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.
Todd, the AAA is just an advanced version of the ACS. They serve the same function. AAA stands for advanced architecture ACS if I remember correctly. For some reason I can't open Ants.com right now, but the ACS product page doesn't give any indication of limitations in regard to working with only certain databases which the original ACS certainly had. It could be re-written for any pair of databases but that took time and money for each version. The AAA is supposed to be different in that it is good to go with any 2 you desire.
I'm not exactly sure how this works, and keep hoping someone knowledgable will comment. And you're right, they definitely won't be paying the old license, or "what is the point".
MGD, I've had an email in to Rik with some pretty pointed questions for a few weeks, but so far no response. I'll try the website contact info.
If you've been following my thoughts you should know I'm almost obsessed with an ADS/ACS combo package. The reason many companies do not change databases is because of the "migration headache". Depending on the situation you often spend lots of time and money to accomplish moving from one database to another with possible loss of data. Solving this problem for the ADS via the ACS or AAA might cause a flood of buyers to move to our database product. #!!!##!#!!! Rik! Do we own it or not? And how much did we pay for it if so? And with what?..............And on and on....
I'd have to go back and check historical prices and the OS, but guessing very roughly would have had it fluctuating between 100 and 200 million. So if that comp still has merit, you can see there's lots of potential here even without the fireworks that I believe are still hidden from view.
The ADS came first, and my understanding was that in making their database product more and more "compatible" led to their Ants Compatibility Server(ACS). According to an anonymous poster on Ragingbull Rik and team had a bunch of contracts for the ADS lined up and Joe had already decided to go a different direction so he canceled the sales. The same poster says more sales of the ADS were made than were ever reported to shareholders. Even if all this is true, we don't know how much those early sales were discounted, which is common practice. Revenues never really indicated anything significant. I think most of the ACS sales were discounted as well.
The only things I'm aware of on Doc's AAA were in his CEO corner. What makes it special? It was mentioned in the "corner" that Don Haderle examined it acknowledging that this was the technically correct approach. That is a very important endorsement for those that have doubts about Doc. Do you really think Frank could get away with posting something like that if it wasn't true with no repercussions. The problem is we have no idea as to it's status. Is it even finished? Could it be what is on the current website? Remember the other ACS has to be written specifically for a pair of databases, and there are only 2 known to exist. Does that sound like what's on the website? Rik, please clarify.
Here's some more thinking out loud. It is my understanding that companies often buy databases based on special performance features in regards to data. There must have been some specific reason that Sybase was so entrenched in the financial community. Some things that database would do with data that others wouldn't. Now here's the point of all this. If you want to consolidate but like the feature set of a particular database don't you get to keep that without paying the license if using the ACS? Am I out in left field here?
These were the reasons Joe gave to shareholders for the sale of the ADS.
"The high performance DB market continues to decline as hardware performance increases.
TimesTen and Solid Technologies, two companies with high performance DB products were acquired by Oracle and IBM respectively. The purchase price in each case was well below ANTs’ current market cap. With those comparables in place it would have been difficult for ANTs to achieve a high market valuation based on an ADS product alone.
Expense reduction of $2-3 million per year
We can now focus all resources on the ANTs Compatibility Server."
No matter how unique the technology, it all comes down to cost benefit. I think we can sell enough of just the ADS to pay our bills, but really feel like there's something else at work here. What if the reason ADS sales never seemed to take off goes back to the migration headache. Well voila!, have we got an answer for you. But besides the possible ADS/ACS combination(now the following assumes Doc is still actively involved) I wonder if Ants wanted the Sullivan patents back for other reasons. Curious about what Frank might be able to parlay those into. It would be nice to know for a fact that the ADS and accompanying patents are back in Ants hands.
And I could be wrong. He could have started out playing the IHUB game and then changed his mind, but I doubt it. All that pretentious prose, and who signs off as "A senior ANTs shareholder".
Yes, I think there may have been some of that, but how much is the question.
Very good Lio. The IBM agreement may have impacted 4Js own database sales. About the cloud. Joe has always been focused on that. According to him when someone migrated using the ACS, if the old database was not cloud ready, the new one would be, by virtue of the ACS. It seems to me if the ADS was good for that 4Js wouldn't have sold it(assuming they did) according to this article. And remember the ADS probably wasn't in the picture at the time of the webinar.
Correct. In fact I think Rik was against it, and I believe by itself we can pull in some revenues, but nothing earth shattering. I hope I'm wrong. But what makes you think we can do what 4Js didn't appear to do? We're a smaller less established company. I think there's more to the story here( needle on record skips again) And I think they bought it back. We don't know that for a fact.
I agree there's good information there which many here have seen before, but understanding the practical application/outcome is more important to shareholders. If the ADS by itself( where the Sullivan patents are implemented) was going to set the world on fire Ants would not have sold it. 4Js didn't take over a substantial portion of the database market either. I bet it's still the fastest product out there, but that in itself does not seem to be enough. Hence my feelings about the involvement of the ACS. Getting back to Plato, my problem is his previous(1st) post, where the intention is clearly to cast the company in a bad light. I don't trust him.
Uh huh......well you know some history or how to use a search engine, not that there's anything wrong with that post. It's just that no one except experts know how to put what is in that document into the proper context. I will say to the average shareholder that the Sullivan technologies( and now some patents although I don't know if all of them have been patented) are what underlies the ADS's performance. I was told by someone in Ants that they were not used in the ACS, but I'm not absolutely sure about that. We do know there are overlapping technologies between the two products though.
A Senior Ants shareholder huh? What does that mean? Are you the same guy that impersonated Constantin
OK, interesting first post........Yawn.........Put a little more muscle into it. I need some cheap shares.
Guys, we're obviously getting close
Don't use Facebook and couldn't find the Houston connection. I would like to see this because it strikes me as very interesting information. Yes, at least one of his companies was/is in Houston. And this new employee looks to be a first class individual. Whad'ya think KOOLAIDE, this guy got fooled as well? The number of fools is mounting
Definitely not IT guy, but it is something I would be naturally inclined to do. Big AV type. Home brew speakers and all that. MP3 file? akkkk!!!!gag!
"kid on Christmas type of crazy" LOL, exactly. And yes I think Frank is very involved. His past history indicates the AAA could be everything we think it is, and that alone would make the company and shareholders incredibly indebted to him. To me it makes no sense to think he spent all this time and money and then walks away from his investment. There are several ways this could play out. Time will tell.
I will show why I believe the ADS was acquired quite a while back. This is from the Nov. 7th CEO Corner.
"• Alton Dinsmore, former ANTs V.P. of Engineering, was appointed by the Board of Directors, as the Director of ANTs Technical Advisory Committee. Mr. Dinsmore is actively engaging other members of the Technical Advisory Committee of the highest technical merit.
• Mr. Rik Sanchez was appointed by ANTs Board of Directors as a member of ANTs Board of Directors. Others Board members are under consideration for appointment before year end.
• Mr. Rik Sanchez, ANTs SVP of Sales, retrieved all ANTs documents and files removed from the former Alpharetta Georgia ANTs offices and held by Joe Kozak, ANTs former CEO, in his home. The files are now stored and totally under the control by ANTs. Mr. Rik Sanchez is the designated Ants officer in charge of the records.
• Presented, at NASA’s request, the ANTs Advanced ACS Architecture (AAA) to NSSC last week.
• US Navy: DDG project Charleston, SC software development team status update occurred last week.
• Multiple revenue stream licensed products for ANTs are within thirty days of launch."
Note the mention of the Navy contract. Here is the link to my take on that. What I'm saying here is the revenue sharing timetable has run out, so why is it mentioned in the CEO Corner?
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=81258239
And here is another, earlier post of mine where I questioned the status of the ADS.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=80281688
IMHO Rik was hand picked for this job(who better?) by Frank or the powers behind Frank.
You guys know how I feel about all this. I've stated it too any times. What with Buyants(I believe) confirming 4Js no longer offers the product and the evidence the 4 engineers came back, I feel pretty strongly that we bought back the product. An interesting aspect of the Ants website is the opening page. It cycles through 4 items. The 2 products we're aware of, a "minimize risks" page, and a "consolidation benefits" page. Now where would you guess the latter 2 take you? The first 2 are of course obvious, and you would think that the "consolidation benefits" page would take you to the ACS, but not so. Both of those other pages link to the ADS. I still see the reason for the return of the product directly related to the ACS or the AAA. One thing(of many) that I'm curious about is if the ADS would run an old database any faster if the ACS was used to migrate it? Say, from Microsoft to the ADS via the ACS. C'mon, I know there's somebody out there that understands all this stuff and is just laughing at my ineptitude.
I see I'll have to take your word for it
I wouldn't waste much more time tryin' for a better price. If it comes my way I'll be grateful.
"All this yackin' about ANTS past. If the milk got spilt, clean it up and move along...Reckon? "
Were you originally from the Ozarks? Now don't take that wrong, as I'm a Missourian and dearly love 'em.
Now T and I are going to disagree on this point, but if we're honest that's going to happen sometimes. There's hints that the ADS may have been bought quite some time ago, and I believe Frank was behind it. 4js is a large respected company. Ants is, well.....not that. Why would 4Js sell it, and why would Ants buy the ADS?( if it's no longer available there it appears we bought it back). If it was doing well for them they wouldn't have sold it. At least not for any price we could pay. So why would a smaller company with a less than stellar reputation right now buy it back? Rik was a good salesman for it by what we can gather, but would that be enough to justify the risk of spending capital for it? How's he going to sell it any better than 4Js? I think there may be something else going on here that will soon reveal itself. Something to do with the ACS.
Reading back over those posts about the time of the webcast made me realize KOOLAID can actually speak as an adult. I guess we'll know when he's gone long
Since you insisted on bringing it up. Are you sure that's how the rumor got started? This is Mafiaxxx, post #9149 from June 29th, commenting on the webcast. Several listeners commented on the doctors remarks. And I thought it was in the CEO's corner at one time.
"The CEO stated that they did not get the money from ironridge
Wasn't you listening?"
And from yesterday - "it was never cemented in stone that the ir deal was being cancelled. thus it never was. "
What does this even mean?????
Look, you're a smart guy, but this is beneath you. Bringing up the spectre of "dilution". To what end I wonderWhere is your evidence? Here's mine.
"The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, equity conditions, and an increase in issuer’s authorized common stock. "
I also have personal communication to the contrary of what you claim. I'm not saying what you state is impossible given the state of the companies affairs, but the evidence is against you.
You're sure enough right. LOL, you can smell it in the air. I just hope it turns out to be more than a temporary game this time. It seems like we're a better bet than 3(or even 4,5, or 6) mil., but all we've got in the way of assets are two products, one of which hasn't yet worked out in the marketplace. But as important as those assets are management is crucial to success, and so far, for a pink sheet company I defy you to find another out there with our caliber. Rik has a very strong background and part of it involved us. I think Frank made a brilliant decision to bring back the ADS. Frank may have talked a lot, but I'm sure much of what he had to do involved improvisation, so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. And speaking as one who is not a sales type by nature, more of a theoretical design type, sometimes we don't know when to keep quiet. Maybe we become too enthused with our ideas.
Don't worry about it, you just gave me the answer.
Thanks. I wasn't able to get on that call. But the only SEC document where that figure is stated that I know of is the one posted the other day. I believe the next available figure in a document is in the neighborhood of 160 mil., and I think it may be in one of Constantine's filings. That's one big jump.
Where you comin' from, Katmandu???
Fair enough, I always figured Frank needed work cheap, and you liked stocks and thought this might help your reputation. But about the Ironridge filing that you say wasn't canceled. When I pushed you the other day about the 3 filings I got no response. It looked like you were trying to employ scare tactics to try and buy at a cheaper price. It's not exactly unheard of here In the last filing from Ironridge dated 4/27/12 it states the following:
" The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions, equity conditions, and an increase in issuer’s authorized common stock."
If what you say is correct when did that happen? And when money came in another filing from Ironridge would be done. And how would you possibly know the agreement wasn't canceled? You can't come around making statements like that with absolutely no proof when Frank says he canceled it, and expect no push back.
It's interesting to note that the only place that I've found referencing the 300 million figure is from this filing. And the reporting persons assume? Maybe since Ants was in such a mess Ironridge just "assumed" the high number to maximize their share ownership. LOL Well...probably not, but it's possible. And for anybody that wondered how 4.99% of 300 million is 15,756,000? The key phrase is "after such issuance". Who can figure these things out except professionals!?!?
"IV is prohibited from receiving any shares of common stock that would cause it to be deemed to beneficially own more than 4.99% of the issuer’s total outstanding shares at any one time. For purposes of calculating the percent of class, the reporting persons have assumed that there are a total of 300,000,000 shares of common stock outstanding, such that an aggregate of 15,756,000 common shares issued to IV would represent 4.99% of the outstanding common stock after such issuance."
No. Ironridge would have to do a filing. C'mon Lio, you've been good lately
Looking at the original post that Alton is responding to I noticed the 4 points addressed came from Ants website. Compare #3 to the information on the current website(ACS page) and there is a difference. The addition of Oracle's OCI API. Would they have needed this for the Sybase to IBM version? The ADS is very compatible with OCI. It appears to an amateur( I'm being overly generous with that particular word)) that most of those API's were needed for the sending end(the old database) and not the one you're moving to. You can see where I'm going with this. We just need a knowledgable person to offer their opinions on these speculations.
I hope so. He didn't really get much of a chance at Ants, but if the stories and Linkedin information are correct he can probably do fine with the original ADS. I believe it's something more though. I think Doc brought back the ADS for a reason and that reason is probably related to the ACS. Why would he spend money for a product that 4Js didn't appear to be selling much of? And it doesn't appear to be licensed as a poster on this board(Buyants?) confirmed 4Js no longer offers the product. I would like to know when Ants acquired it, as certain hints lead me to believe they've had it for quite some time now.
No I had not seen that. Thanks. A few observations.
This was Ants first version of the two we know for a fact to exist, so there's no telling what has improved with the Sybase to IBM version. Note this excerpt.
"As all DBAs know there will be tuning after the process. Also just so everyone knows we do have development plans that we know will resolve nearly all performance issues. One plan would require the use of 11g and since most users are not using 11g will will release those features in 2008."
Don't confuse the ACS with one of numerous migration tools.
"ACS is not another migration tool. Oracle already does migrations using Oracle Migration Workbench and SQL*Developer."
And when he talks about the cost/benefit ratio and performance issues which will of course change with upgrades to the product let alone what the AAA might bring to the table, I can't help but wonder what an ADS/ACS might do to those ratios.
Ex, I've explained this as best I understand it twice before. I'll see if I can find the post. Suffice to say, Ironridge had a reason to sell just about as many shares as they were able (which grew as the price dove) if they knew the price wouldn't rise on them, and then keep a final amount. I think you can find the filing describing the algorithm in the mid late 2011 period. The window they had for their shenanigans closed long ago. I think it was an awful deal for Ants who might have been banking on a sale to reverse the market price and keep Ironridge conservative. There's no telling what Ironridge did. They may have sold tons through their "window" and they may have sold little. They probably hold shares. We'll only know when the filings come out, but it's possible they dumped at 3 cents. If I remember correctly, for the 2nd, larger dollar amount the price was around 10 cents when they started and below 2 cent when some people who kinda kept track guessed their selling window closed. The date is in the filing so the beginning price could easily be found, not that it matters at this point. I don't believe they got their money back by what they were theoretically able to sell through that "window" even if aggressive, so my bet is they're still holding, but wouldn't bet much on that.
Interesting to witness how much you know. Makes all the more transparent some of your previous postings
Mafia, are you being naughty? And so soon after a nice Christmas
There were 2 Ironridge deals before the 3rd which was canceled. You're aware of this? And believe me, those 2 could have caused a large part of the jump to 300 million.
Elaborate.
Say what????
Yes. The filings are important but they're not everything. Frank already said there was no issues as far as over subscription. What are your concerns? The preferred deal with Ironridge was canceled. I don't think Doc's preferred share deal went very well, but I hope I'm wrong. I don't see any major surprises except perhaps in the ownership profile. Yes, your first desire was correct. Everything depends on revenue.
We'll get revenue. It's a question of how soon and how much. Smart people don't board a sinking ship.
Looking back to check on revenues for the ADS I came across this 8K from 2008. Worth a read to put things into perspective. The ADS revenues don't appear to be much, but....according to that one anonymous post, and backed up to some degree by Rik's Linkedin page several contracts were ready to be signed, but the sale put an end to those.
"In May, ANTs completed a series of strategic transactions which reshaped the company and positioned us as a leader in database consolidation. Gross income for 2008 is projected to be $8-10 million which is more than the cumulative gross income generated in the history of ANTs Software!
Gross Income Fiscal Year
$450,000 2005
$430,000 2006
$391,000 2007
$8,000,000 - 10,000,000 2008 (Projected)
Strategic Transactions
The first strategic transaction is the acquisition of Inventa Technologies. Inventa brings to ANTs a seasoned team of database professionals, a recurring revenue stream from multi year contracts, the ability to capture ANTs Compatibility Server (ACS) service revenue, and the means to rehost applications remotely as opposed to incurring significant expense with implementation teams working at each customer’s site.
Inventa’s customers include: Wachovia Banking, Aetna Insurance, Sybase, BMC Software and Honda Automotive. A full 99% of Inventa’s customers renew their multi year contracts. Both BMC and Sybase recently signed for additional services as well.
The second transaction was our largest license deal to-date, a $1.4 million license of the ANTs Data Server (ADS) to Sybase. This license provides Sybase access to the ADS high-performance technology, with four ADS engineers joining Sybase as part of the transaction."
The third transaction was the sale of ADS to Four Js Development Tools, our European partner. As part of the sale: the remaining eight members of the ADS team joined Four Js, ANTs retains 50% of the revenue generated from the Raytheon/US Navy contract for the next four years, and an unrestricted license to use key ADS technologies as we continue development of ACS.
There are several reasons for the sale of ADS:
The high performance DB market continues to decline as hardware performance increases.
TimesTen and Solid Technologies, two companies with high performance DB products were acquired by Oracle and IBM respectively. The purchase price in each case was well below ANTs’ current market cap. With those comparables in place it would have been difficult for ANTs to achieve a high market valuation based on an ADS product alone.
Expense reduction of $2-3 million per year
We can now focus all resources on the ANTs Compatibility Server.
Note that from time to time, we may choose to extend the exercise period during which former employees (such as those who joined Sybase or Four Js) may exercise their stock options. Those that aren’t extended must be exercised within three months according to our stock option plan. To the extent stock options are exercised and sold, this may affect the market activity of our stock in the short term.
The final strategic transaction was the sale of $7.5 million in common stock which was used to acquire Inventa and will be used for operating capital. Concurrent with the capital raise, we successfully negotiated an extension to January 2011 of almost all outstanding convertible debt."
Further down in the 8K it talks about the ACS.
"ACS can be used not only for database consolidation (think about moving from ten DB vendors to two) but, for the much larger initiative of data center and hardware server consolidation (think about moving from many hardware servers to few). Consolidating hardware-hungry databases can be done more economically, faster and with less risk with ACS. We believe we have first-mover advantage in this exciting market."
Now this is why(with my limited understanding) I believe an ACS/ADS combo could be so powerful. The ADS would allow less hardware because of it's efficiency and the ACS would make the transition painless. I realize this 8K seems to conflict itself regarding hardware, but one is talking about consolidation and the other, not necessarily so. But we need either several new versions of the ACS(remember, the original ACS is database specific and also, we don't fully understand why it failed in the marketplace) or Doc's creation, the new ACS aka the AAA. And right now I'm 50/50 as to which version is on the new website.