Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Barge,
That's great! But how about a timeline? I've watched the number of shares outstanding balloon from 42M to 67M and unfortunately no end in sight with a stagnant market cap. Would you mind telling me when this explosion is going to occur? Oh, never mind, I suppose I'm just getting unreasonably impatient!
Svenm
AWK, All good points! My only point being that MSFT did not, contrary to the article referred to, pioneer that concept!
Svenm
AWK, I would hope that SKS might dispute that MSFT pioneered that concept!
Svenm
Rachelelise, Sensible statement as per your usual. Thanks once again for your input.
Svenm
AWK, Snack: I agree with your sentiments and hope that it is the case that AWK's sketch is a preview of the future. But don't you agree that it is frustrating if it is the case that this has been agreed upon by the principles involved that it can't be publicly stated! It sure might make it easier for Wave to make it through without too much further dilution!
JMHO,
Svenm
AWK, As we all know, what makes sense and what comes to pass are sometimes not the same thing! In your multiple choice exam, A and C would each provide interoperability, no? What about B? Could it be interoperable as well? I would think that interoperability will be sine qua non. But might there be different ways to accomplish that, albeit not equally efficiently?
Svenm
Doma, Thank you for the correction. You are quite right on point #1.
On Point 4 I think it goes back to Lark's slide many years ago in which he pointed out that 1st the hardware will be deployed, then the application services will kick in. I just don't see much revenue coming our way from application services until a critical mass of trusted platforms are in the marketplace (and I don't think that will be this year). The one way I would see that changing, i.e. the pull being so strong that hardware was "pulled" into the marketplace, would be the adoption by one or more major premium content providers adopting the strategy and making their content available to consumers with trusted platforms. Then we would see lines in this country for secure devices like the 2B's Tokyo iPod lines!
JMHO,
Svenm
Tony, Wave's revenues before the end of the year should be coming from:
1) Licensing agreements on TPM's sold by Intel, Infineon, and NSM.
2) Any other licensing agreements of which we've heard nothing (and therefore I assume don't exist at this time).
3) Waveexpress-and that is really indirect since Wave only owns a part of the company and it is a separate corporation.
4)Sales of ETS, which I am going to assume are pretty minimal as the only server ability right now is KTM.
What makes you think the revenues will be as substantial as you are predicting for Q3 and 4? The IDS #'s are just estimates. Your matrix gives us a blueprint of what TPM's are being sold, but no idea of the quantity. Have you any hard data concerning that part of the equation?
Svenm
AWK, Thanks, I get it now!
Svenm
AWK, After reading Richard York's August 2003 White Paper on ARM technology which is on, I believe, your website, my understanding is that ARM has its own secure nexus embedded in the microprocessor and in fact, has a hardware system that can be extended to many peripherals within the mobile platform. Your reference to your post in which you suggest that the Embassy IP would be the Secure Kernel on the ARM processor would only make sense to me if you are suggesting that ARM has already incorporated Wave IP in their secure kernel. Is that what you are implying? If so, why would this not have been part of the recent announcement?
Respectfully,
Svenm
AWK, I'm as optimistic as the next Wavoid, but I fail to see the connection you're making between the Embassy OS and the ARM TrustZone technology in light of the recent announcement. The announcement only stated that Wave is joining the ARM Connectivity Community, whose stated goals and members are:
The ARM Connected Community's goal is to facilitate networking opportunities for member companies and to promote the availability of a vast range of solutions and products which support the ARM architecture.
The membership of the Community comprises companies spanning the entire semiconductor design chain including providers of software, development tools, systems, design tools and services, operating environments, training and support, and silicon and systems manufacturers.
I fail to see how this correlates with an adoption of Wave IP, especially something as critical as the Embassy Executive, in the TrustZone environment. It may come to pass that some companies choose to use Wave's IP as a result of Wave becoming a member of this networking community, but this doesn't strike me as a "done deal" at all. If I am missing something here feel free to inform me, but on the face of this announcement I just don't see a connection yet.
JMHO,
Svenm
AWK,
Thanks for that utterly clear explanation of what is really a very complex concept that seems to constantly be difficult (for me) to keep my arms around! Do you agree with the following: 1) the plain vanilla TPM's were initially launched rather than accepting the E2100 design) primarily because of cost considerations or were there other more important factors in play? 2)That Wave's business plan, as the manager of the trusted platform environment, can only really take off when secure execution environments are widespread?
Svenm
Ramsey, I ditto the thanks for the illuminating discussion of ARM.
On another note, as you know Wave management has repeatedly made the point that they are not in the chip business, nor do they desire to be in it. The E2100 may have been very important for demonstration purposes and its IT is an integral part of the Wave business plan, but I doubt that that plan will include any Wave chips.
Svenm
Doma, Barge: I tend to agree with Doma here. If you look at this technical paper from MSFT: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/howto/articles/drmarchitecture.aspx#introduction
it appears to be a software solution, IMHO. I don't see where TPM's are necessary or even suggested. That doesn't mean it can't be hardened in the future with TPM's. I don't see any reason for MSFT to avoid mentioning the use of hardware security in this technical paper, but I could certainly be missing something.
Svenm
Mammon,
Just a quick reply. I think at least the Embassy Trust Suite part of the business model is pretty clear. If you want certain trusted applications, like digital signatures, vaults and information management at the present time Wave is one of the leading software vendors. These applications initially will be used primarily by enterprises, later by consumers as well (e.g. on line signing of every-day financial transactions). As for key management there is value in the KTM service as a kind of insurance, of course, as far as the consumer is concerned. For businesses it is of far greater value. However, the attestation identity key management will be mandatory for anyone (consumers included) wishing to use TCG standard protocols for digital content delivery. If your computer can't be attested to, you'll be SOL when you wish to download that first run Hollywood film. Anyone can do any number of extrapolations of that example to the wide word of valuable digital content. Will consumers pay for that? You be the judge!
Svenm
Waveduke,
Don't forget: A certain percentage of TPM's shipping involve bundled Wave software with contracts applied involving $.50-1.00 apiece. Those TPM's (variously estimated at about 50% of total shipments by I believe SKS in the last CC) do generate a not-negligible amount of revenue if the rampup meets the IDC estimates.
Svenm
Excellent work, Ramsay! Thanks for sharing!
Svenm
Awk, HBG, Doma, Weets-Thanks all for the input and clarifications.
Svenm
Weets,
That sounds great but there is something I am missing here. I don't see anything in the HP/MSFT PR that actually spells out TPM as the hardware security method for the servers. It all makes sense, of course, but do we have any actual knowledge of exactly what technology they are talking about?
Svenm
Unclevername, Once again, thanks so much for the transcript! Great job!
Svemm
Doma,
Thanks for the input. That's reassuring to hear.
Svenm
CM,
I read this interview earlier and noted that Sumrall mentions Direct Anonymous Attestation as an alternative to certificates because of their expense and industry-wide resistance to that. Since attestation is Wave's core business I naturally found that a concern. What are your thoughts?
Svenm
Awk,
Thanks for the recent post (since deleted for whatever reason) on the UCSB trusted computing proposal. That was one of the best, if not the best, summaries of what trusted computing can do right now, without a trusted O/S, for a large enterprise, IMHO. That's on my mandatory read list. It is very exciting to see that IT managers are beginning to take this ball and run with it in real life!
Svenm
Kevin,
Your posts have been quite valuable. Just because you can't access the board during the day it still leaves the evening. I look forward to seeing you continue.
The best,
Svenm
Kevin,
Did that slide include absolute #'s as well as percentages of the PC shipments? If so, do you recall them?
Svenm
Kevin, Thanks for the report! Re: the percentages on the PC's and cell phones with TPM's estimated '04 and future years, was it clear whether this was a percentage of total devices sold or was it referring to a percentage of enterprise devices sold? I'm trying to figure out what the projection of actual #'s of devices sold may be as well as get a feeling for expected ramp-up within the consumer sector.
Svenm
Ramsey2, Exactly! I think that is how it best fits together. And posts: http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2874063
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=2874063
from Foam and Doma I think are descriptions of how this part of the puzzle is presently working out. There is a lot to keep track of here and I must admit I don't have the diligence/organization of an AWK or a 2B to keep it all current. Fortunately they do it for us!
Svenm
Doma, From the 2002 IDF PR you presented earlier: Under the multi-year agreement between Intel and VeriSign, VeriSign will optimize its digital certificates and Personal Trust Agent (PTA) for future mobile computing platforms based on Intel's next generation mobile processor, codenamed Banias. VeriSign's PTA is software that transparently handles digital certificate functions, such as key management and storage, while providing a greatly enhanced experience for the end user. The collaboration will enable PC Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to integrate VeriSign's PTA and digital certificates into Banias processor-based notebook PCs. This integration will provide IT managers with a platform that can be deployed with VeriSign's Public Key Infrastructure services to enable strong authentication, authorization, digital signatures, encryption and more secure messaging.
Bold is mine, and note that it does not say "...to provide strong authentication..."
To me this sounds like Verisign is providing middleware that will aid the authentication process by the Privacy Certification Authority (what Wave wants to be). Presently this would be a symbiotic, rather than competetive relationship, IMHO.
Svenm
Kevin, How right you are! But, of course, I would never mention (other than this one reply) Barge and hhh in the same breath. For one thing, I read every one of Barge's posts and consider them very carefully because I know that Barge has the utmost integrity, a great deal of intelligence and his heart is in the right place. There are a lot of posters on this board that clearly don't fit that bill and I don't spend any time reading their offerings. So I'm not looking to pile on Barge (whose acerbic wit I am absolutely no match for), whom I consider a friend and an ally in this seemingly never ending search for trusted digital industry facts.
As I said before, the differences between Barge's and my opinions on this issue are relatively small. But I did forget to mention in my previous post that one thing about Intel's WTP initiative that I find very exciting is that it may accelerate the development of the TI ARM processor based TPM technology in conjunction with Safelink. That, as Doma has pointed out, is Intel's very formidable competition. The beauty for Wave is that both technologies will require KTM/ACM utility services and even if Wave has competition, the size of the market is essentially doubling (OK, that is a wild guess but do the math and it may not be far off)! I think Wave can afford to share in a potential $60B market!
JMHO,
Svenm
Barge,
It's really very simple, I think. You believe that Bulverde, because Intel reports it will be based upon TCG spec's, implicates Wave involvement. I agree that it does represent an opportunity for Wave and I am sure that Wave is doing everything it can to sieze that opportunity. I am not as sure as you are that Wave is working hand in glove with Intel to develop that technology. I just don't happen to think that things are done that way. I believe that Intel engineers are very aware of Wave's abilities and consider Wave to be one solution to the KTM/ACM server utility services that will be necessary for this new market that is rapidly developing. I find that very exciting. I just don't think that I am as convinced as you that Wave is a given. Doma's much-appreciated two posts (#37944 & 37954) certainly have some bearing here, and AWK's post #37929 is quite relevant as well.
There's nothing the matter with some skepticism. Critical inquiry makes for better decisions!
The best,
Svenm
I think there is
AWK, Thanks AWK. Your immediate recall of all this info is astounding! Are you sure you're not actually employed by Wave/TCG (lol)? Hopefully if it flies, walks, and quacks like a duck it will be a duck!
Svenm
Barge,
Excuse me for butting in, but while it is fair to use the word FACT as a rhetorical device, it serves little purpose, IMO. Unfortunately, your challenge, i.e. to prove that Bulverde is not implicated with Wave is asking for an impossible rebuttal. As you know, it's not possible to prove a negative.
While there appears to be some evidence that Bulverde may be linked to Wave, there are some very definite missing links at this time. Bulverde is described as being based on TPM spec's, not on conforming to existing spec's. That may imply some sort of technology that we are not yet familiar with that may or may not include Wave.
I'm sure this is another example of what you consider "timid Wavoid posting" but so be it.
With all due respect,
Svenm
Ramsey, I reread the Clarke article and I agree with you. It's poorly written and the NGSCB reference (really an afterthought) could mean almost anything. Assuming final edition Longhorn will contain NGSCB AWK's reply makes perfect sense. It doesn't sound as if the trusted PC game plan is changed at this point.
Svenm
Whoops! That was AWK & Rachelelise!
Svenm
Awk % Rachelelise,
Thanks for the varying input. It seems doubtful to me as well that NGSCB may be scrubbed from Longhorn. But the persistent quotes from MSFT exec's I've read re: Longhorn delays and difficulties preparing that OS gave me pause to wonder. There are significant commercial deadline pressures for Longhorn, not to mention government and industry demand for timely solutions for trusted computing. If the chipmakers can solve the bulk encryption problem without Longhorn it may be positive for Wave, I would think. And I agree, AWK, trusted computing is rapidly becoming an old paradigm. Essentially, the TCG has already morphed into the TPG (Trusted Platform Group). Since Wave has anticipated this for a long time I would expect our IP to benefit us significantly as this evolves.
Svenm
Question: A recent post highlighted an article in which the possibility of MSFT's dropping NGSCB from Longhorn was raised. There wasn't much discussion on the board which surprised me. I see the possibility as having a distinct possible negative as well as a distinct possible positive: 1) Without NGSCB bulk encryption is no longer possible (does anyone have evidence to the contrary?) and the demand for TPM's could suffer significantly. SKS stated in previous CC's that NGSCB will be the big driver of TPM's in the marketplace. 2) If bulk encryption can be accomplished in another way (LGT, SEM?) then NGSCB may become irrelevant and its dropping could imply MSFT's acceptance of a less than dominant role in hardware security.
I don't claim to have any answers to these questions but I'd be interested in hearing from those that may!
Svenm
Kevin, Nice find! Even if the government moves slowly this is a nice example of directed marketing of the TPM solution.
Svenm
Doma, That's how I read it. Attestation Identity Key, AIK. Too much of an acronymal coincidence to be anything else, I would think. Unless, of course, it's an Alien Identifier Key!
Svenm
Kevin_s5, Yes, I did. I take it you're referring to the estimated CAGR?
Svenm