BlackBerry's CFO, CMO, and COO Leave Company 159
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."
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
That's three more rim jobs available.
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Funny)
Oh no, don't tell me you're another of them market analists...
Well, these executives really wrecked'um!
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
It was bound to happen in the end.
BBY can drift along nicely without those guys (Score:3)
they've driften along nicely for three years already. the drain is in sight. they don't need a C-level to reach it.
Re: (Score:3)
they've been circling the big black hole for three years already, they don't need a C-level to glide in.
FTFY ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry for them (Score:4, Interesting)
They shipped themselves out with the full security and convenience of cryptic golden parachutes.
Re:Don't worry for them (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't worry for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't worry for them (Score:4, 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.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why there are boards of directors and shareholders. It doesn't have to be incestuous.
Re: (Score:2)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
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 intern
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 i
So long (Score:1)
And now that they have made all the money and killed the company. The rats are leaving the ship.
Re:So long (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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 gi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are not businesses.
Re: (Score:2)
Governments are not businesses.
If they were, most of them would have had to declare bankruptcy long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean posted their national debts.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 health
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (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
Re:So long (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
funded by taxpayer dollars, with no accountability
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
That exclamation censorship thing is pretty strange.
Re: (Score:2)
keyl0ggers at work? don't want to make it easy for them.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:So long (Score:5, Insightful)
Managed by government agency, to a spectacular result: Noone is to blame, noone knows why, and noone is getting fired. Hooray!
Re: (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
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/ [redstate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Can't think of a time. In government OR large private enterprise.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
As I said, no, I wouldnt have, because I dont the government's job as "fixing the whole world".
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That was money that was embezzled.
Not at all the same things as incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 pric
Re: (Score:2)
Just compare the 95% of mega-corps that aren't in a bankruptcy death spiral to the 70% of governments that are.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 pub
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. The mantra is that no matter how bad you think things can get with private business, Government can do it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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!
Re:So long (Score:5, 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
Wonder who is getting the assets... (Score:5, 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...
patents are cheaper in Chapter 7 (Score:2)
you are getting silly, very silly... repeat after me... "patents are cheaper in Chapter 7. patents are cheaper in Chapter 7..."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:No big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hobbies like working for a company that's not in a nosedive.
That's a very popular hobby.
Good riddance (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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Except that the CFO leaving usually means that a company is bankrupt. After all, he is the first one to know.
Re: (Score:2)
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 /.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Left or.... (Score:1)
were booted. THAT is the question.
Final company wide email (Score:5, Funny)
EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!
Re: (Score:2)
Even better:
CTRL+ALT_DEL!
False Report (Score:2)
No biggie (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 (Score:2)
More executives get rich running a company into the ground, and then flee with their ill gotten gains. News at 11.
Blackberry is the dumbest company. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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:
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Google outsources handset design to HTC and Samsung, don't they?
The value of CXX's (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.