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.
Ramseys
When it came to my Blackberry purchase I didn't go with Verizon because they use CDMA technology which is not used in Europe (T mobile and Cingular were the two global phones using GSM). I needed a global phone.nThats consistent with the removal of Verizon in the European presentation.
cosmo
I really wish you knew what you are talking about. I can't even count the number of price up days especially preceeding some sort of event like a conference call or Tuesday or a full moon or Citibank's conference call etc.
When something real leaks, we'll have 5 million + shares traded. Of course just my opinion.
Helpful
It would seem that the folks in Japan will act more quickly to secure confidential data. At least when they align on something, everyone takes its seriously and there are penalties as well as loss of face to violate the rules.
The US system is so large and in such a mess and there is such a permissive attitiude to infractions and penalties, that is just chugs along. Y2K was one of the rare moments when everyone took the potential issue seriously. Of course in retrospect no one really knows how large an issue it was.
P.S. One of my doctors has a computer for the internal hospital records which is not connected to his LAN nor connected to the internet. He has a separate computer that he uses for internet access with no records. It pained me to tell him that he would need to worry about the other 2,000 doctors in the hospital and thier potential nodes of attack before my records were safe.
Go-Kite
I believe this was their position last year as a partial explanation of why Micorosoft had delivered so little in Vista relative to trusted computing. I don't know whehter they would take that position today nor how true it was a year ago. it seemed crazy but Micorosoft's ultimate deliverable seemed just as absurd.
AWK
Its one thing to argue that an OEM should use Wave's ETS becuase of potential mixed TPM environment. However it feels a lot more powerful if ETS is needed to work with some key and desirable products such as FDE.
It wil lintersting to see the market battle when FDE competes with Vista full encryption. FDE is certainly more flexible and offers a better solution. And possibly both will come in Vista computers out of the box. It owuld be a reason for Seagate to bundle something with Wave if that would encourage the purchase of their product.
Svenm
I assume Wave must have approached Cisco in terms of network authentication and security during the same period as they collaborated with Nortel and Juniper. After all Cisco is still the top dog.
A couple of things could have happened. One Cisco simply wasn't interested. Or they may not have wanted to demonstrate and support something under the TCG umbrella at the moment. However that would not preclude collaboration under a Cisco umbrella since ultimately all of these different network access control designs will need to interoperate and work with trusted computing environments.
AWK
To clarify for me, I think that Wave's software is needed for Seagates specific application and NTT's and that it is also compatible with other TPM software in terms of both residing on the same client? So you could , in theory , use the other TPM software for its applications (as now) and Wave's for the new applications.
However to the extent that Wave's software is equal to or better than the residng software for the other applications, it would be more logical to remove it and rely on Wave's software for everything. Also as noted why have two vendors supplying this instead of one. Today I note that many use a certain Spyware program and a separate anti virus program or some maintain more than one email client.
OR
It is also possible that such split duties actually introduces issues and that the substitution is actually needed.
Either way, these specific Wave applications certainly illustrate their business plan and how to leverage the platform.
theguv
I am also not a paid member (I invested in a WAVX license plate instead) so I can't see those PMs either. But I'm not exactly in the dark and in my opinion you are way off base about those poster agendas. While its true there is a disinclination to post bad things when you are heavily invested, that is a far cry from posting good things (true and false) and passing bad things secretly.
"I am not a paid member so I can't just post the good stuff and then send all the bad stuff via PM as I'm sure many hear do (and some are clearly just in denial all the time). I wouldn;t do that anyway. Couldn't sleep at night. I'm certain some folks simply have no problem with that however."
VC
I'm not sure I would position this a backing away from security. It sounds like they realize their LT approach is chock full of land mines and thus they will not be leading with it. It seems like there would be a gradual introduction of different valued content using other schemes (but still could be a TPM) until such time as the need and value of LT would be more obvious. It may just take an Apple or other players to really supply great content to slowly turn the public and create domains of trust.
But it certainly is a data point to support enterprise /govt first at least from a PC perspective. Mobile phones may be another angle into consumers.
Svenn
While the economic results for Xpress have been horrible to date, it is not so clear that its whole technology is obsolete. There have been discussions concerning business apllications for confidential media rich content and the opportunities once the TPM is on the client. Also it may be that even with bigger pipes, on demand content may not make sense for everything and a data cast approach might work for some content.
So in summary the original Xpress business model may indeed be obsolete but it might be interesting for Michael Sprague to articulate the business opportunities he sees in the future as the trusted computing environment unfolds. I have not thught about it in enough detail to reach a definitive conclusion.
Dig
Consider the phone as part of the broader integrated network with PC's, STB's etc. Whatever phone networks do today, it is not part of an open network with different devices and domain owners. So there needed to be considerable work to create an integrated framework and an architecture to do this. That is where Wave contributed IC and has solutions to make that happen. So depending on when mobile devices start acting as nodes, Wave's solutions will be operative and used.
Dig
Wave indicated that they didn't expect to sell phone software. However further discussions suggested that server software to manage keys was the play. Lark has been part of this working group from inception and the conceptual construction of the trusted environment and its applications was influenced by Wave's input. As for the kernel or other hard contributions, I don't believe we know anything specific or absolute.
Hopefully this will help you fade in a bit.
Maynard
Hard to say. The PR doesn't use the word TPMs and Wave's solutions are pretty much all leveraged around those. It does suggest that the FDE drives can be incorporated in an enterprise environment without utilizing TPMs to secure keys (like Utimaco's older announcement). However it also doesn't indicate that TPMs and Wave's solutions are not compatible with the described software IT management solution. So one could argue that this encourages the widespread purchase of FDE drives (and that is a good thing).
Go Kite
You need to take the blue pill before analyzing the pattern. How the heck do you think you can see the message straight?
DigSpace
I recall correspondance from a while back where there was a decision to simplify and focus on establishing an Embassy brand. As ypu aptly point out, today Dell or Gateway Embassy is a lot more powerful than Embassy or Wave Embassy. There is a huge way to go before that can equate to Norton or Turbo Tax etc.
wavxmaster
I'm not sure of all the implications of this article but it feels quite important in terms of the expansion of trusted computing. And I infer a more potent use than I thought before the article. It has a collaboration of wave and seagate all over it. The hardrive is quite mobile, can fit into many forms and works quite well for enterprises and consumers. Between it, PCs and mobile devices, TPMs and their underlying processes can quickly be everywhere. I would like the fact that Wave is close to Seagate and can be instrumental in terms of making their drives work in the ecosystem.
StocWatcher
A buyout can occur from two directions. First is simply an unfriendly offer directly to shareholders where Wave would have little ability to fight. It would depend on the offer and what shareholder's perceive as the alternative. It's very difficult to tell if any company is interested and if they were would they do it in this uncertain period (where it would be cheaper and easier to convince shareholders) or wait for greater certainty but maybe more resistance from shareholders.
The other would be because Wave could not secure reasonable financing (in the eyes of management) and thus they structure the deal and explain to us why it's our best choice.
I remember way back when Crazylarry raised the possibility when we were running out of funds and it seemed quite possible after thinking about it. We should have no doubt that management will do what is best for them when push comes to shove. However I also think management wants to succeed on their own because of pride (ego) and the huge amount of sweat equity invested in this thing. Although people do complain about their compensation, it is absurd to think they haven't taken huge emotional hits. Thus the second possibility is really one of last resort when practically all other channels have failed. I think it is unlikely to happen unless there are severe delays in the trusted computing rollout or some very unexpected competition emerges.
stfzf
Seagate will have to decide if its in their interests to bundle some of Wave's functionality with their drives. This may be useful if the buyer does not have Wave's software on their computer already.And Wave will have to decide if they want to go that path. Given that Seagate's drives will be in many places, it will certainly provide a vehicle to distribute the seeds as or more quickly than through PCs themselves.
As an aside, a friend of mine who follows this space closely and works within it has been very high on Seagate for a while and sees their drives appearing in many devices (although its not clear the extrent to which they will be trusted).
mark1
That is an exanmple of some sloppiness which I certainly would not write. However I strongly doubt the author thinks Wave makes TPMs and is alluding to potential customers and/or to license royalities.
CPA - Dutton
As you know, it is increasingly difficult for companies to have any analyst coverage anymore and it is almost impossible if you are micro cap company and not using an investment firm for purposes of financing. The emergence of independent but paid analysts is not a bad thing and it can make sense for Wave (or other companies) to utilize them in order to get a financial and fundamental analysis into the public domain. I certainly wouldn't expect the analyst to pan the company at the outset but I also wouldn't expect them to tout the company like conflicted analysts did all the time back a few years ago.
That said one can find faults with the summary and analysis although a lot of it does make general sense.
If I were writing these pieces I'd also be cautious in terms of predictions, especially if I looked back at Pacific Growth and Adams Harkenss - both of whom saw the possibilities but misjudged the market and maybe got too optimistic based on discussions with Wave.
My sense is that most of the Ihubbers have a reasonable understanding of the threats and opportunities and also have a rear view picture of the past opportunities and results. There are a variety of scenarios that are all plausible but applying probabilities to them is far less scientific than I'd wish.
I think Wave will be able to finance the company under almost any scenario but the cost (which is currently way too high) could become even higher. There is obviously always the possibility of a buyout and all sorts of upside if sales ever really begin and/or additional gorilla partners are added.
AWK
Following up on your post, who will Wave be selling software to beyond today when mobile phones become an active endpoint. Is it just that it will make managing the network even more important (so more potential users and interest) or is there new software to be purchased by mobile phone users, or mobile network providers or ???. Is it that their existing sofware will now work with a new type of TPM again making them the main player in town?
Barge
your comments about Seagate
I think the importance here is with enterprises. The encryption of hard drives is a clear winner for enterprises especially with laptops. They will want to make use of this feature and they will need a way to administer it. That is a real strong positive for the Embassy server. To the extent that Seagate's drive depends on anything Wave to work with the TPM (forget about the backup), then that's a strong pull for ETS (at least lite). That could lead to further bundling with OEMs or Seagate itself. I wonder whether HP Protect Tools as presently constituted can work with the Seagate drives.
As for SKS thoughts on the share price, he created the conditions so he better get focused on the revenues and not the promise.
wildman
I agree. It is inconceivable that keeping the price low is a strategy - except for the insane. It's bad enough that they misjudged the revenue flow so much.
Mundo - a dream
Go Kite
You've made a good point that I happen to agree with. I also did not think the way he framed his comments about the TCG marketing role was appropriate in a meeting which is recorded and widely available. I do understand that they have really driven a lot of the specifications so that was not hyperbole.
I did find his comments about the funding quite transparent and honest. Wave will go back and try to do this as often as necessary until revenues will support self funding. For now one is betting that sales will kick in quickly enough to avoid another deal(s)and a downward spiral in price.
The Seagate product is quite interesting. It is unclear to me whether a TPM will be required to make it work and that requires a Wave software upgrade purchase or whether the TPM just makes it more secure. Will enterprises simply conclude that the only way to manage this is to have Wave's full bundle in order to protect the data and avoid having it inaccessible if an employee somehow loses the key to decrypt. Not sure.
I thought Utimaco also provided support for this in a non TPM world but I haven't seen any reference to Seagate and them in quite a while. Perhaps everybody's focus and strategy is now simply on a ubiquitous TPM environment.
Howard
While I don't think SKS' statement was precisely .50 you can hear his comments on the replay of the presentation he made the other day at an analysts meeting in Calif. You'll need to search the board for the URL.
Dutch
As an investor, (or someone who wants to understand this investment), comments about financing and future needs are rational to discuss. One can be optimistic about the company's future but be very concerned how one as a current shareholder will fair. There is still peril ahead - and not all stakeholders will necessarily come out way ahead. I agree that some comments are better off not said and don't add anything. But that can be said for postive and negative ones. If they add value or insight, then that's what the board is for.
Presentation ?
there was one comment he made that surprised me and I'm trying to understand. He discussed the mobile space and ended by saying he didn't expect to sell much mobile phone software but wanted to make sure there were no issues interacting with a PC.
For those following the mobile space, does that suggest that the inclusion of trusted phones in this environment will be good in terms of making the space that much more important and likely will mean additional functionality in terms of Wave's products but there would no additional sales associated with additional devices. That is a user would not be buying Wave software to deal with their mobile phone.
Mig
Besides that, I wouldn't underestimate the downward pressure associated with ongoing financing issues. One of the bad aspects is that it takes months for the overhang to dissipate fully and then we start a new financing round so it is almost continuous. That can and hopefully will change. The latest demos are fortunately associated with real commercial products and products that are important to the other partnering companies and the pedigree of those companies is excellent. And the issue of securing the network is now front and center.
rosie
I was surprised to not see Wave's name listed nor any reference to the TCG or TPMs in the summary. We'll see what they say later as they summarize the actual presentations etc.
going fishin
There are several areas where criticism could be justified.
First is the degree to which people have been mislead in 1999 to 2003 Certainly Wave did little to curtail excitment when it was misplaced and in fact they helped fuel the flames. I have done the same thing to some degree in sales situations but that doesn't make it right and there are thresholds that shouldn't be crossed. There is clearly some differences of opinion here.
Second is the way the funds from the 120 million financing were spent. Clearly there was exuberance throughout the marketplace but Wave clearly misjudged the market and revenue expectations a lot. It's not any one deal that I would criticize since that is a retrospective jab but in the aggregate they were not good stewards of the money. And their business strategy did not align well with the realiities of the market.
Third in more recent times, the misjudgements of revenue incidence and their financing strategy causing serial dilution at decreasing prices.
I think most IHubers understand now the difficulties that have been encountered and just what a tough job it really has been to accomplish Wave's goals. And it is hard to argue with their successes and positioning over the past several years. I think your post refers a lot to Wave's modern history and a lot of the criticism is based on periods before then.
Weby
A section of your post resonated with me.
"I believe what is still unrecognized here is that Wave, IBM, MSFT, etc. all learned from each other at the start of the decade. Wave's solution was necessary, but not sufficient...it was delayed to work out a way to protect every new node... "
Most of us thought that somehow Wave's solution(s) would just be picked up in the market as is and we were wrong for a variety of reasons. Besides the simple fact that rarely can one compnay produce something totally new and just own the market, there were in reality too many limitations around wave's solution to make it be the end all. However its clear that they came up with some lasting concepts and now have delivered on some components that are invaluable to the whole thing working.
As "impatient", "somewhat naive and believing" and "too early" investors, we've taken quite a hit in terms of emotional and financial outcomes. However one poster said it well - just because it has taken 9 years to get here doesn't in anyway imply that is the forecast for the future (despite CPA's 3 months groundhog mantra).
In the past quarters, we have seen the paradigm emerging as each provider is stepping up with their piece of the puzzle. In a manner that makes a lot of sense. All those those government pilots and relationship building resulted in contract wins and even trusted advisor status. The OEMs are cautiously building the hardware to fit in the puzzle and Gateway's comments in an email that they are going to be using Wave since they are the industry leader says a lot. With the network builders like Juniper now showing something and the mobile operators being more forthcoming about trusted nodes and services, the picture is being filled in right in front of us.
Initially I wasn't so sure of how the Wave/TCG relationship would play out. We've been at the forefront of other standards groups. However at this point, TCG really has gotten traction as the open standards magnet and it is really providing Wave with an incredible access point to everyone. Although I can't see him in action, I'd bet that Berger is doing an incredible job of builing working and trusted relationships with all the players - something I suspect SKS had difficulty doing in the past. The company has also grown up quite a bit over the years and recognizes that execution is the key to success - not just ideas.
I agree with your other insight that it is hard to consider or feel confident of success after all the years. And even now it is hard to quantify success in terms of share price - the variables are so broad that you can produce almost any number you want depending on how things play out.
But at least the soap opera is getting a lot more interesting and positive (once again)
hawkshaw
His work was finished with Wave but he remained as an advisor. I'm not sure of the current relationship. Clealry one element in their "trusted connection" with the DOD.
Cliff
It is very plausible that Wave has more experience and expertise in architecting a trusted computing network than anyone else. The other integrators may not have any experience yet since everyone has been in a selling (and not doing) mode. As for whether Wave is in that business, almost any provider of tools would love the opportunity to design the system especially when it could be the template for other independent and connected domains.
CMF
Especially if it doubles your quarterly revenue.
More seriously Wave appears to have gained the traction in government that they've focused on for many years. It's been a tough slog to get there but that turns into a very strong competitive advantage once you are there.
Dig
From day one I've always heard that the current TPM design and system structure is not good enough when the highest security is required. E2100 is conceptually. What I don't know is if the government wanted a lot of them, what would need to happen. Would it need to be reengineered to take advantage of what has transpired over the years or could it be manufactured based on the older designs. If the security issues are really true, then I wouldn't dismiss it - the government is not a consumer and their ability to buy what they want and need takes the analysis through a different prism.
Cell Grafix
I never thought about Rand licensing in the way you depicted. There are many companies that are part of the TCG. It is perfectly plausible to believe at inception certain companies contributed their IP and agreed to willingly cross license it or otherwise make it available to allow the basic trusted computing framework and the TPM to be developed and commercialized. And Wave would be part of that arrangement. However the group has grown considerably and new products and services are being created and that number will only grow over time. It's difficult to comprehend how the RAND licensing agreement contemplated revenue sharing for everything related to trusted computing for all companies that might ever develop a product or service that relies on that standard.
It doesn't make any sense to me and as such I don't think that's the way it is.
24601
I hope so. That way Wave can receive billions from Microsoft based on Vista sales.
Doma
That was precisely what I thought yesterday when I saw the reference to TCG Rand. The absurd implication that Wave's potential revenues are tied and limited to what each TCG organization agreed to contribute to the effort initialy. As if all the optional new software and services that have been designed to take advantage of TPMs in the future are somehow regulated like the intial IP that might have enabled the basic chip.
SL
Some of it reads just like the TPM structure supporting services.