much more profitable software, and could also give BB a jumping off point to develop some other non-smartphone piece of hardware that turns a decent profit for the company. I'm pretty sure that's what Chen and the Board are working towards and hoping for - and it's a very reasonable, grounded position. And if it doesn't work out and they do have to close the handset business, well, they've already scaled it way, way down by contracting out most of the work, which means the transition will be relatively minor compared to how things were in 2014.
    HighFlight88 and JeepBB like this.
    07-24-16 05:25 PM
  17. markmall's Avatar
    Clearly you know me really well...



    While I don't claim to be an expert on corporate finance, this stuff is really quite basic.

    BB, even today after all of their cuts, is a large company with about 4800 employees worldwide. They in fact have an office not too far from where I live, located in Pleasanton, CA, which is near where Chen lives as well. Companies of BB's size need to show that they have significant revenue (money moving through the company) or investors will panic and the stock will tank. Even if they are sustaining losses, it's pretty well understood by investors that companies with a lot of revenue can usually figure out ways to extract a profit from that revenue sooner or later.

    If you lose your revenue, though, it becomes significantly harder to make a profit and pay back loans and shareholders.

    Example: A company with $1B in annual revenue only makes 2% profit ($20M in profit per year). They want to increase their profit margin, and so they implement a program to raise profit margins to 10%. At the end of the next year, they achieve their goal of 10% profit margins - but their revenues dropped to 5% if their previous revenues ($50M/year), so even though they are profiting 10%, the company is now only making $5M per year when they were making $20M last year.

    In BB's case, the bulk of BB's revenue has come from the handset business. Chen has managed inventory and risk to the point where, though they aren't making profits, their losses on the handset business are fairly small, while previously they were huge. This shows a trend of improvement that demonstrates to investors that some minor further adjustments could bring the handset business into break-even (and this isn't counting the side effect of helping to sell software), or even a small profit. The alternative would have been to shut the whole business down and see the revenues drop by 50-60% almost overnight. BB would have to get rid of a bunch more staff, and lose the potential to do many related areas of business that they might be able to do today due to having paid staff that know hardware, engineering, and design.

    I don't think BB's handset business is ever going to be a big profit center ever again, but they could hover around break-even, and the fact that they exist could (and almost certainly will) help BB sell much more profitable software, and could also give BB a jumping off point to develop some other non-smartphone piece of hardware that turns a decent profit for the company. I'm pretty sure that's what Chen and the Board are working towards and hoping for - and it's a very reasonable, grounded position. And if it doesn't work out and they do have to close the handset business, well, they've already scaled it way, way down by contracting out most of the work, which means the transition will be relatively minor compared to how things were in 2014.
    I confess I could not read this whole thing, but I think I get part of what you are saying. In order to make it appear that your business has not fallen off a cliff without any escape plan, keep money losing ventures going past the point when it makes business sense to do so. This way, you will fool the Wall Street analysts and keep your stock from tanking.

    Maybe this passes for business strategy in Silicon Valley (which is in the midst of a tech bubble twice the size of the last) but this really make no sense.

    This means that to keep in the good (or not so good) graces of Wall Street, Chen had to intentionally lose money on product launches just so the top line of the income statement would not be any uglier. Chen knew that the top line would get ugly anyway if he did not figure out an escape from BB10, but he figured he could delay it by a year or two.

    This sounds duplicitous to me. It certainly does not make business sense unless your goal is to deceive investors and shareholders. Throwing money away to keep the stock price up temporarily is a breach of duty by a CEO.
    07-24-16 07:13 PM
  18. tre10's Avatar
    I confess I could not read this whole thing, but I think I get part of what you are saying. In order to make it appear that your business has not fallen off a cliff without any escape plan, keep money losing ventures going past the point when it makes business sense to do so. This way, you will fool the Wall Street analysts and keep your stock from tanking.

    Maybe this passes for business strategy in Silicon Valley (which is in the midst of a tech bubble twice the size of the last) but this really make no sense.

    This means that to keep in the good (or not so good) graces of Wall Street, Chen had to intentionally lose money on product launches just so the top line of the income statement would not be any uglier. Chen knew that the top line would get ugly anyway if he did not figure out an escape from BB10, but he figured he could delay it by a year or two.

    This sounds duplicitous to me. It certainly does not make business sense unless your goal is to deceive investors and shareholders. Throwing money away to keep the stock price up temporarily is a breach of duty by a CEO.
    That sounds about right. It's technically not throwing money away since money is made on handsets just not a profit. Investors basically look at it as they have money to come up with something that will make a profit. It's simply the gamble investors take everyday. Totally legal though
    07-24-16 07:41 PM
  19. markmall's Avatar
    That sounds about right. It's technically not throwing money away since money is made on handsets just not a profit. Investors basically look at it as they have money to come up with something that will make a profit. It's simply the gamble investors take everyday. Totally legal though
    Losing money should never be the goal of a business. This churning to make the top line (revenue) look better than it really is. First of all, there is no way that Chen was trying to do this. He thought that his BB10 releases might succeed and, of course, he wanted them to. Secondly, no one but a crook would try to do this. This is how CEOs get sued in shareholder class actions.
    07-24-16 07:51 PM
  20. tre10's Avatar
    Losing money should never be the goal of a business. This churning to make the top line (revenue) look better than it really is. First of all, there is no way that Chen was trying to do this. He thought that his BB10 releases might succeed and, of course, he wanted them to. Secondly, no one but a crook would try to do this. This is how CEOs get sued in shareholder class actions.
    I never said it was the goal. It's simply the method used to stretch out the time needed to pivot the company. When you answer to investors you do what gets them that EPS. That doesn't necessarily coincide with what people here want.
    07-24-16 08:13 PM
  21. markmall's Avatar
    I never said it was the goal. It's simply the method used to stretch out the time needed to pivot the company. When you answer to investors you do what gets them that EPS. That doesn't necessarily coincide with what people here want.
    Increasing the revenue to lose money decreases EPS. No investors want that. What Troy was saying, I believe, is that Chen needed to provide the illusion of a stable business in order to keep the share price from collapsing in the short term. No CEO would admit to this. This would be unethical, at a minimum.

    Also, I do not understand how you can say that this was not "the goal" while at same time say it was "the method" to reach a particular objective.

    I think you guys are being way too charitable to this management team.
    07-24-16 08:24 PM
  22. tre10's Avatar
    Increasing the revenue to lose money decreases EPS. No investors want that. What Troy was saying, I believe, is that Chen needed to provide the illusion of a stable business in order to keep the share price from collapsing in the short term. No CEO would admit to this. This would be unethical, at a minimum.

    Also, I do not understand how you can say that this was not "the goal" while at same time say it was "the method" to reach a particular objective.

    I think you guys are being way too charitable to this management team.
    That's what I understood as well. It's smoke and mirrors it's seems. Not ideally what you want to have to do as a CEO but it keeps the share price above $3. Chen's primary duty is to make sure Fairfax and the other shareholders get there money back. I concede that hasn't gone well lately though.
    07-24-16 08:28 PM
  23. curves2000's Avatar
    What Troy is trying to illustrate is despite the fact that technically BlackBerry hasn't made a profit after calculating interest, taxes and amortization for quite some. The company due to a lower cost structure and revenue coming in is able to survive.

    Although this isn't the same example think about your personal finances. An example would be your employer running into a tough business environment and needing to cut your salary 15%. You have less cash flow to pay your fixed and variable costs which may lead to you going into debt to pay for items you may have been able to pay for in cash before.

    Option 1: continue to pay your expenses with your reduced salary for the foreseeable future with the hope you can cut your costs in different areas of your life. You may still be racking up the credit card but at least with your income you can pay most of your expenses to a certain point.

    Option 2: Say screw this company, I am now quitting and looking for something else. You completely shut down your income source while your costs and payments still need to be made. Your out there looking for work but remember the environment is tough. Given the fact that you have zero income, how long will it be before you rapidly run out of cash on hand while pay your existing bills? Option #1 is at least a little longer time wise. Most north Americans live pay check to pay check so the cash runs out quite quick with our high costs and payments.

    Like I said, it's not the same example but al illustration too. John Chen couldn't shut down the entire hardware business and leave millions of corporate and government clients holding worthless BlackBerry phones with no replacement services. If they did that, how on earth would anybody trust them to buy software services?

    Long post I know but with the hardware division scheduled to start making money again, it's been a long way. If these devices are somewhat successful than they will at least be able to turn a small profit and keep hardware going. If not then John Chen will have tried every single thing possible to keep it alive but to no avail. Good luck BlackBerry!

    Posted via CB10
    Troy Tiscareno and Gallofa like this.
    07-24-16 08:30 PM
  24. markmall's Avatar
    That's what I understood as well. It's smoke and mirrors it's seems. Not ideally what you want to have to do as a CEO but it keeps the share price above $3. Chen's primary duty is to make sure Fairfax and the other shareholders get there money back. I concede that hasn't gone well lately though.
    I think that is a misperception. Fairfax and co. are still largely creditors. Chen's first duty is to the shareholders. He can't cheat the creditors, but his primary duty is to the owners of the company -- the shareholders.

    Maybe in reality he is serving Prem, but he should be focused on everyone that owns shares.
    07-24-16 10:32 PM
  25. markmall's Avatar
    What Troy is trying to illustrate is despite the fact that technically BlackBerry hasn't made a profit after calculating interest, taxes and amortization for quite some. The company due to a lower cost structure and revenue coming in is able to survive.

    Although this isn't the same example think about your personal finances. An example would be your employer running into a tough business environment and needing to cut your salary 15%. You have less cash flow to pay your fixed and variable costs which may lead to you going into debt to pay for items you may have been able to pay for in cash before.

    Option 1: continue to pay your expenses with your reduced salary for the foreseeable future with the hope you can cut your costs in different areas of your life. You may still be racking up the credit card but at least with your income you can pay most of your expenses to a certain point.

    Option 2: Say screw this company, I am now quitting and looking for something else. You completely shut down your income source while your costs and payments still need to be made. Your out there looking for work but remember the environment is tough. Given the fact that you have zero income, how long will it be before you rapidly run out of cash on hand while pay your existing bills? Option #1 is at least a little longer time wise. Most north Americans live pay check to pay check so the cash runs out quite quick with our high costs and payments.

    Like I said, it's not the same example but al illustration too. John Chen couldn't shut down the entire hardware business and leave millions of corporate and government clients holding worthless BlackBerry phones with no replacement services. If they did that, how on earth would anybody trust them to buy software services?

    Long post I know but with the hardware division scheduled to start making money again, it's been a long way. If these devices are somewhat successful than they will at least be able to turn a small profit and keep hardware going. If not then John Chen will have tried every single thing possible to keep it alive but to no avail. Good luck BlackBerry!

    Posted via CB10
    Not a good analogy. Chen was not making less money with his BB10 phones. He was making no money. He was losing money. It's not like a salary cut.

    Only way this works is if Foxcon (for some of the Chen BB10 devices) put up all the money to design and build the phone, advance all the money for the inventory and then BB got to keep the revenue and somehow not realize any of the losses from poor sales until later. I don't think the risk was shifted this much, and, if so, I don't think we have that information.
    07-24-16 10:37 PM
364 ... 56789 ...

Similar Threads

  1. What the future have Blackberry OS ? and what sense to buy a passport today?
    By Levan Kakiashvili in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 07-18-16, 12:16 AM
  2. Replies: 70
    Last Post: 07-16-16, 02:59 PM
  3. How can I change the SMS tone on my Passport?
    By doublecherry in forum BlackBerry Passport
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-12-16, 11:53 PM
  4. Why won't my BB Classic ring or notify me of a text message?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum BlackBerry Classic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-12-16, 05:21 AM
  5. Does anyone know which Iogo tip will work with the BlackBerry Classic Q20?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-11-16, 02:58 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD