“With the right strategic execution, significant improvements in the half-baked Playbook and a big dose of luck, RIM could keep its status as a tier-one smartphone maker.”<p>I really take issue with this statement. First, what evidence is there that RIM’s management are capable of “the right strategic execution”? They’ve had no credible response to the iPhone in the 4 years since it was released, and to Android in the 3 years since it’s first hardware release. A new entrant came into a market that RIM essentially created, and they did nothing for 4 years. I don’t think it’s valid to use the company’s performance in the time leading up to the iPhone, when RIM had no credible competition, as a predictor of future success. The moment a credible competitor began to encroach on their market, they had no response. IMO this is a much better indicator of future performance in the face of dominant competition.<p>“significant improvements in the half-baked Playbook”<p>Again, what evidence is there that this will happen. The first Storm was, by all accounts, a massive failure. The Storm 2 was too little, too late. The current management was responsible for both. People love to talk about how Apple came back from the dead, but what they forget is that Apple was driven to the brink of death by someone other than Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs came back and brought Apple to where it is today. Had the existing management remained in place, they would have undoubtedly gone bankrupt. RIM desperately needs a change of management.<p>“a big dose of luck”<p>With a big dose of luck, the 6/49 could make me millionaire. But you can be sure I’m not making investment decisions based on those odds.