RIM no longer provides guidance, and I can't immediately disagree with investors arguing RIM hasn't provided accurate guidance for over a year. What strikes me as odd is the recent warning RIM provided and yet didn't disclose the delay with BB10.
Heins should have already known BB10 needed to wait until 2013 unless the situation changed between the earnings warning and the earnings release. If he knows, why didn't he disclose at the first chance?
Letting the public know of more delays may mean those holding out can "safely" go ahead and buy a Blackberry and not worry a newer model is coming out next week.
There is no reason to protect the stock price, because what's the difference if RIM shares tank as a result, in May or June? None really.The most logical explanation based on the limited view RIM provides is BB10 is all but dead. Sure, perhaps a "BB10" is released, but for all intents and purposes, the only thing RIM is trying to market and sell now is RIM itself. If Heins cuts the staff for development along with all the other related staff, the costs for the company can come down dramatically. It's a scorched-earth policy that doesn't work for long in tech, but it doesn't need to work for long.
If all you're selling is the current customer base, IP assets and infrastructure, why put a lot of money into creating new technology that isn't likely going to compete against iPhone 5 and Android? If Hein believes a sale is going to happen sooner rather than later, it doesn't make sense to pour millions of dollars into a project a buyer may not want. Watch for a sale of RIM. Better yet, if you're an investor, hope for a buyout within 2012. Any other move is unlikely to provide a greater value for shareholders at this point. I imagine management at Nokia is paying close attention also. This article is commentary by an independent contributor, separate from TheStreet's regular news coverage.