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.
LD
SKS could provide revenue guidance if he thought it would be helpful for the company. However in the absence of an immediate need for additional finances and the real downside to an overstatement again, I suggest they've decided to wait. Also with Dutton watching progress, it is viable to allow them to extrapolate based on some specific Wave input, industry and partner input and a mathematical model.
CM
One could ask about the Infineon and Verisign deal. Something like that had to come and I of course one of the TPM manufacturers had to be first. To the extent that the deal is especially important to the consumer side and less immediately important to the enterprise side, you could posit the catalyst was the Xbox. But that is one faint dot.
VC
Is this a fundamental requirement for every TPM manufacturer? If so, who is Verisign competing against for this key role? Its not clear to me how this impacts Wave ? Directly or indirectly by strengthening Infineon and its software side.
Fullmoon
Nice post but without seeming too pedestrian, I do note that SKS and Wave had better deliver in the present and the next few years so they are able to be that cable company in the year of 2009. It is easy to become infatuated with someone who seems to always be thinking ahead of everybody; but since this is not an academic excercise, the capacity doesn't come for free nor can it be funded by investors and fellow visionaries forever. We could use some of the 2009 customers helping build that ubiquitous network.
Vader
I can attend a presnetation where I must sign an NDA. If it turns out my company wants to learn more, I can arrange to have someone else sign the NDA as well. Sometimes the NDAs are blanket for a company or strucutred as such but sometimes it requires someone else to sign. So i see little issue for a com,apny to persue a solution with Dell, But it does limit the flow of information to competitors.
Vader
You have no idea what Dell will be telling people who come to the conference. I would assume it has to do with their technology roadmap and specific services and solutions. Wave is in that mix. These are potential customers and they'll all be able to talk about it an din fact talk about it in their companies by extending the NDA.
Sheldon
Suppose the TTP knew whom I am but they attested for me so no one else knew whom I am. Are their architectures that limit my exposure yet recognize that DAA to the extreme would not satisfy certain high risk. high economic value transactions? By the way, I may be lost here.
CS
The additional challenge is to create and continue that trust without having to explicitly show who you are out in the open.
In one of the papers discussing web services, they touch on the need of a trusted third party and why that is a longer term hurdle. In a company, the company can be the TTP. In a world wide web, implementing that structure is more complex. Are there one or more entities that everybody (business and people) would trust with their secrets and rely on what they provide?
Cliff et als
Gateway will offer Wave's ETS with their TPM equipped computers and I believe as part of a security bundle they have been developing. This type of information has been accumulated from different places including a few times from Gateway. I don't think any one knows the terms of such arrangement however so it may look exactly like dell except it is combination with other leading providers like Norton etc. While Wave ETS may be available sooner from them separately to support the TPMs, I think we'll first learn anything material from them when they announce their security suite. Initially it was targeted end of Q3 but it now seems like mid Novemebr is a more realistic date.
LD
I don't believe that Broadcom sells their interface for free. Thus the PC OEM would need to decide to use the Broadcom part in lieu of any other possibilities and then could have the TPM included. I don't know what free means either. Do they sell the same part with and without TPM for exactly the same price or do they just say the TPM does not add to the cost.
Certainly the cost of TPMs whether integrated ( includes Winbond super I/O) or discrete is coming down so cost is not going to be the impediment anymore.
Zen
AMD, unlike Intel, doesn't make their own motherboards and thus really can't do what Intel has done. AMD has pretty much aligned its schedule with Vista. AMD has helped make introductions for Wave, especially in the past, to companies such as Microsoft. I'd be comfortable in stsating that they would be a good refernce for Wave and may influence decisions about how TPM based systems which include their chips are packaged with supporting software.
Vader
Of course receiving the notice is not a good thing and it certainly is not an indicator of good. I found Roger kay's article quite explanatory about the pace of adoption. We're where we are becuase this is the pace of adoption. The pace is not our frienmd but it is what it is. What competitive PRs are you concerned about?
jmm
Given TCG's open standards and licensing provisions, I believe wave can develop services and if they wish license them based on those standards and not rely exclusively on some patent they own and which will expire at some point. It is their knowledge of the space and potential uses that gives them the ability to do that. I often feel that the patent positioning is a technique to introduce risk or shift the conversation to a different set of analytics.
jmm
not quite in many respects. You are empahsizing an expiration of IP patents generically as if they all come to end at one point in time and then that's it. That doesn't make much sense to me. There are multiple patents with different expiration dates, I can't value each one separately or collectively and I don't beleive this is like a generic drug where there is a line of companies waiting to copy your patented product.
They will also will provide certain applications and services where the opportunity and their wherewithall makes sense even as they mostly focus on infrastructure related products. Their connections and knowledge of trusted computing gives them an opportunity to deliver specific targeted services more quickly than those companies observing trusted computing and waiting for it to become mainstream before acting.
None of us know whether such first mover advantage will stick or be shoved aside by another better known player first entering the space.
Overall I don't agree with the thinking that if they don't act by this date, it's all over because their patents expire. I am more concerned with having financial viability to keep playing in the game and driving the possibilities further.
LD
I think you are misdirecting the issue. So let me make some statements
It is good to have different perspectives posting on the board including those who think it is a scam as long as there is some information provided to support these positions and they are not over done to become obnoxious and wasteful.
It is good to have financial comments about wave as a business as well as technical and market information to help assess the possibilities. Personally I don't value the technical stock trading hints about Wave and they are better placed on a separate board IMO. I suspect you post them because it helps you in certain eays -- raises your self image of yourself and also generates trading activity that is necessary to play with. I can also see how it could adversely impact your ability to execute trades on your own. So that's a tradeoff for you.
You sent Walt Mossburg emails and then purported to show us what you sent. However you falsely posted an email that did not show what you actually sent to him. That's the crime. And I can't quite figure out your thinking given that you posted the true email on another board. Did your ego just lead you to believe that no one would ever see or did you think you were being nice to the Wavoid world by gathering data secretly and were going to surprise us. Nonetheless being deceitful is a bad trait and it doesn't engender trust. And either you believe what you wrote and this is more than insulting to me or you were being deceitful to Mossburg. It's difficult to create a positive spin on this.
Larry
This is a silly conversation. Mossberg is focused on recommending technology and not stocks. If he doesn't know about TPMs , then yes he should understand it. However whatever has transpired has caused him to associate this discussion with stock hyping (which is not fully the case but lets face it, however emailed him had some correlation with wave as an investment). So in his mind, he has now lost sense of the real topic and is now focused on the stock.And is rejecting the discussion. I would suspect it is not the first time that he has recieved inptu that ties back to a stock.
The fact that wave's revenues will go up will not cause him to rethink this set of circumstances. I doubt an email from someone trying to explain it would either at this time.
If it were appropriate I would send him Roger kay's article. it touches on Vista and is totally neutral with respect to stocks. But at this stage I would just let it lie. When Vista gets closer and there is more specific press, he will likely reflect the TPM matter in his own way.
Zen
I don't think its that. First of all Gateway indicated that they would be coming out with a security package (someone at Gateway was quoted in an article) with the end of Septemebr as a target. I haven't seen it yet. Second the intial machines they released did not have the Broadcom drivers loaded inadvertantly. So I look at these two items and conclude they are making sure their act is together and things are all not in place to make a more public show of their suite (maybe even the PR side is still a work in process). In summary I don't think it's their strategy to piggyback on Dell although that may be the outcome. And while this is happening, there is little Wave can really do.
gofigure
All options are always available and I am sure considered. If they cannot generate revenue and improve the share price, then they won't be able to continually refinance the company. For better or worse, their credit line is much smaller but the line of sight to real sales is even shorter. It's difficult to dismiss the product listing with Dell and all the momentuum that is occurring in the space. If the next quarters don't show this, we might see plan B. But I think it is crazy to be thinking all these negative thoughts right now. There have beeen many dire points along this path where such thinking could be understood; right now seems like an odd time.
Gofigure
I'm sure you realize there is a world of difference stating they have a plan which excludes current investors compared to asking what would happen to the technology if it is actually used and valuable but Wave fails as an ongoing business.
If you honestly think they are schemeing to string us along and then make a move to protect their interests at our expense (and presumably with Board support), you really shouldn't go near this as an investment. And Yahoo could use another articualte voice.
unix
It is unreasonable to comment that first mover advantage means nothing. It also is unreasonable to conclude it ensures success. But with good execution I would take first mover advantage instead of following the leader.
Dig
I agree. What seemed like a terrific platform has not been very successfully leveraged (so far). They have tried to morph the company in terms of subscription management and separating TVTonic but I tend to view the results so far as a failure to execute and a failure to capture opportunities. I suspect a better business person focused and leading the effort could have achieved better results. It may have remained a technology driven play too long.
Unixguy
There is truth to Barge's comments. In fact each time you say something very reasonable and fair, I actually pause to remember if this is the same Unixguy who had a whole different perspective and agenda in the past. And then every once in a while you slam wave again and then return back to a normal poster. One would think it takes great control to consistently act in a different matter and once in a while it slips through.
Maybe you think these comments are unfair or you don't care, but I couldn't help respond because it hit home.
OT rosie
It is comical to read all the different names assigned to different chips. I can imagine someone screwing up a document or powerpoint and creating some unforeseen and unintended hybrid. Thats how some great medical cures are inadvertantly discovered; maybe that 's how a computer virus cure will be discovered as well.
Competition
For now our competition is Infineon software. Later it will be a number of services and application companies. We should worry if we see Infineon announcing that they have design deals with Sinosun or Microsoft etc. As long as they are silent, then you can relate to Wave's silence as well.
Infineon board monitors -- do you agree?
junct
I find it amazing the places one can find pertinent and not well known information. good find.
gowave
It is possible that there is nothing there but blind faith. Or it is simply becuase they can't say anything substantiative ahead of their partners/customers. Either way we won't hear anything.
Companies do like to keep their investers abreast of progress but in general your most familiar with the well known companies that have something they could say every day or have some other journal say it for them. You simply cannot compare it to wave.
I've been on other boards with high potential micro stocks where the comments are quite similar. That is the nature of the beast.
Dave
I'd be very surprised and disappointed if the Q3 results (current and deferred) were below Q2. Deferred revenue is especially possible to the extent there are design wins and other activities that lead to recognition in later quarters.
LD
Quite amusing. Didn't know the chip man had it in him.
LD
While Microsoft will always loom as a competitor to anything that breathes, I think it is way too simplisitc to conclude that they are the competitive issue and the difference between success or failure. There are many more potential competitors, the form the actual market will take is not fully known and Wave may flourish or shoot itself in the foot all by itself. But as you say it is one of a myriad possibilities.
By the way, Greg doesn't think Wave will make it irrespective of whether Microsoft turns out to be a competitor or not. He simply sees them as one of many little companies that contributre something and then disappear. I can certainly appreciate that perspective and also see how it can be reinforced working in a big company like Intel.
whitewash
By now it should be clear that Greg means interim in that Wave will not be around and their IP will be replaced when the market is attractive enough to remove them from the loop.
Allshore
It could be over when
1) Lark Allen quits and assumes a key role at Infineon
2) Microsoft announces that Infineon software will be the utility platform for Vista
3) TPMs are declared unconstitutional by the Supreme court
4) Wave is evicted from the TCG by a member vote
5) The SEC declares the company a fraud and calls for the indictment of the whole board.
6) Greg decides to become the new Wave CTO
7) We are offered .75 for the whole comapny
8) Weets says it is delayed and not coming for a while
I would not reach your conclusion on some selling pressure now.
LD
Not disagreeing but that is different from the TPM won't remain as an important component of trusted computing or that the implementation of trusted computing will be far different than we visualize today. That was an important angle in my note and response to some previous comments.
Greg
Perhaps they could but the reasons for not wanting to do so now can be myriad. You are suggesting in your circumspect way that the reason is that TPMs will not be here long enough to justify such an investment and effort. Possible. I can also believe that such an integration would be too costly today or technologically easier and more appropriate in the future. Or they have other fish to fry with a higher priority.
I do agree with your premise that just because a certain approach is taking hold now, some companies may seek competitive advantage by changing the approach once trusted computing takes hold. I'm less convinced that someone like Intel would throw all this away soon before trusted computing takes hold and introduce something entirely different. Unless of course the TPM approach really doesn't work at all but that would negate the first premise.
barge
I thought STM licensed a piece of Wave's software in order to perform some basic administration functions on their TPM. I thought this software was external to the TPM and would be loaded on the computer. When I think of integrated in the TPM, I think of "firmware" ( a term I find sometimes elusive) but which I believ means it is lierally part of the part and coded on the hardware and not something separate. Furthermore I thought the licensed piece was a segment of the overall truste suite that Wave sells for much more money.
I do think it is important to keep the terminology clear as a few different words convey an entirely different meaning and financial implications.
When it comes to Trust Zone, I don't know precisely what Wave contributed to trusted logic. They may have given away code that became firmware in a device whiuch enables the trusted transactions to occur. If they did that, it would be to have the wel linformed inside track on how to manage this from a server and infrastructure standpoint.
Micro
One of the pulls (in the push /pull strategy) is that consumers would buy and activate security /DRM hardware if this was the only way to get the valuable content. But that requires the content provider or distributor to invest in the facilities to make it happen. That quagmire is one reason why things slog around until someone makes a move. Apple and IPOD is a good example of a company doing something new and then having the rest of the world follow up quickly once the move proves popular. Banks would love home trusted computing but weren't willing to invest to make it happen. Hardware providers didn't move quickly on hardware security since they viewed it as an additional cost and no competitive advantage.
Legal issues and horror stories is changing some of that thinking. Also the fact that the chip itself is almost free and can just be added in makes the basic distribution a lot easier to do.
But as we have experienced, just because we think it is a good idea, doesn't mean that it won't take 1 to 5 years for it to happen. However experience shows that when its value and profit opportunity is demonstrated, going from 5% to 50% of a market can be a blink of the eye.
From an investment perspective, the simple risk is that Wave doesn't have the staying power, having spent its load on the long development slog and having to be cautious in further investments and even selling costs until revenue kicks in. And as Greg reasonably points out, a particular way to do it can change with new technology, investments and experience. Thus the timing is important so the paradigm doesn't have a chance to change a lot before there is deployment of the current approaches. I once owned a telco compnay with some brilliant optical switching IP - but it took so long for the market to form and it still is forming, that their leading edge design effectively became extinct before it ever got deployed widely. There is some analogy to Embassy 2100 even as its spirit still lives in Trust Zone.
Competition
I assume it does not come as a surprise to anyone following or investing in Wave, that there will be competition in all of the areas covered by "trusted computing". Wave plays in a few and others , especially those who are part of TCG will also be there as well.
Some of the companies, no doubt, think they can wait (and have waited) for the market to better form and be clearer because they have existing product lines to sell. Wave obviously is very different in that respect essentially being a very pure trusted computing investment.
Their success will be dictated by how well their first mover advantage outplays the size and stature of their more well established competitors. First mover offers potentially better branding, better IP in the actual products, standards and services and as Wave is emphasizing allowing them to get basic deployment in all the nodes. It will also be interesting to see if their engineering hooks makes their server based products more effective than others.
Certainly each competitive PR about TC and TPMs reinforces and validates the notion they will become quite standard in the near future. But as has been said by others, it's now up to Wave's ability to execute. There are positive signals regarding this but the scarcity of revenues, the scarcity of tangible public news and the seemingly slow uptake are an offset to those positive signals.
I've certainly heard enough that if only 1/2 turns into fact, things will be good. But ten years of intimation has certainly tempered any immediate reactions from me.
Tampa
In the early stages, the best connection is where someone familiar with Wave has some influence on IT purchases at their company. For example I discussed trusted computing with our CIO and some staff and encouraged them to learn more. Others I know are in more direct influencing positions. Beyond that I know Wave has been focusing on middle sized companies with a need to protect digital assets but which are not so large that any decision is very complicated and drawn out. You also have a third angle where a company is in a related business that could use TPMs as part of its offering and thus is especially interested to work with it at home. I could also see a larger company with somewhat automonous business units adopting trusted company for a segment. It appears that the solutions can operate in a mixed environment so that is viable as well.
LD
according to SKS, there is no 1.2B. Vista is supposed to work with a 1.2 TPM. Who knows how the b got there - from the 1.1b past? or maybe there is something going on that wave does not know about. I doubt they would say there is no 1.2b coming out when they actually know there is one coming out.
Reach
I think they are a paying customer.
Foam
Other than highlighting security, there isn't a lot of marketing advantage for anyone to say anything until the infrastrucutre is in place and there are solid applications that people can use. The TPMs are going everywhere and in everything. There is a lot of common language being used about identity management, trusted networks, trusted drives and trusted computing in general. So even though there aren't direct on point announcements, everything is being built in front of everybody's eyes.
So I thought wavxmasters post was right on. Wave is trying to get agreements to have their stuff bundled, linked or mentioned by each OEM. As mobile gets revved up, they are trying to get a place there. As the gov't infrastructure is getting established, wave is there as well providng input and insight and of course making sure their products and services are in the mix and in the trials.
It may be all we'll see is increasing revenues as they get imbedded and then some guidance and clarity of the recurring revenue stream once they are in. But I would bet that we'll see one ot rwo seminal announcements at some stage linking Wave with someone notable. But when that comes is anyone's guess.