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: Please save your sympathy. Obviously we differ as to why we are drifting lower post CC. You have your opinion and I have mine. It is not likely we are going to learn which it was, unless I was right about possible early returns.
I don't want to belabor the point, but it seems as if the loyal Wave supporters have all these theories about why we are not doing well. Most of them have to do with others manipulating or suppressing us. Not once have I ever heard a 'Void advance the theory that something might be wrong with either our business model, our product, or the way mgt conducts business.
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."
After all the theories, guess-timations, pointless dot-connecting and tea leaf reading done on this board and the others before it--I think my little theory may have a little grounding in reality.
I have read you for many years and remember meeting you briefly. You have been a cogent and illuminating voice here. But of late, forgive me, if I think you have backslid into less than your usual rational/logical way of thinking. Perhaps the end is influencing the means. Just a suggestion.
Blue
Tampa: You write: "Asking some on this board to justify their investments to you is a bit elitist, and shows a lack of respect IMO."
How you came up with this is beyond me. I am searching, just like you for what is going on. Something is.
In no way have I ever asked anyone to justify anything about their investment. That is not my business.
Perhaps the problem lies not in my transmission, but in your reception. You could not be farther off the mark.
We all give our opinions here and no one, least of all me, expects anyone to take my opinion as a basis for any buying or selling of anything. How you interpreted what I had to say in this manner, I believe exposes some sort of deep anxiety within yourself. Why not ignore me if I bug you. I have asked you to on several occasions. You obviously believe your opinion has value and mine do not. Do us all a favor.
It is particularly irritating when you either deliberately distort or completely misinterpret what I have said. Please, an ignore from you on Bluefang for the future.
Bluefang
im01: Your post assumes there will be a company here in late Spring to come back to. I obviously don't know that there will or that there won't, but the prelim stuff coming back is less than impressive.
But thanks for your advice. As for wearing out the big guns on this board, hardly. I'm friends with most of them and besides, if they thought I was tiresome, same as you, they could just put me on ignore. My comment was that they are not here posting, not whether they lurk or not.
I'm not trying to claim the sky is falling, but something is clearly afoot, different than what I have seen previously in 7 years as a long.
Bluefang
Awk: If things are so good, why are we headed towards $2 on higher than usual volume. I don't buy the arbitrage theory.
Shorts have the same info available to them as we do. They look at our potential and are seeing not much on the immediate horizon. So they short.
You look at this board this weekend--unusally low volume of posts. Is that indicative of interest as a whole? Where are all the big picture guys? BigTim, Wahoo, DooWopGuy and many others. Did the last CC kill them off?
This is hardly like this group, with big ideas in play on the backs of gorillas. What is going on?
I just don't see how anyone can call Feeney a genius, or easily explain away the need to refinance again so soon after the drubbing we took last time. I'm afraid I'm more than a little suspicious of our situation. My antennae say something's up and it probably is not good. Dilution feels like the very least of it.
We obviously do not have the critical info we need. But it looks as if someone does, and I'm not liking what I'm seeing. Rather than arbitrage, it looks to me like more than a few unloading. Many lots are quite small. Not sure that is indicative of arbitrage at work.
Perhaps someone more sophisticated than myself could venture a theory. Last I looked, it was $2.07 on about 1.2M+ shares traded, with a half hour to go. This does not feel like traction to me. Open to any other interpretations, aside from the "Things-Are-Good" Awk blind faith variety--no disrespect intended, Awk.
Bluefang
Orda: Agreed. However, future versions can be improved, refined and simplified. This is certainly not an immediate threat, by any means. But you have to admit, tamper-proof not tamper resistant--unbreakable, with a built in tamper alert is certainly attactive, if and when it reaches stage of mass production.
Thanks for the comment.
Blue
Toro: Think about MagiQ as a way for Wave to send its clients the keys, if lost. Think about it as competition too, because once the technology is out there, someone will figure out how to do it cheaper and there will be mass adoption for desktops and suburbia. That would undermine a lot of what it is we do. It would cut out a whole lot of steps. Something to keep an eye on, for the future.
Probably not coming this week, or next, of course.
Thank you for your comments--Blue
uh oh! Spaghetti-o's --Wave better hurry to market.
Blue
By BRIAN BERGSTEIN, AP Technology Writer
NEW YORK - Code-makers could be on the verge of winning their ancient arms race with code-breakers.
After 20 years of research, an encryption process is emerging that is considered unbreakable because it employs the mind-blowing laws of quantum physics.
This month, a small startup called MagiQ Technologies Inc. began selling what appears to be the first commercially available system that uses individual photons to transfer the numeric keys that are widely used to encode and read secret documents.
Photons, discrete particles of energy, are so sensitive that if anyone tries to spy on their travel from one point to another, their behavior will change, tipping off the sender and recipient and invalidating the stolen code.
"There are really no ways (of) cracking this code," said Lov Grover, a quantum computing researcher at Bell Laboratories who is not involved with MagiQ.
Called Navajo — a nod to the American Indian code specialists of World War II — MagiQ's system consists of 19-inch black boxes that generate and read the signals over a fiber-optic line.
MagiQ (pronounced "magic," with the "Q" for "quantum") expects that with a cost of $50,000 to $100,000, Navajo will appeal to banks, insurers, government agencies, pharmaceutical companies and other organizations that transmit sensitive information.
"We think this is going to have a huge, positive impact on the world," said Bob Gelfond, MagiQ's founder and chief executive.
Encryption schemes commonly used now are considered safe, though they theoretically could be broken someday.
But even before that day arrives, Gelfond believes quantum encryption is superior in one important way. In some super-high-security settings, people sharing passwords and other information must have the same key, a massive string of digits used to encode data. Sometimes the keys will be transferred by imperfect means — via courier or special software. They are not changed very often and can be susceptible to interception.
"Even if you have the perfect encryption algorithm, if someone gets your key, you're in trouble," Gelfond said.
The Navajo system not only transmits the keys on snoop-proof photons, it also changes them 10 times a second. "Even if somebody could get a copy of the key, it wouldn't do them any good," Gelfond said.
Of course, unbreakable codes would neutralize the ability of intelligence agents to intercept and read messages. That would necessitate greater reliance on human intelligence.
So does the world's foremost code-making and code-breaking organization, the U.S. National Security Agency, worry about the spread of quantum encryption? Better yet, is the NSA using the technology itself? Like most things about the NSA, those answers remain secret.
MagiQ is seeking the government's approval to sell Navajo boxes overseas. Gelfond hopes officials have realized — after trying and failing to restrict encryption exports in the 1990s — that there's little point in trying to "put the genie back in the bottle" once encryption methods have been invented. After all, he said, researchers in China are known to have experimented with quantum encryption.
At least one other company, Switzerland-based id Quantique SA, has produced a system similar to Navajo, though that remains in pilot phase.
Meanwhile, other organizations are exploring different ways of using subatomic particles as code carriers. QinetiQ, the commercial arm of Britain's defense research agency, and the national lab in Los Alamos, N.M., have experimented with transmitting quantum keys through the air rather than over fiber-optic lines.
Researchers at IBM Corp., where quantum encryption was first demonstrated in the 1980s, are exploring ways to shrink quantum systems so they can plug more efficiently into existing computing and communications networks.
In any incarnation, quantum encryption employs one of the defining discoveries of physics: Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which says subatomic particles exist in multiple possible states at once, however hard as that may be to imagine, until something interacts with them.
When one Navajo box sends out a code key, it imparts certain measurable characteristics to photons that travel through the fiber-optic line. When the second Navajo box measures those characteristics, that mere act throws off other characteristics — but the Navajo boxes confer with each other after the transmission is complete and sort it all out. The boxes can be up to 70 miles apart, after which additional boxes are needed as relays.
"It's intriguing," said James Capuano, operations director for NEON Communications Inc., a Massachusetts-based telecom carrier that has tested Navajo boxes on its network and now is exploring whether its customers would pay extra to use them. "It's a very simple product to deploy."
It's also just the first step on a deeper quest to use quantum physics.
Within a few decades, scientists hope to use the multiple possible states and interactions of subatomic particles as replacements for the binary 0s and 1s used in computing today. A quantum computer, if it comes to pass, would be able to perform several complex calculations simultaneously, making it exponentially more powerful than today's supercomputers.
Researchers have performed simple calculations with a few particles but are a long way from being able to replicate that in a large quantum soup in a controllable and consistent manner.
In the 1990s, landmark research by Peter Shor of AT&T Labs showed that quantum computers would be powerful enough to crack any code in use today — except ones generated through quantum cryptography.
So at long last, code writers might be done fighting to stay ahead of code breakers.
"We'll stop this race," said Gregoire Ribordy, a founder of id Quantique. "We'd like to have a system that's forever secure."
___
On the Net:
http://www.magiqtech.com
Weby: Would love to sup and dine with you next time you're in town. But Pier 4 is not one of the great eateries, except for tourists who don't know any better. Plenty of other good places.
Well, some corrections are in order. NBC, CBS and ABC are all suffering severe erosion of ratings (news, not entertainment)
On any given night, more people watch CNN than any of the big net newscasts. Doesn't look like a great future from where I sit.
As for the different versions competing with one another. If they come out too close together, they do compete and intefere. If you spent say $2K to by Version 1.5 of anything and before you got it home, Version 1.6 for $1,500 (that does everything twice as quick) is available--you would feel betrayed and maybe a bit angry. The next time, you would probably wait a little.
It's a small point and nothing more.
I'm not off the wall, just bored and trying to be playful.
Things do look good, except for that share price and low volume. I can wait, but not forever. I know TTT. But also that life is short. Let's hope our life cycle does not exceed Wave's adoption rate. Ubiquity in 2023 would not help us.
Anyway, best to you & Mrs. Weby. Retirement can be fun. Hope you have something inside your trusted retirement module other than your Wavx bundle....just in case...yeah, I know, you have no fear...but just to be prudent, as G Bush would say.
The Blue Flash
Bluefang To All--just a little Sunday morning reverie to lighten the laugh lines and to perhaps bridge the gap between the cheering section and the dark side--nothing more. No obsession, no stress, no tenseness and certainly no ill will meant towards anyone.
The cynics and the cheerleaders alike have to wait for some kind of form to emerge from the fog, so why not have a laugh or two together, through harmless lampoonery.
You see, winter is long and dark inside the Blue Cave and May seems so far away. The thought of you guys and gals smiling will be enough to keep me warm until hibernation ends.
Best to all--may we dance in May together. I can only hope the slow drip of ubiquity will awaken me prematurely. Nothing like a little snow frolic.
Lovingly--Blue
Weby: And exactly at what point in the future would you say our future is tied to? Version 1.9 or 2.7, say in 2010?
Attention Wavoids: With the exclusive Blu-Vison Future Scope, we now take you to the 2020 Wave Systems CC with Michael Sprague, Jr. CEO. First, I would like to have our CFO, Vin "Vague" Sprague go over the numbers.
Thanks, Dad. We have revenues of roughly $146K from our licensed and patented TNAC (Trusted Net Attestation Contraption)but we are expecting when version 128.2, which is currently being beta-tested and is being demoed in EuroLand, is ready, all of the big Convergent players will place orders. In the meantime, we are looking for private partners for another round of financing.
The Board of Directors has voted to award each member of mgt with the last name starting with an 'S' a special bonus. For 62 unbroken quarters we have managed to deliver on more promises of revenue, without ever collecting, than any other company in the history of the New York Nasq-Exchange.
Now back to my father. Dad?
Thanks, son. As some of you have been well aware for some time, what we are trying to accomplish is so complex few understand it, no one can explain it, but we stand before you because we are required to by law.
We will show you some cards on which numbers have been written. Take particular notice of these numbers. Their meaning will become quite evident in the months and decades ahead. Of particular interest is the '5' followed by the '6'.
And in closing, I want to urge each of you to keep your eye on the accounting chain. And remember Wave's motto. "Security through obscurity. If they don't understand it, how can they hack it?" Have a pleasant evening.
Music up full
Announcer: This ends our scheduled presentation and we now return you to the present.
Bluefang
Trust: go to www.apple.com and enter i-Tunes (for Windows). You can download the free software, set up an account and buy songs for 99 cents each with one click. I suggest an i-Pod--they are great. If you have problems, ask a neighborhood kid, they'll know and be happy to show you.
By the way, you can sample any song on the site for about 25 sec. before you buy.
Too bad Wave did not get in on this market. It's huge.
Once you have i-Tunes, you can take any CD in your collection and put it in your drive, allow i-Tunes to access the net, and it will list the songs, artist and album. You click import and about 2-3 min. later it's on your computer to play in the background, or to load to an MP3 device for mobile music.
Cheers! Blue
Well, it sure seems clear to me the CC only clouded things for those of us seeking some kind of guidance.
What is the bottom line, all you patient waiters? More waiting.
I was glad to see SKS refrained from hyping our chances unrealistically as he has in the past. But that may be part of the problem.
People who are used to getting a steady diet of hype from mgt at these things, when they don't get their adult daily minimum requirement, they conclude bad things.
As for the dreamers, the dot connectors and the tea leaf readers virtually anything Steven says can be construed in the most positive light.
So what are we left with? The cheerleaders listened to the CC and said, "Yea! We knew it was going to start happening, soon, and by golly, Miss Molly, here it comes. All we have to do is wait until next May! Wow! Can this really be real?!! How wonderful!"
The cynics, the sceptics and the unbelievers listened to the very same CC and said, "The man didn't say squat! He gave us a round-robin of attested techno-babble to stuff in our trusted module. Why are we here? Are we delusional too? We're at the cusp of ubiquity, jumping like fleas from one gorilla's back to another and our share prices is WHAT?"
And then there are some scratching their heads, trying to figure out exactly what was said (if anything) and what does it mean.
Is our glass of potential half full, or half empty? Is it a peculiar refraction of the sun that makes it appear there is a glass there at all?
So we play the waiting game and hope it does not turn into the crying game. When the clouds lift, we can see the vapor clearly; when the vapor evaporates, there is the smoke; when the smoke blows away, there is a definite fog bank--but it is a trusted fog bank.
Bluefang
CL: "Well I am long and wrong today, but have plenty of dry powder to load the boat when the ascent hits a floor...."
Isn't that a lot like the Italian Army's brave advance to the rear in WWII?
Best--Bluefang
Zen: I can accept the bore label. One problem, you did not address the issue I raised--but let's let it go. We are unlikely to change the other's mind.
Regards--Blue
Zen: What part about the low volume (until yesterday and today) and eroding price is history? Whether you realize it or not, you are doing it again--labeling someone to discredit them.
When I cite Wave history, it is usually in response to a poster, or in an effort to show that present behavior of mgt is not so different than the past behavior that has led to problems.
Congratulations on your good grades in your logic course. I did just fine on mine too, at Harvard. But what does logic have to do with the statement that people tend to agree with people of like mind? That seems to be more in psychological field, than logic.
IMO, logic is irrelevant in the present case. We are operating from a set of missing instructions and parts of a puzzle that is still evolving. We do not have enough data to make an intelligent decision at this point. We have been misled in the past. Isn't it reasonable to ask if we are being misled now? Is that not a relevant question?
You cheerleaders have enumerated the reasons why Wave is succeeding and why we will own the Trusted Computing space. I countered by saying, if that were true, would we not see some sort of validation of enthusiasm for our product in volume and share price? We haven't--doesn't prove anything. But based on the very flimsy, preliminary evidence we have available, it does not seem to bode well.
We are supplying a product the world needs badly. Why isn't the world buying like hotcakes? That is certainly a reasonable question. The answer is, we don't know if they are buying or not. But indirect evidence, based on a less than perfectly accurate model, i.e., our value in the stock market--seems to indicate there is something less than enthusiasm for our product. And when asked about it, SKS danced. What impression does that leave?
I want us to succeed and am a loyal Wave long who has raised a critical voice at what I see to be mgt mistakes. You and many others are trying to discredit me by calling me a basher. It simply is not so.
Why respond to a post like this one with anger and irrationality, i.e. Doma, when it is so easy to have a civil discourse about the issues?
Because, perhaps you don't have as much faith in the persuasiveness of your arguments as you would like to pretend. It is much easier to call someone a basher and then high-five the cheerleaders to your left and right, than to argue the merits or demerits of an issue that is plainly uncomfortable. IMO, in so doing, you define yourself, rather than me.
The plain fact is, with Wave in the Intel mobo, and allegedly shipping in NSM and HWP, we should be gaining momentum, not losing it. Something is wrong here and I refuse to close my eyes on blind faith, to gather in a circle holding hands and to chant the familiar mantras. Nor am I claiming the sky is falling. I'm not.
Perhaps if some of you could address the issue, rather shooting at the messenger--we might make some progress and stop the panic.
For all of you who think things are fine, why are so many heading for the exits? It stands to reason if our potential is so great, instead of selling, the smart money boys would be buying. Is this the delusional part of the Wavoid community?
To me, it seems more like the hallucinogenic part.
Bluefang
Zen: It is human nature to listen to those with whom we agree. But when considering an investment, shouldn't one listen to other points of view, too?
The problem here is that the loyalists like yourself tend to put all of us critics in the bin labelled "basher, shorter, whiner and disingenuous." This allows you to dismiss the critical issues we bring up, as coming from an agenda, when in fact what we say may be true.
It may be more comfortable for you to listen to the like-minded, but I'm not so sure closing your eyes to what may be reality, is such a great strategy for learning about your how your investment is faring in the real world.
Myself, I like to listen to the entire debate and make up my own my mind based on what I think makes sense.
Some of us listened to last night's CC and came away thinking that in saying nothing, SKS said plenty.
Others like yourself, heard the validation of a great strategy that appears to be working well.
One can not always look to the stock market as proof of anything, but today's action--high volume, rapidly dropping price--is some indication of how the majority saw the CC.
Perhaps, it may be time for a little more objectivity in considering how Wave is doing? Maybe the cheerleading section is not completely right? Might those critics stashed away in the basher bin have a point or two?
Let's consider all points of view. It's the American way.
Best wishes--Blue
Go-Kitesurf: The problem is that SKS set the timeline. He was the one who said revenues in Q4 would be near the breakeven point. OK, things happen, timelines get stretched out. But should not he be obliged to remark on his previous statement, that perhaps it was too optimistic?
This is the kind of thing I believe people are reacting to today.It appears we are witnessing more of the same behavior as we have witnessed in the past--no regard and no accountability for past statements.
What is different this time? Well, we are shipping. Of course it is too early to tell how we are doing. But c'mon, SKS must have some inkling. I can't believe with his loose and reckless lip in the past, he could not give us some hint. He knows.
That's the problem when you are always speaking of good things happening in the near future. When it continually does not happen, you stop believing. That is what I think the problem is.
The French bank demo, in normal times, would have been enough to buoy us. But these are not normal times. If mgt has any bullets left, I suggest they need to fire them now, or all of you perpetually optimistic cheerleaders are going to be left talking to yourselves. There is a crisis of confidence, precisely when we should be poised on the precipice of success.
Only Wave could screw up success, while teetering on the very brink of it.
If this is great leadership, I'm an azalea bush.
Bluefang
Bonnie: While I believe every word I posted and have no agenda whatsoever--I am a long--I would advise you not to liquidate your entire holdings in Wave.
I once held 47.5K (much of it on margin, stupidly) and now am down to 5K because I could not stand for Wave to take off without me, after so much time and tears invested.
What some of the other investors say is true--trusted computing is coming and coming in a big way. The question for us is to try to decide whether Wave will be a big part of that or not. It may be that they will. This is what you have to decide for yourself.
I completely understand your position and the feeling of betrayal that after promising there would be revenues 4th quarter that might take us near the break-even point, it did appear SKS was either backing off that statement or dancing around it.
Whichever the case--please do not decide your investment future on the basis of emotion. You need to be detached and make these kinds of decisions with your head.
Like you, I put too much into Wave and have been waiting since 1996 for the payoff which always seems to be "next quarter," next year. I have watched friends lose their homes because of this investment--for which I do not blame Wave mgt--but the people who put themselves into a position where they invested more than they could afford.
Jeff, no one is more sympathetic to your position than myself--it is simply heartrending. For someone like you in your deperate position to hear it may be another year before Wave starts to pay off--that is horrible news. Particularly, if you have heard it many times before.
Yet--yet, Wave is still in the game--they still do have chances and they may yet win and win big. It is still risky and I do not think anyone here can predict what will happen in the near future or the longterm future as much as they think they can.
If you go back to Silicon Investor, the very first tech stock chat board I ever read, you will see posts remarkably like the ones posted here today. We have always been very forward looking.
I have lambasted company mgt for promoting an atmosphere where investors expected to wake up one morning and we would all be rich. It doesn't happen that way. Some have suggested by lying to us, that was the only way to keep us invested so they could make their strategy come true. I contend anything based on deception, particularly if it is "trust" you are selling, is tainted, and perhaps fatally tainted. When does the lying stop?
Wave has made many mistakes and you have seen them chronicled here by myself, CPA, HhH and others. But making mistakes, as we all do, does not mean going forward, we can not succeed.
Today (I have not checked prices this morning) there is liable to be a rush for the exits. IMO you would not want to exit in that kind of panic. Sell down to your level of comfort, but keep some in case Wave does succeed. That's why I still hold 5400 shares.
In the end you must make your own decisions. I am probably the last person from whom to take market advice, since I failed to sell either time Wave hit $50. How big a greedy boob am I?
Take some time, would be my advice; get over the emotion of last night (how familiar many of us are with that feeling) and view Wave as an investment to be watched with a wary eye and not something you have fallen in love with.
You have my sincerest hopes for your future and the future of all of us who put our dreams in Wave. May the promise come true.
Bluefang
Snackman: If we had a nickel for everytime SKS predicted substantial growth over the past 10 years, we'd all be rich. That is exactly the problem. He is the boy who cried wolf.
No one believes him anymore.
I think the company is going to be surprised at the feeling and the reaction of the investment community to tonite's weak performance. Here we are at one of the most exciting junctures of our entire history, we are in the Intel mobo, and Steven was doing the dance of days gone by?
Why? Many of us think if he had any bullets at all, he would have fired them. Look at Bonnie. After 5 years of patient waiting, she's gone. Spin--gone.
Me? I think I have found the answer to why we have been drifting down in price and volume (today the exception). I think the news coming back from the OEM's is not good. I have nothing to back that up, but I'm entitled to my opinion and I have been here seven years, so it is not a completely wild guess.
Snackman, whether it is true or not--IT LOOKS GRIM. The company needs to do something soon. You have urged patience and we have had patience. Now it is the company's turn to do something. And please don't hit me with Intel again. Or HWP or NSM. Despite all of those gorillas, we are looking to be trading close to $2 by day's end tomorrow.
Trusted computing seems to be taking off, but without Wave.
Why? Could it be the guys in the driver' seat?
Blue
Snackman: That is just plain unfair and more than a little suspicious. CPA unloaded today, but I do not believe he was repetitive. He was goaded by the loyalists and IMO had every right to answer. At any rate, what he said and what I said, are completely different.
Prior to any banning, I would like it shown where I was repetitive. I was very positive until after the CC. And then I stated my reasons for the change.
The problem is not the repetition, IMO, but the message. The cheerleaders are repetitively posting how we are doing so very fine and I have never heard even a warning for that.
You can ban me, based on e-mails from those who are too cowardly to face me man to man, as I have faced them on this board, if you like. But IMO, you will damage the credibility of this board, which has been pretty tolerant of dissent and different opinions.
Once the board is rid of all but the most loyal, who will care to read it? People come here to listen to the full range of discussion. If you limit one side or the other (and it is never their side) you damage the board's credibility and it's value.
If I violated I-Hub rules, that is different, but I do not believe I have done so. I have asked provocative questions and the answers have been enlightening and in some cases, have moved the discussion forward. I have also said stupid things and have been rightly slapped down for doing so.
If you silence me, please base it on evidence, and not on some back channel e-mail campaign by those with an agenda who are too cowardly to confront me on the board.
Respectfully, Bluefang
Zen: You must have been listening to a different CC than I was. Maybe I need to tune into that channel the real Wavoids listen to. The one where tomorrow never comes. Everything stays rosy all the time. No revenues--no sweat. Things are good.
Who was it who told us to keep our eye on the supply chain? Has anyone here been able to do that?
We have been living in Weby's Wonderful World of Oz and like Dorothy and her friends, we just got a look at what's behind the curtain. C'mon Toto, let's go back to Kansas--look out for that Berkshire BS all over the place.
Bluefang
Snackman: If they announced financing tomorrow, do you think that would brace up the share price? I doubt it. Might stop the slide a bit, but reverse what appears to be a stream of money leaving this investment? I don't think so.
It was time for some straight talk this afternoon and we didn't get it. It sounded like the fictive Steve of old, dancing around the questions he should have answered, and feinting and hinting about stuff he should not have.
I'm of the school that says if you have nothing to say, don't hold a news conference to say it. For many of us here, we are now likely to replay the questions of Steven's competence that were bandied about on this board earlier today. I'm not sure he would win a majority, if there was a call for a vote of confidence.
I'd vote no. He has consistently promised things that have not been delivered. That is Steven, not the market climate, not any conspiracy. He keeps doing this and with every new rev he washes a little more of our depleted credibility down the drain.
If he said revenues in Q4, he should give us some idea of whether it is going well or not. In the absence of any meaningful commentary, the tempting thing is to jump to the conclusion that if it were going well, we would have heard so. By saying nothing, he is sending a silent signal that sure sounds like the results are horrible. I'm not saying this is the case, but it sure looks like it is the case.
Wave's revenues are an amalgam of all the companies who are allegedly shipping our product. There is no way anyone can figure out Intel's revenues from our stats or any other OEM's. Intel is selling a bunch of different boards and Wave is only in one. So IMO, putting it on Intel is pure bunkum.
The logical conclusion one could draw, is that it is not going well. I don't think Steven has any idea of the hopes and the frustrations of those who have been waiting a decade to see some positive progress. My guess is the answer to this CC is going to be read in the share price. Maybe already has been, from the prices quoted on the after hours.
Wave needs major surgery, in my view, starting with a mgt transplant. This was a critical CC and what he did was definitely not cool. We all expected more. If this tepid performance was supposed to buck up the price for financing, good luck. This can not continue.
Bluefang
Bull D: I won't go over it anymore. But you are completely mistaken about me blaming Wave for my mistakes. I take full responsibility for that $46K loss. I'm not blaming anyone.
The only point was 3 years prior to me plunking my money down for those options, I was very optimistic that in 3 years we'd be OK.
Well, we weren't. I lost. End of story. No griping or blaming here. Just a cautionary tale to say we can not predict either the future or the timetable.
I brought up the past simply because it was in discussion. I was extremely temperate in my language and used neutral words as opposed to inflammatory ones.
Re: Wave mgt--I did not make those predictions, nor announce any deals--they did.
And now, let's curb the angry tone and go forward in a positive way from here. OK? I was not trying to slam Wave. I'm a long, remember? An independent one, but a long, nevertheless.
Best--Blue
Tampa: Of course Wave was not to blame for all of the deals that did not get done or fell apart after they were announced.
Of course Wave was in good company when the tech crash came and they, along with many other good companies got crushed as the sector changed rapidly.
But there is a part for which they do bear responsibility for. How large a percentage, I have no idea. PCFree to my mind, can not be attributed to anyone or anything else, to cite just one example of what I consider extremely bad judgement. There were others, too.
Anyone can make mistakes, and Wave did make mistakes, some of them whoppers. I would have been a lot happier if they came out and admitted their mistakes and said they had learned from them. But that never happened.
It is not a big point, but it is certainly part of why I think they lost some credibility. To some degree, they are burdened by their mistakes.
That's old business. Let's turn to present and future business.
If I could use the same logic cited in your post--now that the pendulum has swung around in favor of security, now that we are partnered up with Intel and the others, now that the tech market seems to be making a comeback--why are we not riding up? Isn't that a fair question? We were in the right place at the right time with the right product--and what does the market do? Yawn.
Tampa, I assure you, while I am certainly mindful of Wave's past, I am not shackled to it, nor blinded to the future by it.
By the same token, given Wave's track record, I wonder how you can predict success with such certainty. I'm a little more cautious, because I have been burned many times in the past.
That does not mean I am not optimistic about the future, because I am.
Best--Blue
Mag--Just to clear up something you said--lack of price and volume do not indicate failure--never intended for a second to imply that Wave is failing or anything close to it. It just seems curious to me things are going the wrong way once we finally deliver a product and deliver it in the Intel package.
That's the baffling part. In my mind, failure is not even in discussion.
I too am cautious for all the reasons you cited and for some of the reasons CPA cited. It is prudent to be cautious.
I lost $46K in Wave options two years ago--that was on options I bought three years in advance. You don't need to tell me we should be cautious. Yet, I'm still in, still a believer.
Best--Blue
Snackman: I can not answer for either Barry or Howie. I do hold in excess of 5K shares. I am not allied with either of them, although on occasion I have agreed with their criticisms of mgt.
As for the views of the majority of shareholders, I respect that and their numbers. Without trying to justify my contrarianism, many of the majority have constantly posted how we were going to take off any day, while I argued against it because there was no product.
We have not taken off yet, so it appears the majority may have been mistaken and the contrarian closer to reality. But only to this point in time.
I too am hopeful we will take off. I am just curious why after all this time of promising a product, there is not some validation in the market when we actually deliver one.
This is old and we have argued it before. Let's try to go forward. I have a positive attitude and am very optimistic. But that does not mean I can not raise questions. If everyone believed as you did, there would not be much to discuss here, would it, my friend?
On the same team, with a slightly different view---Bluefang
Snackman: What about the stress put on us longtime longs by those who post salvation is near?
You are simply wrong when you say if we went to $10, I would be lamenting we were not at $20. That's simply not true.
I would like to see a little increase in volume and a little appreciation in price which to me would validate our theories that we are gaining traction in the marketplace.
With the whole world screaming for security and us now delivering the same--how can there be such indifference? I don't want to stress anyone out. I am just looking for answers.
I am patient and will continue to be, until I see signs indicating it would be best to exit. I'm nowhere near that now, it just seems the tide should be turning in our favor a tiny little bit. We should not be slipping in both price and volume at this point.
When we were trading less than 100K a day earlier in the summer, there was no Intel in the picture, no product on the shelves.
Now it is different and it is certainly fair to ask why no one else seems to notice. I would agree with you major movement will not come until revenues are posted. I am talking about pennies, not dollars. Tens of thousands in volumes, not millions. Anything to indicate we are gaining traction.
Maybe the CC will help guide us. Let's talk again after the CC.
Best--Blue
Waverider: But if the interest in Wave was there, if the buyers were there, they would simply use that seller to pick up shares cheaply, wouldn't they? Why is the volume light?
I don't want to argue the point, but it seems we 'voids tend to blame vast mysterious conspiracies for keeping us down, when the plain truth may be as simple as a lack of interest or a lack of knowledge.
Look, we didn't really have a product before. Now we do. That leaves about two options in my mind: the first is the world doesn't know about it, hence lack of sales. The second is the world does know about it and doesn't care, or doesn't trust it or some variation of that.
My money is on the world doesn't know about it yet.
In the past, the same conspiracy theory was often floated on the boards about how someone was conspiring to hold us down. The fact is, we did not have a product then, that was what was holding us down. There was no conspiracy. Things have changed, but IMO, there is still no conspiracy. The world just has to find out Wave is in the marketplace with a great product.
Blue
Snackman: You are both right and wrong when you say the past is the past. Nothing we can say or do can change what happened. On the other hand, people who dealt with Wave in the past, still have the memories of unfulfilled predictions.
IMO, that haunts us today and will continue to be the prevailing attitude, until we overcome it at the marketplace with product and sales.
If a person has proved to be unreliable in the past, we may not forever hold him to that, but we would certainly be wary and we would wait until that person began to behave in a trustworthy manner, before our trust would be given again. I think that is what CPA is saying.
We squandered our credibility in the past with dubious announcements, and now we have to win it back with actual deeds. It is not an easy process nor a quick one to re-establish trust again.
IMO, CPA made fair commentary when he stated that because of SKS's past erroneous predictions, one should be a bit wary of believing what he says now. I think all of us investors would be wise to be at least a little sceptical of any present statements.
That said, we are in a new era. Before, we did not have Intel as you pointed out. Let's go forward from here, cautiously.
Best, Blue
Awk and Tampa: How can there be a conspiracy to keep the price down with way less than 100K shares traded at this point?
If someone was buying, someone would also have to be dumping, and the volume would reveal it. This is normal volume or below normal, which to me indicates lack of interest or lack of knowledge about the product, the company and the conference call today.
IMO, Wave has a far way to go to overcome its reputation of overly exhuberant announcements. I don't believe a conspiracy is at work here. I believe the world is going to have to see (1) evidence of product shipping and being bought in significant numbers and (2) revenues, before we start to take off.
I look to volume as the number one indicator of interest in the product. If that is down and it is, one can draw one's own conclusion as to what that means. To me, it means lack of interest at the present time. We can only hope that changes soon as word starts to filter out that reliable security is at hand on the shelves now.
Blue
Awk: I interpret the price and low volume as the market not having much confidence (or interest) in Wave going forward. How can this be, when things seem so set in place with gorillas roaming the preserve with Wave tags clearly visible?
This is simply baffling. One would think with all the potential on our side, specu-investors would be picking up a few thou shares just in case. It defies logic, IMO.
Bluefang
Zen: The difference between Edison and Wave is that Edison did not announce that he had invented the light bulb until he actually did.
But give Wave credit. Eventually they came up with the product and it is shipping. Bygones.
Blue
OT Vacationhouse: What a great column about MS security. Thanks for posting it. Blue
Lucky: Not if history is any guidepost. Despite encouraging CC's in the past, our history, unfortunately is to go down following the CC's. Maybe tomorrow's will be different, but I doubt it. I would love to be wrong.
If the Intel mobo's are not going out in quantity, I can understand the market's tepid response. But if they are, it is not a good sign there is low volume and dropping or static price in an up market.
Maybe things will be clearer this time tomorrow.
Best--Blue
Awk: Exactly. I did not mean to imply there was any tracking, although some uninformed critics seem to assume it. These same critics seem to feel the TPM somehow decreases privacy, rather than increasing it.
Blue
Greg: Thanks so much for your contributions today. Re: performance of security modules--a long time ago I asked SKS if the Wave technology, which was then being proposed to protect video on demand, if it would have to encrypt every frame of video and then decrypt it on the buyers side. Obviously audio/video coming in at the rate of 30 frames a second, even when compressed is a tremendous chore for a processor.
If the processor has to then decrypt on top of the other functions, it seemed more than the puny (looking back) processors were capable of.
He replied no, basically Wave was an off-on switch. It the video was authorized it was sent, and if not, it would not be sent. It performed a function more like a lock and key.
Part of what I am struggling to understand now, is that still true of security modules--or are they encrypting and decrypting on the fly? I think you can see the significance of my question.
Obviously in the latter case, it would add quite a burden to the processor. Although I am far from conversant with security modules in general, it seems none of them would ever increase the performance of a processor because of the nature of what they do, but rather, would nearly always decrease the performance.
Thank you for you extremely valuable insights and contributions to our community. Glad we didn't scare you off after your first appearance. I'm sure many of us will have a million questions for you.
Best wishes--Bluefang
Greg: A quick comment about Ross Anderson's observation--"It also diffuses responsibility, so that when TCPA eventually does get rolling there is no single player who takes all the media heat {as Intel earlier did with the Pentium serial number."
_____________
Many have cited that Intel gaffe with the unique Pentium serial number. What caused the uproar, is that it was not disclosed, before the fact. It appeared to many as a surreptitious way of Intel tracking things/people/projects/postings on the web.
It was disclosed by non-Intel people, after the fact and there was a backlash.
Now, the climate has changed and businesses and individuals are probably willing to allow more tracking, if it sincerely helps security--as long as we know beforehand and thus have the option of consent or rejection. That was really the issue.
Bluefang
Greg: I will be the first to admit these technical issues are way beyond me. Although there are some first rate techs here, most of us are laymen investors.
Your information seems quite authoritative and you seem to be making a point here.
My question was actually far more basic than the one you attributed to me. My question was does the use of the Wave technology degrade the performance of the CPU and if so, by how much.
You implied Wave's function does not enhance speed of operation, but did not really address how much it might degrade it.
In all sincerity if there are issues here that non-techs should grasp in our understanding of Wave, if you have the inclination, most of us would be grateful. The problem for me is that I have no technical background and have only the most basic understanding of how it works. Many of us are in that position.
A little history: Most of the time we Wavoids have been waiting for the product to come to market--now that it is here, we want to know how it works, how it is being used and for what functions, and how it is being received in the marketplace.
If I am correct in reading between the lines of your complex post (which I do not fully understand), it appears you have reservations about how the TPM works, or if it is designed properly. If this is so, could you explain it to us in a very basic way?
Secondly, let me thank you for spending your time here and offering information and expertise we have simply not been able to get before. We hope you will stay around for some of our discussions. I am truly sorry for my contributions to your getting off on the wrong foot.
By the way, Wave is very open to suggestions for improving the product. One of the breakthru moments came from the suggestion of one of our board members (actually it was RB, but many have migrated here).
Best of wishes--Blue
Doma: Thanks for the explanation. If you are not a techie, you can sure talk the talk and walk the walk.
Best--Blue
Doma: I am deeply ashamed that of your post stating: "...as Wave's ETS software suite uses the CSP of the TPM for E/D why would that slow down the CPU?" the only part I understood was the CPU. I just learned what that meant yesterday.
I know you would never lord your superior grasp of acronymic terms over the rest of us, so would it be possible to give us your knowledgeable answers in a way even the most unsophisticated and unlearned among us might comprehend?
Oh yes, the TPM is the Trusted Platform Module, right? Could you put one small gold star on Blue's forehead for guessing that one?
And guessing wildly, (nearly always an embarassing effort) does E/D stand for Encryption/Decryption? Can you see any progress?
Thanks--Blue