No-contract T-Mobile, with no small business or other considerations (flat-up retail) is $50/month for unlimited calls and text and unlimited data with 500MB at 4g speeds (then throttled.) Another $10 gets you a 2GB 4g data bucket (again, then throttled but no cap or overage) and you can "stack" those at $10 for each 2GB bucket you wish to add at full speed.
All of their throttled plans now include the tethering option in the base price, so the upcharge that used to be there is now gone.
I got in during a promotion a couple of years ago and effectively got a 5GB data bucket for the 2GB price. Obviously I have no reason to change that ;-)
If revenue is declining then the company is not selling more goods and services. That's a fact. That operating income is declining is also a fact. These are not suppositions, they're right out of the report.
If you wish to argue that this is all SECTOR based go right ahead. But that doesn't change a thing; if the SECTOR is going to get pounded then so will the company; either way it's not positive.
I understand what management SAYS but I look at what the results actually are. The claimed "big deal" of late that has been all over the media is the "extension" of their price-match policy. The point behind the article and the bulk of the text of the article speak to that -- the policy shift has not led to increased sales or operating income.
You can say that two quarters is not enough, but I retort that the original match policy was put in place around the Christmas holiday due to claimed perception by management that it would combat "showrooming." Well, ok, we're two quarters into the experiment and we have same-store sales declines, store closures and operating income as a percentage of revenue is down.
Objectively, is it working? Not yet. Might it? Maybe, but the evidence of success is not in this report.
As for being a "basher" I have no position in the company and haven't traded it since 2011. I'm simply calling it like I see it in terms of what the firm is doing and whether I see results from their actions.
T-Mobile (US) sells the Z-10 (I own one) and I have a small-business plan that is $45/month (before the tethering add-on and taxes) with unlimited voice, sms, and 5Gb/mo before throttling on data.
Of course it's subjective. I find the premise that I have to call a company on the carpet that claims to be "competitive" with the retailers it says competes with (in this case, online) to obtain a price match insulting.
In the end retail is all about value received for price paid, with the entire experience from the time you walk in the door onward being a part of the "value" side.
Remember that Circuit City thought the same thing and they went bankrupt.
If you're actually making a "turnaround" then you should be seeing significant same-store sales INCREASES, not negative comps. And further, if you're closing stores then your supply (of stores) exceeds customer demand (for your stores.)
GAAP and Non-GAAP OI performance was also down and I wouldn't say there's much more room there either. http://1.usa.gov/16LkiTH
The bottom line is that the "turnaround" they are claiming to have underway is yet to bear fruit. It may or it may not, but I don't see performance in the results and as I said my **perception** as a customer is that if I have to call you out on being overpriced against what you claim is competitive pricing versus online retailers in order to obtain the same price then the risk you take is that as a customer I decide not to come back in the future because I as a customer decide that I shouldn't have to "police" pricing on my own.
Once I figure out that you're *always* more expensive as a retailer you better be putting forward justification to me a value basis why I should spend the additional money or you're doomed because I simply stop coming in at all and buy from the other guy.
"Revenue fell nearly 10 percent to $9.38 billion, excluding European revenue."
Same-store revenue was also off, albeit a much-more modest 1.1% (same reference.)
My point on price-match policy, which is IMHO key to the shopping experience AND is the "meat" of this article, is from my perspective as a customer. That is clear, I believe, from the original text of the article. If it's not then I'll state it again so it cannot be misunderstood: It is my position AS A CUSTOMER that if I catch a firm that is claiming it is trying to compete with an online marketplace pricing products materially above the online price then I **perceive** that they will take all the money I will give them rather than offering the products at a price that is competitive in the marketplace **up front**, and not do so only if I call them on it directly.
I believe the example I put forward with the cash register made that clear, but apparently it was not.
Others may differ in their expectations as customers but those are mine. With online pricing being available to everyone who has a smartphone or computer my **perception** as a customer is that if you price above that level while trying to claim you're competitive with online shopping then I conclude that you're simply hoping I didn't bring my smartphone into the store or the building is sufficiently similar to a Faraday Cage that I can't (or simply forget to) check your posted prices before I buy.
I understand the firm believes the calendar, including the Super Bowl date, was adverse to their results and should be ignored.
However, the market seems to agree with me, at least for today, that what was expected out of the firm in earnings was not met irrespective of what so-called "analysts" say they "estimated" prior to the earnings release.
In the market price is truth and we debate our points with bids and offers. The stock was off 4.36% on the day into a mostly-flat tape overall and with the XRT (retail ETF) up 0.73%.
Incidentally I did not submit this article; SA picked it up on their own. Since I did not anticipate that I did not include a disclaimer: I have no position in the company's shares or any derivative thereof and no intention of initiating one in the future at this time, as I find nothing particularly attractive as an opportunity either long or short in this name.
T-Mobile customer here, $65/mo including taxes for unlimited talk, text, and 5GB data (then throttled, no overage) including tethering. If I didn't need the tethering I could drop $15 off that but I use it regularly, so it's worth having.
I suspect that BlackBerry's signing (private) key is NOT on any network-attached resource and is likely on a thumb drive or other device that is attached ONLY when used for signing and then stuck back in the (very secure) safe.
That's "best practice"; hell, I follow it for my CA signing key and my CA is private to my little LLC!
The Q5 looks VERY interesting and I hope they decide to bring it here. There are a lot of people who will want it simply for the color selection and lower price-point. That sounds dumb, but it is what it is.
I played with a S4 for a while recently and was unimpressed. In the T-Mobile store they had two (different colors are important, you know) and one of them was actually LOCKED UP (!!)
The flow of the OS was effectively identical to what's on my S2 and other than being a bit thinner, lighter, and slightly larger in form factor I didn't see the major improvements. It's a bit faster and has an actual hard home button as opposed to all soft buttons, but that's got its bad points -- it's something else that can fail where soft buttons don't as there is no physical actuator to fail with them.
I didn't see the point of the S3 (over my S2) and still don't with the S4. If you have the S3 I see no reason at all to pony up for north of half a kilobuck for the new one. From the S2, maybe.
It comes down to form-factor preference. I found the S2 to be marginally ok in that regard but the S4 and Note are just too big to comfortably fit in my pants pocket. The Z10 is just right -- slightly larger than the iPhone, but not enough to get into the "annoying" range, even with a modest protective snap-on case (and that's important.)
In terms of functionality IMHO the Z-10 is damn hard to beat.
WinMo8 apparently has ZERO VPN support. I don't know how Microsoft could be that stupid, but apparently they have been.
I run my Z-10 with the VPN enabled at all times in "autoconnect" mode. The cost is a slight decrease in battery life (encryption costs CPU cycles) but the security improvement for anything going over the network is extraordinary. If you want to pick off my communications (e.g. serve a wiretap order as done with the AP) you're going to have to serve ME, since the IPSEC server the phone is talking to is at MY location.
Hacked, no. You can't hack the BlackBerry firmware as anything that goes on the phone has to be signed, and all OS components must be cryptographically signed by BlackBerry themselves. I know of nobody who has managed to steal the private keys for doing so, which would be required to actually "hack" the firmware.
But LEAKED firmware, yes. It's official firmware, but not yet in the wild. Carriers want to do their own testing and adding of bloatware and such before release. This is common to all carriers.
I was running 1720, which is what the carriers in Europe and Canada just pushed out to customers, for a fair bit before it was "officially" released.
You have to be careful doing this as some of the leaks are (by definition, since they're in testing) unstable. There is of course no support on them either. But an interesting discovery has been made -- it is possible to load them non-destructively, which Android was never easily capable of (and IOS can't do at all); this is a big deal for someone who is willing to tinker and try to discover what's coming down the pipe.
BTW while the phone's public key is (of course) accessible the private key is not. In order to actually root it (and "hack" it) you'd have to get that, or break that security. I am unaware of anyone who has done so at this point.
'Worst Buy': A Revenue Problem [View article]
Have a nice day.
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
No-contract T-Mobile, with no small business or other considerations (flat-up retail) is $50/month for unlimited calls and text and unlimited data with 500MB at 4g speeds (then throttled.) Another $10 gets you a 2GB 4g data bucket (again, then throttled but no cap or overage) and you can "stack" those at $10 for each 2GB bucket you wish to add at full speed.
All of their throttled plans now include the tethering option in the base price, so the upcharge that used to be there is now gone.
http://t-mo.co/12usst8
I got in during a promotion a couple of years ago and effectively got a 5GB data bucket for the 2GB price. Obviously I have no reason to change that ;-)
'Worst Buy': A Revenue Problem [View article]
If you wish to argue that this is all SECTOR based go right ahead. But that doesn't change a thing; if the SECTOR is going to get pounded then so will the company; either way it's not positive.
I understand what management SAYS but I look at what the results actually are. The claimed "big deal" of late that has been all over the media is the "extension" of their price-match policy. The point behind the article and the bulk of the text of the article speak to that -- the policy shift has not led to increased sales or operating income.
You can say that two quarters is not enough, but I retort that the original match policy was put in place around the Christmas holiday due to claimed perception by management that it would combat "showrooming." Well, ok, we're two quarters into the experiment and we have same-store sales declines, store closures and operating income as a percentage of revenue is down.
Objectively, is it working? Not yet. Might it? Maybe, but the evidence of success is not in this report.
As for being a "basher" I have no position in the company and haven't traded it since 2011. I'm simply calling it like I see it in terms of what the firm is doing and whether I see results from their actions.
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
You're just plain wrong on costs.
'Worst Buy': A Revenue Problem [View article]
In the end retail is all about value received for price paid, with the entire experience from the time you walk in the door onward being a part of the "value" side.
'Worst Buy': A Revenue Problem [View article]
Remember that Circuit City thought the same thing and they went bankrupt.
If you're actually making a "turnaround" then you should be seeing significant same-store sales INCREASES, not negative comps. And further, if you're closing stores then your supply (of stores) exceeds customer demand (for your stores.)
GAAP and Non-GAAP OI performance was also down and I wouldn't say there's much more room there either. http://1.usa.gov/16LkiTH
The bottom line is that the "turnaround" they are claiming to have underway is yet to bear fruit. It may or it may not, but I don't see performance in the results and as I said my **perception** as a customer is that if I have to call you out on being overpriced against what you claim is competitive pricing versus online retailers in order to obtain the same price then the risk you take is that as a customer I decide not to come back in the future because I as a customer decide that I shouldn't have to "police" pricing on my own.
Once I figure out that you're *always* more expensive as a retailer you better be putting forward justification to me a value basis why I should spend the additional money or you're doomed because I simply stop coming in at all and buy from the other guy.
'Worst Buy': A Revenue Problem [View article]
http://yhoo.it/11WavZs
"Revenue fell nearly 10 percent to $9.38 billion, excluding European revenue."
Same-store revenue was also off, albeit a much-more modest 1.1% (same reference.)
My point on price-match policy, which is IMHO key to the shopping experience AND is the "meat" of this article, is from my perspective as a customer. That is clear, I believe, from the original text of the article. If it's not then I'll state it again so it cannot be misunderstood: It is my position AS A CUSTOMER that if I catch a firm that is claiming it is trying to compete with an online marketplace pricing products materially above the online price then I **perceive** that they will take all the money I will give them rather than offering the products at a price that is competitive in the marketplace **up front**, and not do so only if I call them on it directly.
I believe the example I put forward with the cash register made that clear, but apparently it was not.
Others may differ in their expectations as customers but those are mine. With online pricing being available to everyone who has a smartphone or computer my **perception** as a customer is that if you price above that level while trying to claim you're competitive with online shopping then I conclude that you're simply hoping I didn't bring my smartphone into the store or the building is sufficiently similar to a Faraday Cage that I can't (or simply forget to) check your posted prices before I buy.
I understand the firm believes the calendar, including the Super Bowl date, was adverse to their results and should be ignored.
However, the market seems to agree with me, at least for today, that what was expected out of the firm in earnings was not met irrespective of what so-called "analysts" say they "estimated" prior to the earnings release.
In the market price is truth and we debate our points with bids and offers. The stock was off 4.36% on the day into a mostly-flat tape overall and with the XRT (retail ETF) up 0.73%.
Incidentally I did not submit this article; SA picked it up on their own. Since I did not anticipate that I did not include a disclaimer: I have no position in the company's shares or any derivative thereof and no intention of initiating one in the future at this time, as I find nothing particularly attractive as an opportunity either long or short in this name.
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
Are Android Apps Coming To Your BlackBerry? It Seems Likely [View article]
http://bit.ly/17S07De
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
That's "best practice"; hell, I follow it for my CA signing key and my CA is private to my little LLC!
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
The flow of the OS was effectively identical to what's on my S2 and other than being a bit thinner, lighter, and slightly larger in form factor I didn't see the major improvements. It's a bit faster and has an actual hard home button as opposed to all soft buttons, but that's got its bad points -- it's something else that can fail where soft buttons don't as there is no physical actuator to fail with them.
I didn't see the point of the S3 (over my S2) and still don't with the S4. If you have the S3 I see no reason at all to pony up for north of half a kilobuck for the new one. From the S2, maybe.
It comes down to form-factor preference. I found the S2 to be marginally ok in that regard but the S4 and Note are just too big to comfortably fit in my pants pocket. The Z10 is just right -- slightly larger than the iPhone, but not enough to get into the "annoying" range, even with a modest protective snap-on case (and that's important.)
In terms of functionality IMHO the Z-10 is damn hard to beat.
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
1720/21 is, as far as I can tell, completely stable. This is the official firmware that Rogers and Telus, among others, pushed recently. It rocks.
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
I run my Z-10 with the VPN enabled at all times in "autoconnect" mode. The cost is a slight decrease in battery life (encryption costs CPU cycles) but the security improvement for anything going over the network is extraordinary. If you want to pick off my communications (e.g. serve a wiretap order as done with the AP) you're going to have to serve ME, since the IPSEC server the phone is talking to is at MY location.
No surprises ala AP will work.
But, But BlackBerry Was Dead [View article]
But LEAKED firmware, yes. It's official firmware, but not yet in the wild. Carriers want to do their own testing and adding of bloatware and such before release. This is common to all carriers.
I was running 1720, which is what the carriers in Europe and Canada just pushed out to customers, for a fair bit before it was "officially" released.
You have to be careful doing this as some of the leaks are (by definition, since they're in testing) unstable. There is of course no support on them either. But an interesting discovery has been made -- it is possible to load them non-destructively, which Android was never easily capable of (and IOS can't do at all); this is a big deal for someone who is willing to tinker and try to discover what's coming down the pipe.
BTW while the phone's public key is (of course) accessible the private key is not. In order to actually root it (and "hack" it) you'd have to get that, or break that security. I am unaware of anyone who has done so at this point.