Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

blogs.blackberry.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 113 posts

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#71

Post by ScottBurson »

skroth wrote: post #63
jessedhillon wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a two paragraph response to a well-reasoned critique, which outlined several important, thoughtful points. By contrast, the response looks as though it was co-authored by an accountant and an HR rep. > ...it is particularly difficult to believe that a “high level employee” in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a con…

I'm obviously in the minority here, but I don't feel their response was so bad. There are plenty of "well-reasoned critiques that outline several important, thoughtful points" of many companies on the internet. I think the fact that they responded at all is good. Remember Apple's response to the iPhone 4 issues? We (finally) got Jobs pointing the finger at other companies and trying to shift the attention. Here RIM i…

I don't think it was so bad either, but I think SeoxyS's (above) is better; it's less defensive, without saying anything that will cause another whack to be taken out of the stock price.

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#73

Post by whakojacko »

initself wrote: post #72
bradleyland wrote: post #21

I'm print this out in large type on 11x17 paper, framing it, and hanging it in our office hallway with the caption: "Never sound like this."

I'd like to know why. Sounded cogent to me.

Sounded like standard bland pr-speak to me. They didn't specifically address any of his points and it comes off as extremely impersonal. I hope for RIM's sake they are sending around a much more detailed memo internally. For instance, the second sentence:

"It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner"

seems to just strengthen the original author's point 8

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#74

Post by fab1an »

RIM prefers to merely adress their shareholders on this issue, while the smart move would have been to include some lingo addressing their customers and the valid concerns raised in the 'open letter'. This won't work in the long run.

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#75

Post by namank »

RIM's action to the open Letter: http://www.bgr.com/2011/06/30/rim-agrees-to-consider-splitti...

RIM and NEI Investments Announce Withdrawal of Shareholder Proposal; RIM Committee to Review Matter Raised by Proposal

Waterloo, ON -

Research In Motion Limited (“RIM”) (Nasdaq: RIMM; TSX: RIM) and Northwest & Ethical Investments L.P. (“NEI Investments”) announced today that, following discussions between them, NEI Investments has decided to withdraw its proposal that was to be considered at the RIM Annual General Meeting. The proposal asked that RIM’s Board of Directors adopt a policy that divides the role of Chair and CEO, and that RIM have an independent Chair. The parties have agreed that RIM’s Board will establish a Committee of independent directors whose mandate will generally be to (i) study the appropriate balance between an independent lead director or chair with full and exclusive authority customarily held by such an office holder, (ii) determine the business necessity for RIM’s Co-CEOS to have significant Board level titles to assist their selling and other responsibilities with certain large customers in overseas markets, and (iii) propose and provide a rationale for a recommended governance structure for RIM, which will include clarifications of the Co-CEOs and Chair roles, as well as the Board’s mandate. The Committee will consult with NEI Investments in developing the specific terms of reference for this mandate and before it issues its report by January 31, 2012. The Board will publicly respond to the recommendations of the Committee within 30 days.

As a result, the proposal will no longer be presented at the Annual General Meeting and no vote will be taken on the proposal at the meeting. RIM and NEI Investments are pleased to have reached an agreement on this matter, and these important issues of corporate governance will receive further consideration at the RIM Board level

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#76

Post by panacea »

SeoxyS wrote: post #57
Skroob wrote: post #8

The only positive way to respond to a letter like that is to go out and do it. A press release reiterating the same old lines isn't going to solve anything; addressing concerns internally and releasing real products should be their response.

A much better response would have been: Re: Open Letter Thank you very much for taking the time to express your opinion. We want to let you know we're listening and very much appreciate feedback. Hang in there. - Mike & Jim

____

Sent from my jetpack

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#77

Post by robtoo »

whakojacko wrote: post #73
initself wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to know why. Sounded cogent to me.

Sounded like standard bland pr-speak to me. They didn't specifically address any of his points and it comes off as extremely impersonal. I hope for RIM's sake they are sending around a much more detailed memo internally. For instance, the second sentence: "It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the compan…

"It is obviously difficult to address anonymous commentary and it is particularly difficult to believe that a 'high level employee' in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner"

says the unsigned blog post.

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#78

Post by yellowredblack »

The complaint:

but unfortunately the culture at RIM does not allow us to speak openly without having to worry about the career-limiting effects

The response:

it is particularly difficult to believe that a “high level employee” in good standing with the company would choose to anonymously publish a letter on the web rather than engage their fellow executives in a constructive manner

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#79

Post by [deleted] »

9999 wrote: post #68
Shenglong wrote: post #34

What this teaches us, is that Bush's "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is a valuable idea. Every company should have a bi-law which states it will not respond to public letters. This letter, even though it got the point across, is heavily damaging to the brand.

How do you think this response damages their brand exactly?

[deleted]

Re: RIM’s Response to 'Open Letter'

#80

Post by shaggyfrog »

dirtyaura wrote: post #66
shaggyfrog wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you check your link's "Balance Sheet" tab, you'll see inventory listed under Assets as "Total Inventory". It would most certainly not be listed as Cash & Equivalents.

Yeah, I was curious because it doesn't sound likely that shipped-but-not-sold phones would be listed under Cash & Equivalents (which is ~ $2B). But if his math about value of shipped phones ($3B) is approximately correct, then it doesn't fit under Total Inventory (<$1B) either, so it must be under Receivables (~3-4B), right?

No. A receivable is money owed to the company (compare to accounts payable, money the company owes to someone else).
Post reply on HN