BlackBerry's CFO, CMO, and COO Leave Company

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BlackBerry's CFO, CMO, and COO Leave Company

Posted by ryuzaki0 on Monday November 25, 2013 @04:12AM from the jumping-ship dept.

cagraham writes "In a pretty major executive shakeup, BlackBerry's Chief Financial Officer, Chief Marketing Officer, and Chief Operating Officer have all left the company. It's unclear whether the changes were brought about by new interim-CEO John Chen in order to facilitate company change, or represent an abandon-ship style exit after BlackBerry's failed bid to go private. The company announced that the CFO position would be filled by current SVP James Yersch, but gave no word on the other vacancies."

159 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:15 · Score: 5, Funny

That's three more rim jobs available.
1. Re:Yes! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-11-25 04:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Oh no, don't tell me you're another of them market analists...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
2. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Oh no, don't tell me you're another of them market analists...
  Well, these executives really wrecked'um!
3. Re:Yes! by TWiTfan · 2013-11-25 04:53 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It was bound to happen in the end.
  
  --
  The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
4. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  I think the more relevant question is: What's a BlackBerry? Is it some Apple knock-off brand?
5. Re:Yes! by Steve_Ussler · 2013-11-25 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  They are now known as BlackBerry, not RIM. But that is the least of their problems.
6. Re:Yes! by wbr1 · 2013-11-25 05:29 · Score: 1
  
  I won't turn a brown eye to this. Sphincter.
  
  --
  Silence is a state of mime.
7. Re:Yes! by purpledinoz · 2013-11-25 09:14 · Score: 1
  
  Phew, Alicia Keys is still the Global Creative Director!
8. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 13:26 · Score: 0
  
  Well, people are commenting about rimming and Jobs, so that does sound a lot like Apple.
9. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 13:30 · Score: 0
  
  Leave Steve out of this, he's already been reincarnated as a depressed iPhone assembler on a Foxconn production line.
  Twice!
Don't worry for them by bob_super · 2013-11-25 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

They shipped themselves out with the full security and convenience of cryptic golden parachutes.
1. Re:Don't worry for them by Dr.+Evil · 2013-11-25 04:31 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Those golden parachutes are needed to encourage top talent. A reward for a job well done.
2. Re:Don't worry for them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Indeed. Who in their right mind would accept a job with a 7 figure salary without the guarantee of financial stability for the remainder of your natural life?
3. Re:Don't worry for them by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:40 · Score: 0
  
  They shipped themselves out with the full security and convenience of cryptic golden parachutes.
  Excellent, soon there will be more citizens for Googles government database. Those Blackberry users are all terrorists.
4. Re:Don't worry for them by SpaceLemur · 2013-11-25 04:52 · Score: 2
  
  The problem is how many get them even when they've proven they're not top talent, and haven't done a job well.
5. Re:Don't worry for them by alexander_686 · 2013-11-25 05:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I know you are trying to be funny, but you are half-right.
  It is not to attract high level talent, it is kick them out. If I am a high level executive and I have a choice – quite my job for the benefit or the firm or fight to keep my job (which means being a distraction, promoting infighting, etc.) I am going to choose to fight for my job.
  Unless, of course, I have a golden parachute. Parachutes tend to be less lucrative then having a job but they can be used to ease people out of their positions.
6. Re:Don't worry for them by Minwee · 2013-11-25 05:42 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Perhaps you just misunderstand what the job that they have done well is.
7. Re:Don't worry for them by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:16 · Score: 2
  
  Sounds like another clause to go in potential "maximum wage ratio" legislation. If the company uses "at-will" employment for it's normal employees, then it would be at-will for execs too.
8. Re:Don't worry for them by alexander_686 · 2013-11-25 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well, most execs are employed at will – so no change there. The issue that golden parachutes are supposed to fix is that the person who can fire the executive at will is that executive. Who is going to fire themselves?
  Most of the time it is not that bad, but in almost all cases there is a complex (and I would say incestuous) relationship between the executive and the person doing the firing. In most cases the person who would fire the executive was hired by that executive.
9. Re:Don't worry for them by ceoyoyo · 2013-11-25 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  That's why there are boards of directors and shareholders. It doesn't have to be incestuous.
10. Re:Don't worry for them by alexander_686 · 2013-11-25 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Your right, it does not have to be and in the case of strong boards it’s not.
  However, when shareholdings are defuse it is the current board who nominates who will be their replacements, and can be influenced by the CEO. Thus the current board tends to be captured by current management. It’s particularly bad when the same person is the CEO and chairmen of the board or when the board is packed with insiders. They like to choose docile people.
  You might even have issues with a strong board. Often there are close personal ties between the CEO and the board. It is human nature to be influenced by lobbying and politicking.
11. Re:Don't worry for them by ceoyoyo · 2013-11-25 12:16 · Score: 1
  
  Which is a strong argument in favour of externally mandated checks and balances. The chief executives cannot be board members, the board must be elected by direct shareholder vote, executive salary caps, uniform company severance packages, etc.
  When corporations were fairly small and their success or failure wasn't much more important than a spectator sport freewheeling corporate crap was fine. With companies that are so important that they are too big to fail, making or breaking entire national (or international) economies, that's not acceptable.
12. Re:Don't worry for them by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:36 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't think it is acceptable, buy stock and change it. But don't ask for legislated change, that's entirely the wrong way to change. You think you, the 99% can''t do this? :^)
13. Re:Don't worry for them by ceoyoyo · 2013-11-27 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, I'm not an extreme capitalist (nor an American, where lots of the extreme capitalists live). Business exists to serve the people, and the people have both the right and the responsibility to regulate it, particularly when, in the absence of that regulation, the behaviour of business becomes detrimental. Particularly when that business becomes large enough that it exerts significant control on the market.
  Switzerland is on the right track.
  And by the way, I own stock in several companies, and I vote it.
So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:24 · Score: 1

And now that they have made all the money and killed the company. The rats are leaving the ship.
1. Re:So long by Captain+Splendid · 2013-11-25 04:35 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
2. Re:So long by symbolset · 2013-11-25 04:43 · Score: 1
  
  Well here you see the job creators rewarded for making things better than they might have been. They could have adopted Windows Phone.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
3. Re:So long by 0123456 · 2013-11-25 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  If RIM was a government department, they'd just have raised taxes to cover their losses, and told everyone how much better they'd do their job if only they were paid more.
  When was the last time a government kicked out most or all those at the top of a failing department, rather than throw more money at them?
4. Re:So long by operagost · 2013-11-25 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody explain to me how the fact that one company is failing somehow tells us that government should run everything?
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
5. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  See healthcare.gov for a spectacular demonstration of just how efficient government is.
6. Re:So long by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  one word: healthcare.gov
7. Re:So long by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 04:58 · Score: 0
  
  2008?
8. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:59 · Score: 0
  
  Because if RIM were run by the government the original founders would still be running the show and Blackberries would never have been more than fancy pagers while the government would paying $1,000 a pager for all government employees using taxpayer money. This started as a joke, but I'm serious. This is what the U.S. government is doing now in multitudes of out-dated programs it still runs -- wasting literally hundreds of billions of dollars every year -- waste and fraud that is well documented.
9. Re:So long by Captain+Splendid · 2013-11-25 05:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Way to twist my argument. It's just gospel these days that there's nothing government can do that private enterprise can't do better.
  
  Except that, if you'd been paying attention, it seems that plenty of businesses, big and small, fuck up spectacularly and/or go down in blaze of glory (or whimper of acquisition).
  
  So it seems to me that large, goal-oriented groups all have an equal chance of failure, whether there's a profit motive or not.
  
  Yet, the mantra still is "Private enterprise is better than public." Wonder why that is.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
10. Re:So long by H0p313ss · 2013-11-25 05:14 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  one word: healthcare.gov
  Created by private enterprise on contract.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
11. Re:So long by KiloByte · 2013-11-25 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  Neither Bush nor Obama got kicked out, both got re-elected despite their achievements.
  And while Bush managed to get the prestigious place as the worst president in US history so far, Obama proven that yes, he can, and topped out Bush taking this precious spot from him. That's about it about either faction of the NeoCon party being any better than the other.
  
  --
  The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
12. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:14 · Score: 0
  
  > Yet, the mantra still is "Private enterprise is better than public."
  The main difference are that when private enterprise raises money, the investment is voluntary, and when a private enterprise fails, they go away.
13. Re:So long by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  funded by taxpayer dollars, with no accountability
14. Re:So long by Jason+Levine · 2013-11-25 05:31 · Score: 2
  
  Windows Phone is doing better than Blackberry at the moment. And given how Windows Phone is barely clinging to a fraction of marketshare, that's saying something. Blackberry is so bad at this point that a switch to Windows Phone would be an improvement!
  
  --
  My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
15. Re:So long by LordLimecat · 2013-11-25 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because we're not on the hook to keep RIM on lifesupport. They screwed up, they disappear, and taxpayer dollars arent lost in the process.
  Imagine if RIM were a government-run agency.
16. Re:So long by LordLimecat · 2013-11-25 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  Wrong. The mantra is that no matter how bad you think things can get with private business, Government can do it worse.
17. Re:So long by LordLimecat · 2013-11-25 05:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Managed by government agency, to a spectacular result: Noone is to blame, noone knows why, and noone is getting fired. Hooray!
18. Re:So long by MightyMartian · 2013-11-25 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  Governments are not businesses.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
19. Re:So long by ewieling · 2013-11-25 05:41 · Score: 1
  
  Here are some counter words: EPA, FDA, FTC. For every high profile failure of a government project or government agency there are dozens of government agencies which quietly do a very good job. The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.
  
  --
  I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.
20. Re:So long by 0123456 · 2013-11-25 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Governments are not businesses.
  If they were, most of them would have had to declare bankruptcy long ago.
21. Re:So long by 0123456 · 2013-11-25 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  The solution to high profile failure of governmental projects is to fire the people responsible, find out what went wrong, make sure it doesn't go wrong again, and hire people who can get the job done right. Much like private companies. The solution is not to preach that government always does a worse job than free enterprise.
  And when did that last happen?
22. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  FDA
  The agency that is butthurt over nicotine vaporization devices, despite a proven track record of assisting people in quitting cigarettes and widespread endorsement by the medical community? All while our food (you might recognize the F part of FDA) continues to kill us?
  
  FTC
  I don't even. This is Slashdot. And you're trying to bring up the FTC as a beacon of government competence.
  1/10, would not hire to troll again.
23. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:01 · Score: 0
  
  Similar to how the banks and other companies that screwed up disappeared. Er ah... I mean got bailed out by tax payer dollars.
24. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Indirectly anyone that has RIM in their investments directly/indirectly via mutual/retirement funds/plans would suffer for their failure (and the company that manage the funds). Seeing that Canadians are force to maintain a "Canadian Content" on their RRSP (aka 401 for people in the US) and that there are very few tech companies in Canada left these days, so they are bound to have some investments in RIM.
25. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  And if horses were cows, they'd not be very good milkers.
  It's a government's job to provide many things that citizens need, but that wouldn't be done well by private enterprise. Including those things that are not profitable.
26. Re:So long by gregor-e · 2013-11-25 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  Government measures success by whether a candidate is more or less re-electable. So the product of government is a series of 'positions' their candidate appears to adopt to communicate their feelings about an issue that polls have shown is dear to the hearts of their electorate, thereby increasing their re-electability.
  
  Business measures success by whether the owners of the company are buying or selling more or fewer shares of the company. When more people wish to be owners than sellers, the share price rises and the management of the company is free to reward themselves lavishly. When fewer people wish to be owners, the management of the company plays musical chairs and the loser must make do with exercising a pile of options to become, briefly, much more prominent owners of the company themselves.
  
  Neither power structure is optimized for creation of overall human happiness.
27. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  And clearly, by looking at all the spectacular ways companies go out of business every day, typically screwing over their creditors, your amended mantra is also false.
28. Re:So long by NatasRevol · 2013-11-25 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean posted their national debts.
  
  --
  There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
29. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:28 · Score: 1
  
  You believe that private enterprise funded websites aren't created in a fucked up way, every single day?
  The difference is that it's big news when government does it. When private enterprise does it it's mostly unnoticed by those outside the company.
30. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:31 · Score: 0
  
  And you'd complain even more if they tried to move to newer, more modern things which have significant costs & risks to make those moves.
  See healthcare.gov.
31. Re:So long by 0123456 · 2013-11-25 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  Similar to how the banks and other companies that screwed up disappeared. Er ah... I mean got bailed out by tax payer dollars.
  And who bailed them out?
  Ah, the government that's apparently so wonderfully good at running everything.
32. Re:So long by 0123456 · 2013-11-25 06:33 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that it's big news when government does it. When private enterprise does it it's mostly unnoticed by those outside the company.
  The difference is, the government takes money from taxpayers to build those sites. When private enterprise builds a crappy web site, it's their employees and shareholders who pay. Which is why the rest of us don't notice or care.
33. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:34 · Score: 1
  
  Because we're not on the hook to keep RIM on lifesupport. They screwed up, they disappear, and taxpayer dollars arent lost in the process.
  Imagine if RIM were a government-run agency.
  Imagine if RIM were a privately owned bank. Too big to fail anyone?
  And don't forget that typically when companies go bankrupt plenty of people ARE on the hook and hurt. All the employees and all the creditors.
34. Re:So long by 0123456 · 2013-11-25 06:37 · Score: 1
  
  Imagine if RIM were a privately owned bank. Too big to fail anyone?
  Again, the government bailed out the banks. How is this supposed to prove that government does things better than private businesses?
  In any sane world, the banks would have gone bankrupt and been bought up by people who knew how to run a business so it doesn't fail. But your beloved government instead took vast amounts of taxpayers' money and threw it at them so the failures who previosly ran them could stay in their jobs.
  
  And don't forget that typically when companies go bankrupt plenty of people ARE on the hook and hurt. All the employees and all the creditors.
  That's why the smart ones leave when they realise the company is going down.
35. Re:So long by Dragonslicer · 2013-11-25 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  one word: healthcare.gov
  Two letters: EA
36. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now, you would have blamed that on the government too.
  I'm a bit like that. Blame the wife for everything.
37. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is, the government takes money from taxpayers to build those sites. When private enterprise builds a crappy web site, it's their employees and shareholders who pay.
  
  1) ... and their customers, who get poor service.
  2) So the difference ISN"T that private enterprise is better. Just that it's smaller.
  3) So you're not an employee or a shareholder? Most people are.
38. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 06:45 · Score: 1
  
  Again, the government bailed out the banks. How is this supposed to prove that government does things better than private businesses?
  Again, if the government hadn't bailed out the banks, you'd be blaming whatever economic crisis resulted on the government. Blame them either way.
  
  That's why the smart ones leave when they realise the company is going down.
  And you're not smart enough to leave the country?
39. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:46 · Score: 0
  
  I think you are at least aware of the point then. Nothing I said states the government does a better job. However, those that feel like businesses are better because we don't have to support their failures don't realize it's an illusion at best and a lie at worst.
  Turns out that corporations are so far in bed with the government that we get to subsidize their risks! Hurray! So to answer the original post in this chain. They aren't any better or more efficient. It's a pretty convenient story to get people riled up though.
40. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  and who actually did that coding? awww yeahhhh....
41. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now, you would have blamed that on the government too.
  Au contraire. If the US banks, for instance, had not been bailed out the economy would have rebooted itself in the same manner as a malware infested computer system can be rebooted and rid itself of the malware in the process of installing the operating system and trusted applications afresh. Yes, your wife is definitely to blame for the economic crisis of two thousand and eight.
42. Re:So long by symbolset · 2013-11-25 06:55 · Score: 0
  
  If you look at the partner ecosystem Windows Phone launched with you can see they are selling fewer units than ever - roughly none. They have grown their market to zero units. The only thing keeping Windows Phone above 3% is the infusion of and drawdown of rabid Nokia fanatics, which has also destroyed Nokia. That process is now nearly complete and Windows Phone will vanish from view shortly as the more you like Nokia's legacy the less you like Microsoft today.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
43. Re:So long by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  yeah but if you're a customer of a sh!tty company you can just switch to a different company. similarly if you own sh!tty stock you can sell and buy different stock. what am I supposed to do when the US govt is sh!tty? move to a different country?
44. Re:So long by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-11-25 07:15 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  The main difference are that when private enterprise raises money, the investment is voluntary, and when a private enterprise fails, they go away.
  Life is harsh in the private sector. A moment of silence, please, for the following companies that failed and are presumably no longer in business:
  General Motors
  AIG
  Bank of America
  Citigroup
  JPMorgan Chase
  Wells Fargo
  Chrysler
  Goldman Sachs
  Morgan Stanley
  PNC Financial Services
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
45. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-25 07:17 · Score: 1
  
  yeah but if you're a customer of a sh!tty company you can just switch to a different company.
  What about when they're all shitty?
46. Re:So long by MysteriousPreacher · 2013-11-25 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  That exclamation censorship thing is pretty strange.
  
  --
  -- Using the preview button since 2005
47. Re:So long by Ravaldy · 2013-11-25 07:45 · Score: 1
  
  Not sure where you got 3%. Numbers I've seen recently show 2% but still increasing. It's pretty obvious that users cling to what they know and Windows Phones isn't that. IF Windows phone makes it to 5% I suspect it will be a turning point for them but only if they make it there. I purchased a Windows Phone because I felt like trying something new and I was honestly surprised by the quality. The hardware is the same as the S3 (with minor changes). I would easily compare it to Android in it's usability and give it a better rating in presentation. Where it lacks is in the quality of the main stream apps but that's almost a non issue at this point.
48. Re:So long by symbolset · 2013-11-25 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  It would be shocking for Windows phone to gain momentum at this point. In addition to the other things I wrote, if an ecosystem hasn't taken off by year 3 it generally is not disruptive enough to do so ever. Android had 56% share of sales by year 3, but if it had been up against as strong a contender as Android is now it would have withered on the vine by the second year. Things are different now.
  
  --
  Help stamp out iliturcy.
49. Re:So long by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  keyl0ggers at work? don't want to make it easy for them.
50. Re: So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 09:56 · Score: 0
  
  Can you Americans (ie US citizens) stop bringing up health care for a second? Jesus Christ.
  I know your medical system and availability is worse than virtually every European, South American, or even Cuba, and some of you are trying to fix it, but can you not go on about it constantly!?
51. Re:So long by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  have an example? One example used to be telecom, but now there's a bunch of solid prepaid and new entrant (freedom pop) options. Cable? cur the cord, go apple tv / ota / Netflix. airlines? that's pretty tough still. I like southwest because they treat me better than others.
52. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 10:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well here you see the job creators rewarded for making things better than they might have been. They could have adopted Windows Phone.
  Actually that would have been a better choice, for example in the UK Windows Phone is quite popular and in Australia too, significantly moreso than Blackberry. It does lack the app catalog of its larger competitors though it has pretty much all the major ones and as far as the software and hardware quality goes it is very good, it just needs that killer disruptive feature to really gain market share, though that isn't to say that it necessarily needs huge market share to be successful.
53. Re:So long by ceoyoyo · 2013-11-25 10:30 · Score: 1
  
  Can't think of a time. In government OR large private enterprise.
54. Re:So long by Citizen+of+Earth · 2013-11-25 11:06 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  Just compare the 95% of mega-corps that aren't in a bankruptcy death spiral to the 70% of governments that are.
55. Re:So long by Livius · 2013-11-25 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  That was money that was embezzled.
  Not at all the same things as incompetence.
56. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 12:01 · Score: 0
  
  If you have to have it explained to you, you're already lost. Just join Socialists Anonymous and get help.
57. Re:So long by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 17:01 · Score: 0
  
  The fact that you're asking that question screams your ignorance of how inefficient, incompetent and corrupt government is.
58. Re:So long by cusco · 2013-11-25 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  All the employees, except for the executives who can see it coming and cash out early. Enron, anyone? The California and Texas teachers' retirement funds, forcibly privatized earlier, took enormous hits.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
59. Re:So long by LordLimecat · 2013-11-25 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now,, you would have blamed that on the government too.
  Not really, I would have seen the problem as self correcting. Risk-taking company goes under because it turns out they took too many risks.
  Wait, no, Ive got it: Lets bail them out so they can do the same crap again 10 years from now!
60. Re:So long by LordLimecat · 2013-11-25 19:23 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, because it doesnt cost me a dime when companies go under. When the government makes bad decisions, Im on the hook. Thats why its worse.
61. Re:So long by Pieroxy · 2013-11-25 20:49 · Score: 1
  
  And if horses were cows, they'd not be very good milkers.
  It's a government's job to provide many things that citizens need, but that wouldn't be done well by private enterprise. Including those things that are not profitable.
  Name one and I'll find a country in which it works just fine by private enterprises, save police, military and maybe fire fighting but I can't see why it wouldn't work.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
62. Re:So long by Ravaldy · 2013-11-26 06:43 · Score: 2
  
  I disagree. The wow factor is gone from these devices and now it's just a matter of what you prefer to use. So many people have looked at my Windows phone and said: "Wow, that's slick. Looks very smooth and easy to use". These comments have mostly come from Android S3 users. One of these friends actually returned his S3 since he was still within the 14 day period they allow exchanges for.
  As long as MS is willing to lose more money in the mobile market they will eventually break through. Their increase in the market mostly came from the recent Windows. The previous versions were garbage on both the hardware and software side.
63. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-26 07:43 · Score: 1
  
  So you ask me to name one, and yet you've already come up with 3. So you're asking me for a forth. To what point when you've already come up with 3. You've already accespted that the category of things that are best done by government exists. You're just wanting to quibble about which items belong in the set.
  And "just fine" isn't good enough. "As good or better than the government" is the bar.
  Roads is an obvious one. Sure, there is the odd private road in most countries, but that's cherry picking the profitable routes. Private enterprise never provides a comprehensive road system like a government.
  Welfare is another.
  Schools is another. Again, a few private schools doesn't cut it - that's cherry picking the offspring of the richest few. Private enterprise doesn't ever provide a comprehensive education system.
  There are many more.
64. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-26 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  That will of course vary by country. Right now in Britain an obvious example is energy utilities. They are all cheating their customers.
65. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-26 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, because it doesnt cost me a dime when companies go under.
  Depends if it's a company that you;re doing business with. I'm reminded of a company that supplies Christmas Hampers to senior citizens. It went out of business shortly before Christmas, leaving all the poor pensioners without their Christmas goodies.
  The idea that companies going bankrupt doesn't affect you is ridiculous. They always affect some people, and sometimes, by chance, you will be one of those people.
66. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-26 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Not really, I would have seen the problem as self correcting.
  That's your guess. No one knows. As I said, if things had gone bad by not bailing those companies out you would have blamed the government for that too.
67. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  When it goes broke, it can be liquidated. There's the difference.
68. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone who thinks an Android or an iOS is hard to use shouldn't be allowed out in public society for their own protection.
69. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  Way to twist my argument. It's just gospel these days that there's nothing government can do that private enterprise can't do better.
  
  Gospel!!! I'm an atheist, you insensitive clod!
70. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:46 · Score: 1
  
  Somebody explain to me again how private enterprise is just in every way better and more efficient than government?
  one word: healthcare.gov
  Created by private enterprise on contract.
  Who did this?
  
  And this for the lulz
  http://www.redstate.com/2013/11/18/healthcare-gov-site-advertising-sql-injection-attacks/
71. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  yeah but if you're a customer of a sh!tty company you can just switch to a different company.
  What about when they're all shitty?
  
  . what am I supposed to do when the US govt is sh!tty? move to a different country?
  What about when they're all shitty?
72. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  FDA
  The agency that is butthurt over nicotine vaporization devices, despite a proven track record of assisting people in quitting cigarettes and widespread endorsement by the medical community? All while our food (you might recognize the F part of FDA) continues to kill us?
  Use patches, I don't wan't someone vaporising nicotine into enclosed airspaces any more than I want them venting tobacco smoke into them.
73. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 11:15 · Score: 1
  
  And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now, you would have blamed that on the government too.
  I'm a bit like that. Blame the wife for everything.
  Apropos the wife, have you stopped beating her yet?
74. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  And it the government hadn't bailed them out, leaving the economy even further in the shit than it is now, you would have blamed that on the government too.
  Au contraire. If the US banks, for instance, had not been bailed out the economy would have rebooted itself in the same manner as a malware infested computer system can be rebooted and rid itself of the malware in the process of installing the operating system and trusted applications afresh. Yes, your wife is definitely to blame for the economic crisis of two thousand and eight.
  Rid itself of malware, just like that? Obviously not a Windows Administration then.
75. Re:So long by Meski · 2013-11-26 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  That was money that was embezzled.
  Not at all the same things as incompetence.
  "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's law. Or RAH - However, they aren't mutually exclusive. I suspect there was stupidity and cupidity at work.
76. Re:So long by LordLimecat · 2013-11-26 16:56 · Score: 1
  
  As I said, no, I wouldnt have, because I dont the government's job as "fixing the whole world".
77. Re:So long by Pieroxy · 2013-11-26 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  So you ask me to name one, and yet you've already come up with 3. So you're asking me for a forth. To what point when you've already come up with 3. You've already accespted that the category of things that are best done by government exists. You're just wanting to quibble about which items belong in the set.
  Indeed, there are things that I think are best done by the government. They probably represent less than 10% of the actual government spending hence the ire at the 90% of the budget which could be drastically reduced.
  
  And "just fine" isn't good enough. "As good or better than the government" is the bar.
  Roads is an obvious one. Sure, there is the odd private road in most countries, but that's cherry picking the profitable routes. Private enterprise never provides a comprehensive road system like a government.
  2/3rd of the roads in sweden are private. That's not what I call the "odd private road" by any measure. That's mostly small rural roads, not the most profitable kind where you can put a toll. And it works fine. I really don't see the need for the government here.
  
  Welfare is another.
  In many countries, public healthcare is only providing the absolute minimum, and things work fine. Sure, you can carpet-bomb the field and make everything public, but that leads to a waste of resource, and most countries cannot afford it - they get indebted more and more and while every country is in this situation everybody agrees that it is not sustainable.
  
  Schools is another. Again, a few private schools doesn't cut it - that's cherry picking the offspring of the richest few. Private enterprise doesn't ever provide a comprehensive education system.
  There are many more.
  in the Netherlands, 2/3rd of schools are run independently. Granted, they are mostly government funded, but the money comes from somewhere anyways. Most revenue from the government coming from VAT, everyone pays for it, including the poor. The point is that the government doesn't need to handle the education, subsiding it (partially) is more than enough.
  The global point is that in general, a field taken over by the government removes incentive by removing competition, and ends up costing much more for everyone. In general, except for the fields I cited, public money well spent is public money that A) the government has and B) that will significantly improve the field it is spent into. More often than not, none of these conditions are met, so the government shouldn't do them.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
78. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-27 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  No.
79. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-27 08:54 · Score: 1
  
  Easy to say that because the other thing didn't happen. There's no doubt in my mind that the people that hate government would have blamed government had they not done the bail out.
80. Re:So long by BasilBrush · 2013-11-27 09:19 · Score: 1
  
  "When a Libertarian cites Sweden, you know there's something fishy going on."
  http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-a-libertarian-cites-sweden-you-know-theres-something-fishy-going-on/
  Dirt tracks, managed by locals associations who's money comes from government ISN'T private enterprise in any rational view.
  You then talk about healthcare when I mention welfare. And somehow the Sweden isn't such a good example any more,
  And then we have Netherlands schools which even you admit are government financed, even the ones that have some kind of "independent" status.
  
  The global point is that in general, a field taken over by the government removes incentive by removing competition
  No. Private enterprise is good at providing things where the profit motive is aligned with the public good. It's poor when that is not true. It's also poor in the case of natural monopolies.
  Healthcare profit is aligned with making more treatments, not keeping people healthy. So it's better as a government thing.
  Railway privatisation in the UK has been a disaster because it's a natural monopoly. It only makes sense to have a single rail route between any two places, and that means that trains can't overtake each other, and are dependant on each other's timetables. So you end up with each train company running completely different routes. Which is not competition. And a customer journey may require travelling with multiple companies for different parts of their journey. Which is a problem because they don't naturally cooperate very well for scheduling, problems and ticketing.
  Then, the need of private companies to make profits for their shareholders meant that rail fares rose as they had never done before.
  To top it all, when the railways were privatised, maintainance went to the lowest bidder, which means most of the decades of experience of engineers working with a single national service was lost. And a number of serious train disasters followed.
  Privatising the railways in the UK cost hundreds of lives, and raised prices. Not because profit wasn't aligned with the public good, but because it's a natural monopoly, and the government serve the public good better.
Wonder who is getting the assets... by mlts · 2013-11-25 04:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

I have a feeling that RIM is going to be the next company fought over in the Apple/Microsoft versus Google/Samsung patent wars...
1. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 05:00 · Score: 0
  
  ugh, no sideways caret tags? should be, if they paid out any settlements it would cost less than x.
2. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  It's html, you need to use the & escape codes.
  Example: < should give <
3. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Real patents, or "patents" like tapping on a "telephone/computer" device which are obvious, but the "telephone/computer" part passes the USPTO?
4. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by Demonantis · 2013-11-25 07:41 · Score: 1
  
  My only issue is how would you license patents from a defunct company. It isn't like you can phone them up and negotiate an agreement. There is no corporate offices or staff. There needs to be a mechanism to handle this. Like dividing the licensing fee over the years of holding and releasing patents that fail to pay for the next time block. This patent pool is where most patent trolling comes from.
5. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by Zordak · 2013-11-25 08:35 · Score: 2
  
  My only issue is how would you license patents from a defunct company.
  You license them from the bankruptcy creditor who ended up with them. This isn't that complicated. Patents are property, just like the chairs and desks. When a company goes belly up, the bankruptcy court sells what anybody is willing to buy. Assets don't just disappear into the aether.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
6. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by Demonantis · 2013-11-25 16:21 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks that makes more sense! Would the creditor have the capability to negotiate the license though? I feel like that is nontrivial.
7. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by pete6677 · 2013-11-25 17:22 · Score: 1
  
  YOU try developing software without infringing anyone's patent. Can't be done. In fact we are all no doubt violating numerous patents right now just by posting a message on a public forum.
8. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by noh8rz10 · 2013-11-25 18:18 · Score: 1
  
  there are a lot of patents, so you license them. you don't say fsck it all we're going to do what we want anyway.
9. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by Zordak · 2013-11-26 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  Once they own the patent, they can do whatever they want with it, including negotiate a license.
  
  --
  
  Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
10. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by pete6677 · 2013-12-01 16:02 · Score: 1
  
  Sure. License them all. Want to write Hello World? That will be $1 million to cover all patent license fees plus attorney fees. Anything more complicated will be many millions more for all the relevant patents. Bye bye future innovation.
11. Re:Wonder who is getting the assets... by noh8rz10 · 2013-12-01 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  it sucks and should be changed. but if you're a big company like google you have the resources to do things correctly today, instead of doing whatever you want. you also have the resources to lobby washington to change the laws! I don't see them doing either.
No big deal by hawguy · 2013-11-25 04:26 · Score: 4, Funny

That's not necessarily a sign of trouble at the company - they probably just wanted to spend more time with their families and maybe pursue some hobbies, just like all top executives that leave a company.
1. Re:No big deal by tompaulco · 2013-11-25 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  That's not necessarily a sign of trouble at the company - they probably just wanted to spend more time with their families and maybe pursue some hobbies, just like all top executives that leave a company.
  I would agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that there were three of them that left. Of course, being RIM, we don't need any additional warning signs to figure out that there are problems.
  
  --
  If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
2. Re:No big deal by davidbrit2 · 2013-11-25 04:36 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Hobbies like working for a company that's not in a nosedive.
3. Re:No big deal by operagost · 2013-11-25 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  "Pursue new opportunities"
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
4. Re:No big deal by H0p313ss · 2013-11-25 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hobbies like working for a company that's not in a nosedive.
  That's a very popular hobby.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
5. Re:No big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 08:34 · Score: 0
  
  I think he was being coy.
Guess it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:28 · Score: 0

Better pick up my Google or Apple NSA tracking device.
1. Re:Guess it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  Better pick up my Google or Apple NSA tracking device.
  Don't forget Microsoft. They were the first ones to opt-in to NSA's backdoor.
2. Re:Guess it's time by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 08:03 · Score: 0
  
  RIM bent over to take in the ass from multiple governments too.
the ship is sinking... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:30 · Score: 0

...and the rats are swimming away
Good riddance by faclonX · 2013-11-25 04:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

The CMO didn't do anything, did you see any ads for BlackBerry 10? The marketing for the "flagship" product never existed, because the CMO dropped the ball. I'm actually surprised the CFO is leaving, he's been with BlackBerry for a long time. I would expect there to be a top exec shuffle with a new CEO considering the old CXX execs were pretty useless.

--
It had to be done... It had to be said...
1. Re:Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:10 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Except that the CFO leaving usually means that a company is bankrupt. After all, he is the first one to know.
2. Re: Good riddance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  I agree with the sentiment of your post, but yes, I did see ads for BlackBerry 10...
3. Re:Good riddance by CohibaVancouver · 2013-11-25 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  The CMO didn't do anything, did you see any ads for BlackBerry 10?
  I can't figure out if you are being sarcastic or not. We were bombarded with ads for the 10 series BBs. Magazine ads. Airport ads. TV ads, Website banner ads. Ads at retailers.... On and on.
  
  Pity it was too little too late. My wife has a Q10 and it's a sweet device.
4. Re:Good riddance by eek_the_kat · 2013-11-25 07:26 · Score: 1
  
  that is a good point. The few times I saw a company crash and burn, the CFO was one of the last out. The last few precious beans had to be passed out carefully.
5. Re:Good riddance by Ravaldy · 2013-11-25 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  I think this was just a "Friendly Termination". It's common at that level for them to be offered to leave on their own. They still get a package AND they leave with their dignity. In the end it's all about image and reading into it too much creates ridiculous amounts of comments on /.
6. Re:Good riddance by Desler · 2013-11-25 08:05 · Score: 1
  
  There was plenty of marketing for BB10. Such as the marketing campaign involving Alicia Keys.
Happy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:40 · Score: 0

So happy this happened. I love seeing top level management fail and leave. Makes room for a better opportunity. Hopefully this means better leadership of integration into a larger entity.
and yes I said titty.
Left or.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:45 · Score: 1

were booted. THAT is the question.
Final company wide email by wiredog · 2013-11-25 04:47 · Score: 4, Funny

EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!

--

Best Slashdot Co
1. Re:Final company wide email by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  Yep!
  But nobody got it because the BES server hung again.
2. Re:Final company wide email by danomac · 2013-11-25 12:14 · Score: 1
  
  Even better:
  CTRL+ALT_DEL!
May be a good move for Blackberry by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 04:52 · Score: 1

It looks to be like John Chen, is getting rid of the "bad wood". I thiink that will be good for the company in the long run.
Disclaimer. I have worked for John and if anyone can fix this company, he can
1. Re:May be a good move for Blackberry by Sponge+Bath · 2013-11-25 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  I thiink that will be good for the company in the long run.
  It's looking like there will not be a long run for RIM. This could be a move to make the road jerky more palatable for scavengers.
BBY can drift along nicely without those guys by swschrad · 2013-11-25 05:08 · Score: 2

they've driften along nicely for three years already. the drain is in sight. they don't need a C-level to reach it.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
1. Re:BBY can drift along nicely without those guys by Kjella · 2013-11-25 06:10 · Score: 2
  
  they've been circling the big black hole for three years already, they don't need a C-level to glide in.
  FTFY ;)
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
False Report by Murdoch5 · 2013-11-25 05:24 · Score: 1

It keeps saying "World Leader", last time I checked really crappy software, 1/2 ass designed hardware and never meeting deadlines doesn't make you a world force. ....Of course Microsoft would laugh and say I'm wrong.
1. Re:False Report by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  You should check again...
2. Re:False Report by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 07:40 · Score: 0
  
  I agree, people should check again as BB10 is not your grandfather's smartphone.
No biggie by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 05:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Executive positions are some of the most generic jobs in the world, and anyone can fill them - in fact, executive decisions are no better than random.
Just give them to three of the most loyal janitors at RIM - I'm sure they would do no worse a job than any random super-rich executive in the US.
Cashing in by Princeofcups · 2013-11-25 05:38 · Score: 1

More executives get rich running a company into the ground, and then flee with their ill gotten gains. News at 11.

--
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
patents are cheaper in Chapter 7 by swschrad · 2013-11-25 06:30 · Score: 1

you are getting silly, very silly... repeat after me... "patents are cheaper in Chapter 7. patents are cheaper in Chapter 7..."

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
1. Re:patents are cheaper in Chapter 7 by mlts · 2013-11-25 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Very true, but after Google lost the Nortel battle, I think the fight for a large company may heat up. It is either fight in the auction, or fight the lawsuits from the parent company the very day the deal buying the company is sealed and the IP rights changed hands.
  RIM has a lot more relevant patents which could be used for ammo on either side, so it might be that their best position is to show off their patent portfolio, similar to what Kodak did, which would attract buyers.
Blackberry is the dumbest company. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · 2013-11-25 07:42 · Score: 1

I heard one top executive from a very famous EDA company brag, "Every Fortune 100 company that actually makes some product, [he was excluding pure retailers and finance companies] uses our design and analysis tools. The only exception is RIM". This was back in 2007-2008 time frame. I was very surprised because there were so many models of blackberry phones, it was called crack berry. There were news items about aides prohibiting Obama from using his blackberry etc. But basically it never designed anything!
I think RIM has been mismanaged for a long time. It decided there is no margin in electronics and hand sets, and outsourced it completely and tried to stay in its high margin corporate email service business. But Apple and Google provided so much, the top executives demanded their IT departments support these devices. When it was no longer the exclusive mobile email provider for corporations, it had nothing else to offer. It just withered.

--
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
1. Re:Blackberry is the dumbest company. by jimicus · 2013-11-25 08:55 · Score: 1
  But Apple and Google provided so much, the top executives demanded their IT departments support these devices. When it was no longer the exclusive mobile email provider for corporations, it had nothing else to offer. It just withered.
  The writing was on the wall long before then.
  Blackberry's biggest selling point was half-decent email integration. At the time, nobody had a mobile IMAP client worth a damn - and even if they did, Blackberry offered features that weren't possible with IMAP (eg. remote wipe, policy enforcement).
  Exchange 2003 - yes, 2003 - integrated ActiveSync. Now, while there weren't any ActiveSync capable phones worth a damn either - and wouldn't be for some years - the technology had promise:
  No need for a third-party server, it's integrated with Exchange.
  No need to be tied to a particular handset manufacturer.
  No need for email to pass through the black box that is BES.
  Granted, it wasn't as featureful as Blackberry Enterprise Server - but except for very specific industries, how many companies really care about being able to turn on or off every damn feature the phone offers?
  It was only a matter of time before someone introduced a smartphone that spoke ActiveSync without functioning like complete arse. Did Blackberry recognise this and look for ways to make their products stand out regardless? Did they hell.
2. Re:Blackberry is the dumbest company. by ceoyoyo · 2013-11-25 11:00 · Score: 1
  
  Um, Google outsources handset design to HTC and Samsung, don't they?
3. Re:Blackberry is the dumbest company. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  I guess you missed the connection between "But Apple and Google provided so much" and "[RIM] had nothing else to offer". It's fine to outsource whatever IF you're providing so much else.
BB should go open source by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 07:55 · Score: 0

the only way BB phones will sell is if BB phones become cool again. the easiest way for this to happen is for BB to go open source and put ubuntu on their phones
The value of CXX's by recharged95 · 2013-11-25 09:13 · Score: 1

3 main CXX's left the company near the same time. CEO has been replaced.
LIRC, the company is still running (though in bad shape). This is proof positive: CXX's are not critical to a company, but we sure pay them like they are.
No, the difference is... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-11-25 09:31 · Score: 0

...I'm not required by law to use a private website, then fined when I don't.
...Apple doesn't promise to let me keep my old Mac while passing a law to take it away, then refuse to sell me a new one because their website is broke.
...Apple didn't take away my old Mac, then offer me one at half the speed and 2-3 times the price.
...Apple didn't spend four years telling me that opposition to forcing me to buy a new Mac was because I was an ignorant racist.