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.
rachelelise, I agree...
I think Wave prefers to hold SSPX and that these little sales give infusions of working capital for various uses.
For those who do not follow alea's board I wanted to provide this link to an excellent post by Wildman262, that does an excellent job of profiling the demand for Wave's TPM services:
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1666827
rachelelise
I would definitely expect that the bulk of direct selling of ETS by Wave would be in volume quantities to enterprise customers at reduced prices and not from much directly from Wave's website.
I really expect that Wave has been going full throttle to push basic ETS out to every available TPM they can reach. It's just my guess that guidance on Q4 revenues is plausible. I still guess that direct selling of ETS may be more substantive for that purpose than licensing from Intel and NSM.
rachelelise
Sounds like you are referring to Premium services (server-side KTM and ACM). What about basic client-side ETS (Business/Professional Editions) to the deployed IBM base with a little HP and IBM/HP going forward? It's my impression that progress is being made in getting basic ETS out to already deployed TPMs or orders going forward.
It's my hope that revenue is now coming in for basic ETS and will form the basis for Q4 projections.
MIG, the lower it goes, the more I get to buy on the next pop!
Excellent svenm...more later. Thanks! e/
Doma
1. So we are thinking that there will be, according to Steven, a dozen service providers, but these are actually third party identity service providers?
2. In the future Wave will be only one of these third party identity service providers, but for now is the only one?
3. In the future when there are other third party identity service providers, Wave's attestation IP will be licensed to the others?
4. Therefore, Wave's attestation server, both operated by Wave's back office or operated by others under license from Wave, will be the tech to manage all/most/much of the third party identity services?
5. What remains unclear to me is if a third party indentity service provider must be able to provide attestation or if there is another role. I assume the third party identity service provider provides attestation, which would mean either they license from Wave or Wave's attestation server is replicable.
Larry Dudash
The Intel and NSM deployments are obvious as Wave has licensing deals with both.
As I have said before, my hopes are high that the direct selling of ETS by Wave to the existing IBM and HP machines as well as orders of IBM and HP machines going forward has seen sufficient results already to offer guidance based on business transpiring as we speak.
This is my only hope for revenue guidance, as I believe the Intel/NSM licensing revenue can't be gauged at this point unless Intel and NSM are willing to let Wave divulge the numbers.
Doma
Yes! It does appear that it is confirmation of Wave's role as the third party attester.
From the Paul England co-authored paper:
"Microsoft encourages the formation of third-party identity service providers to act as trusted intermediaries between service providers and their customers. Users can configure their platforms to permit attestation to one or a few identity service providers."
Steven, from the EE Times UK article:
"My guess is the market could accommodate a dozen service providers," said Sprague. "Wave's goal is [that] when you lose your laptop you can call our 800 number and get all your credentials renewed."
Unclear to me though is if Steven is referring to a dozen "third-party identity service providers" OR a dozen service providers as in "service providers and their customers" per the England et al paragraph above.
It seems Wave is indeed first mover in the role of "third party identity service provider", but from where the competition might emerge is unknown.
awk/go-ks
At the CTIA Wireless, I was told to expect Intel D865GRH to be available retail in 18-30 days...that was 18 days ago.
rooster, thanks for your persistent DD! e/
go-ks/Whitewash
go-ks, nice followup/summary to Whitewash's excellent post about MSFT's collaborative policies. Personally, I think Whitewash is on the right track when pointing to the implausibility of MSFT screwing the other TCG participants. I agree with Whitewash that Biddle and SKS crusading together speaks volumes about MSFT, Wave and the TCG.
Thanks for the great exchange guys!
go-ks/anybody else P.S.
Re: possible licensing of "basic" ETS to windows XP, is it known if Wave IP protects "basic" ETS?
SPIN
Nothing wrong with rounding down to be conservative.
I can see a difference between Intel providing an MB w/ TPM (I believe the MB is built to their specs or if Intel actually builds it, same difference) and NSM being only the provider of the TPM. I am sure you recognize my point about implementation.
Is it plausible that NSM will not announce the SafeKeeper implementation unless a well known PC OEM decides to announce their product, or perhaps until SafeKeeper sales gain traction across NSM's TPM markets?
I went back through Infineon news releases including 2002, and this was the earliest PR I found of the Infineon TPM:
http://www.infineon.com/cgi/ecrm.dll/jsp/showfrontend.do?lang=EN&BV_SessionID=@@@@0606960610.106....
And the most recent Infineon/HP PR does not even contain the acronym "TPM":
http://www.infineon.com/cgi/ecrm.dll/jsp/showfrontend.do?lang=EN&BV_SessionID=@@@@1069544597.106....
I believe the SafeKeeper has indeed been released to OEMs and is in the process of being implemented in various designs...the "design wins" we have heard referenced in a recent CC. It is possible that none of these products is complete. We may learn more about SafeKeeper implementations during next week's CC.
Personally, I am hoping for ETS (direct selling by Wave) revenue guidance, as my hope is that this revenue will be realized before Intel (and NSM) licensing fees are realized.
SPIN
"We are currently only supporting OEMs in the PC industry in
designing in this device"
We need to consider that "in designing in this device" could imply implementing it to a PC OEM's specifications, like for instance if it goes on a daughterboard or a motherboard. Remember, NSM only makes the TPM hardware device itself, somebody has to put it somewhere.
The impression I got from my visit to the CTIA Wireless is that the SafeKeeper is indeed fully released to PC OEMs. I am going to guess it is being implemented on motherboards. I would further guess that motherboard OEMs that will be placing SafeKeepers on motherboards for PC OEM customers have the processes in place to do so, or soon will have. Intel has been able to do it with Infineon, HP with Infineon, IBM with Atmel, and etc., so I doubt the others are far behind.
awk thanks for the tophersaint link.
Good news about Fujitsu/Siemens. This identifies an Infineon marketing channel for Wave...IMO Wave is all over it.
http://www.wave.com/news/press_archive/02/021118infineon.html
http://www.wave.com/news/press_archive/03/030304silicontrust.html
Here is the complete e-mail response from NSM, dated 0ct. 10:
Hello,
In response to your request:
Thank you for your interest in National Semiconductor's SafeKeeper
device,
PC21100. We are currently only supporting OEMs in the PC industry in
designing in this device. We are not adequately resourced to engage
with
smaller, special-purpose companies.
The PC21100 is fully released product, but because of our PC focus, we
are
only selling to those, speciallized accounts.
There are any number of software packages available today that
implement
the digital signature technology (of course with the keys and other
secrets
not as secure stored as in a TPM). I would suggest you explore these
possibilities first and then look at the other opportunities to
securely
store away your secrets."
Discover the art of analog design at National Semiconductor's Analog
Seminar Series
at a location near you! Join Bob Pease along with other industry
experts
and brush up on
a full pallet of topics. Seminars will take place from September 8
through
October 20. For
a complete agenda and to register go to
http://www.national.com/analogseminar
Regards,
Design Support Group
http://www.national.com
Please provide a detailed explanation of your technical question?
Re: Regarding Your Feedback
How can we make the information we provide more useful?
Other comments or problem? Please provide details.
Product Folder/Part
Num:
mbarr, the Street needs to see revenues reported or some guidance substantiating future revenues, meaning...business is currently happening with a projection of what revenues conservatively will be the next quarter. I hope management will not offer guidance unless they are 100% sure of their projections.
I am certain as Wave approaches profitablity (if and when of course...any speculative investment has risk) the Street will react.
Doma
This may be a question of semantics, but bear in mind that at the present time KTM and ACM are considered part of Wave's ETS portfolio, or will be when officially released.
I would expect any licensing of ETS to MSFT would be for "basic" ETS only, like the Intel bundling for example.
I do think that if MSFT licenses basic ETS for Windows XP, that it would be an incredible marketing tool for ETS Premium Services.
Packstater, that must be TPM. Thanks. e/
Thanks weets. Would be nice if Wave was demoing Finread @ Cartes 2003.
Regards,
Ramsey
T123
I'd like to get back to you later on this but I have to run.
Just to clarify, regarding your earlier post, this was me not bigtim:
"Unless I missed it, this excellent post by Tampa123, alluding to possible MSFT designs on dominating attestation by tying it into it's .Net (via a .Net attestation server), drew no response. I was surprised by the lack of response to this thought provoking post":
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1703164
Wave @ Carte 2003
Search Wave Systems and the booth comes up:
http://www.cartes.com/en/frameset_dyn.htm?URL=A_salon/A4_exposants/A4_recherche.htm
bbigtim/others
bbigtim writes:
"Finally, there are people in the open source community that fear that trusted computing will be used to stifle their movement. These fears are wholly rational. Mister Softee must be watched very carefully, because the creation of a trusted operating system carries with it significant potential for monopolistic manipulation."
Unless I missed it, this excellent post by Tampa123, alluding to possible MSFT designs on dominating attestation by tying it into it's .Net (via a .Net attestation server), drew no response. I was surprised by the lack of response to this thought provoking post:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1703164
eamonnshute/Doma
There is no doubt that the Atmel 4M is a subset of IBM's 8M by year's end projection, unless Atmel has to date supplied somebody other than IBM.
Obviously Atmel is likely to supply other OEMs, but for now the only deployments we know of are IBM and HP (and Intel), and Infineon supplies HP and Intel.
OT: T123...agreed about giving investment advice to others.
Twice recently, after the Intel news runup, I took the trouble to e-mail two customers of mine very detailed info on Wave, including insights possessed only by shareholders such as myself who have followed Wave daily. These e-mails also included relevant links. One customer was a professional (successful) day trader, the other an analyst for a big investment bank. I never heard back from either of these individuals and it was clear I was not hyping the stock but merely giving good info. If people like this can't see a good thing when they see one (of course there is still risk in WAVX...that's a given), what hope is there for the average investor to make good decisions when it comes to investing in emerging-growth stocks?
This is why I would surmise, to use the extreme example, that even many Wave staffers may not have the good sense to go into their savings accounts to buy WAVX when it was $1.00.
Weby, thanks for the overview, and a very good one it is at that.
A couple of points about apparent lack of new WAVX investors:
1. It's surprising how many people have no sense about investing, or the stomach for it. Tell your best friend about a sure deal and it's surprising how few will go for it. Even people who work in the industry in question often aren't the type to invest even as the success unfolds before their very eyes.
2. Institutional investing. Once Wave reaches profitability, or generates meaningful revenues the Street will kick in. The Street will only go so far before seeing revenues or some kind of confirmed guidance.
Thanks eamonnshute...
"I expect to see full EMBASSY2100 functionality onboard by the end of the decade"
Oh...maybe a lot sooner than that. Pure speculation on my part, but who is to say that programmablity of the TPM involving Wave IP won't arrive in time for NGSCB via an updated 1.2. May depend on how quickly NGSCB is ready as to whether NGSCB comes before a programmable 1.2 or whatever it would be. As long as updated TPMs remain backwards compatible, it shouldn't matter what comes first.
Down And Out Man
I interpreted the statement by the IBM guy in the EE Times article to mean that IBM was planning on having as many 8M TPMs deployed by year's end, which I believe would be all Atmel TPMs.
Therefore, when Atmel in the same article refers to 4M Atmel TPMs shipped to date, that must mean the 4M IBM machines already deployed and growing to the year's end 8M.
All we know for sure at this point is that Atmel supplies IBM and Infineon supplies HP and Intel. NSM we don't know but have speculated overseas customers, including hopefully major Japanese OEMs.
IMO, it's plausible that all three TPM vendors are targeting various other OEMs that we have no way of knowing about...yet.
toro
It is indeed interesting to look back and see such relatively broad industry support for Embassy and then to see it not get deployed. Apparently when push came to shove it was either too much money or just unrealized demand. This era pre-dates my investment so I don't understand the dynamics of the failure to deploy Embassy including through the EDS channel. Perhaps you or others would be willing to highlight a few milestones in these past failures.
Thanks for your post.
Ramsey
24601 you summed it up very nicely! e/
kevin_s5
Interesting that NSM has not announced the SafeKeeper shipping. Obviously Wave can't comment.
NSM informed me that the SafeKeeper is fully released to OEMs. Based on that one would like to assume it's shipping. On that assumption, for some reason there remains stealth?
kevin_s5
Thanks for your awesome DD today. Between your EETimes find and the SKS e-mail you have more than done your share.
It's detective work and information gathering like your work today that makes this a really valuable forum.
Thanks also to awk, barge, Wildman, Doma and others for their continuing diligence.
Regards,
Ramsey
Barge, a fabulous, highly logical post!
You point to the evidence...namely that TC has been in the works since the TCPA was founded with Wave participating along the way, but yet only Wave offers an attestation server (which btw includes the inaugaral, soon to be released services of KTM and ACM ). Surely the giants with their unlimited sorces would have sliced of the attestation piece of the pie to be split up as they see fit, but apparently it made sense to let Wave handle this. It's plausible because Wave has devloped their expertise for this role in developing Embassy.
barge, your line of reasoning supports the plausible notion that the role of Gatekeeper should go to an independent like Wave.
Bravo!
Nice find kevin_s5. Thanks! e/
P.S. T123
As far as TPM software I neglected to include that the NSM SafeKeeper is listed in the TCG Solutions catalog as having some basic feature that appears to be non-Wave. And also there are other specialty solutions listed in the catalog like Adobe, Verisign and something that comes with Infineon which apparently is not part of HP ProtectTools.
IMO, all of the above are either special functions that don't compete with ETS, or are similiar function to certain ETS elements but are less robust and not interoperable.
T123
"It sort of makes them the only likely choice if they're always in support of the specs, they support it across every platform, and they're always the first to say so ahead of anyone else, then I do believe that it sends a good message to potential users under these circumstances."
I am sure you know, that except for the HP ProtectTools that comes with HP TPM machnies, and the IBM software that comes with the IBM TPM machines (Embedded Security Subsystem models) Wave's ETS is the only utility software available for TPMs and further is the only TPM software that works across all TPM platforms. I doubt that changes for the foreseeable future...Wave has too many future releases planned to lose first mover advantage any time soon. All IMHO.
It would not surprise me if these little sales of SSPX are meant to finance additional costs relating to future product releases.
CL, alright to hear from ya! e/
sven
As I understand it, the plan is for Longhorn to provide the trusted applications environment, whereas the TPM as we know it today is strictly a keys management technology. Actually the TPM could become programmable in which case it's a different story, except that the host PC OS (Longhorn eg.) will remain as the host's trusted apps environment...local vs. network (Longhorn vs. programmable TPM)?
My sense is that ClearTrust and similiar software will eventually run on Longhorn as trusted apps, whereas today they are just security software running on Windows. I don't think ClearTrust is TPM software by today's definition, unless it can directly interface with a TPM.
OT:
http://www.cbronline.com/cbrnews/059233d850dd7d6b80256dd4001e464a
Microsoft Outlines Longhorn Security for Borland Developers
By Gavin Clarke
Microsoft Corp seized on Borland Software Corp's annual developer conference yesterday to promote planned security upgrades in its next version of Windows.
Days after presenting Longhorn to Microsoft's own developers, the company used Borland's event to stress the value of managed code to stamp-out worms and other viruses.
Managed code helps prevent buffer overruns, a common security fault exploited by hackers attempting to crash operating systems like Windows XP with malicious code.
Borland's developers are arguably the most influential community of Windows programmers outside of Microsoft's own. Borland tools rank second to Microsoft's own in terms of market share for Windows.
As such, Borland used its conference, BorCon in San Jose, California, to announce Delphi 8.0 for the Microsoft .NET Framework. Delphi 8.0 can now compile to Microsoft's intermediate language and execute via the Common Language Runtime (CLR).
Delphi 8.0 joins languages F Sharp, Mixal, Pizza, P Sharp, Ruby and Zannon, which all now work on the CLR, said David Treadwell, general manager for Microsoft's .NET developer platform team Treadwell.
Microsoft claims more than 30 languages run on the CLR, including its own such as Visual Basic.NET, C++.NET and C Sharp.NET.
Presenting Longhorn to the first non-Microsoft developer audience at BorCon, Treadwell outlined the operating system's Indigo web services communications layer, WinFS file storage system and the XAML-based Avalon interface.
Treadwell said Microsoft is putting more features into the operating system, including managed code that simplifies development and enhance security. "As we put more things into the operating system we expect a whole class of bugs to be eliminated," Treadwell said.
svenm
Perhaps I was over my head to not call ClearTrust solutions security TPM software, just because they are not in the TCG catalog. Am I wrong to assume that if ClearTrust is not in the TCG solutions catalog, then it is not TCPA-compliant? In any case, your point about Wave's key management and attestation enabler for TPMs is a good one.
btw, RSA is not yet a TCG member.