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.
I didn't say Cervelle said that; I said that was my recollection of my conversation with the Inland rep. You don't read things very closely, do you???
RE: Cervelle, I said to call him to ask if a particular carrier, which used to offer MV, still offers it to their subs. If he knows, he'll tell you; if he doesn't, he'll find out and tell you.
Read my post again.
My post speaks for itself; I don't need to remember every single post I have made, and whether I do does not impact the veracity of the content thereof. If someone wants to search the post history, you can do so, and my post accurately reflected the reality as described to me. Moreover, Steve and others, rather than pestering clients or prospective clients of ONEV, why don't you call Rob and ask him point blank whether carrier x, y or z still offers Mobile Voice. I am sure that he would find the answer to that question, as it is not in the same league as things like launch dates, etc.
As I start to think back, however, I think that the post reflected some good and bad about what happened. On the one hand, I believe the post indicates that I was informed that VP no longer was offered; on the other, I believe it also indicates that the rep stated that some customers who had VP were disappointed by the discontinuation of the service.
I know that I posted something about it, but, honestly, I don't recall the substance of the post on it.
Dean did NOT say the largest shareholder was working with ONEV to get them to breakeven; you are INFERRING that from the comment that the funderS, plural, agreed to a credit line, but then you ignore the fact that the credit line, as I predicted, has turned into a prospective convertible debt mechanism.
As for the A/S breach, see the SEC filings which discuss that issue. Although it may not be yet a breach, it IS a default under the convertible debt instruments.
No, that wasn't my point for posting it, but you can make use of it for whatever point you want. Google also is not in a situation where every delay encountered means critical continued dilution for its stockholders, either, so I don't buy your point as it relates to ONEV's delays.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5222956
Google phone delays.
My guess and belief is that ALL Iris users from Telnor are not currently leading to ANY payment to ONEV, pending completion of the licensing agreement.
I just can't imagine that Telmex will pay for Iris under two structures with the current licensing negotiations underway.
I think it clearly would be a material event in light of the SEC filings regarding the importance of such launch and the scope of such launch. Then again, I also thought that the breakoff of RCC was material event, but ONEV didn't treat it that way!
That's because I don't get the inside scoop that you consistently seem to get. I think that you ARE treated differently, based on the supposed content of information that you get compared to what others, including myself, receive.
My guess is that although it is NOT free, it also is NOT currently being paid for. If they are anticipating reaching a licensing deal, I am sure that no payments are being made pending the execution of such a deal.
IF they have these anticipated revenue, then Dean should be proactive to protect the shareholders and the value of the stock by giving public voice to that anticipation. If he fails to do so, he is indicating that he doesn't care about the stockholders. He is not acting with the interests of shareholders in mind. He has a duty to help support the stock, but he doesn't seem to care to do so.
If what you suggest is true, what do you think:
1) is the value of the "one time get lost payment," i.e., what is the total amount, and over how many years will it be spread, and how much per year??;
2) MOT and ONEV -- your posts NEWER EVER EVER EVER EVER said anything about your contacts with MOT being in 2007; to the contrary, your posts clearly suggested information CURRENT as of the time you posted your nonsense;
3) ONEV and MIDs joined for a "pittance" is nothing but conjecture, and based on absolutely nothing concrete or even factually-based;
4) Even by your own admission, you suggested that ONEV was seeking employees ONLY on its own website, but my posts earlier demonstrated the falsity of that assertion;
5) Office Max - your suggestion that your post was "sarcastic" is beyond credulity; if THAT post was being sarcastic, then anyone reading ANY of your posts would be justified in drawing the same conclusion. Anyone with half a brain, however, would know that you are NOT NOT NOT being sarcastic, but that you are positing as fact your own unsubstantiated beliefs, committing the same transgression of which you accuse veno and others to be guilty!!
You have no idea about what you speak, and you are speaking as though you are a burned past stockholder. What exactly makes it something that "probably is not going to be an interesting sell to any corporation let alone Telmex and MNTL (sic), as you have admitted that you never have even witnessed what MV does through any demo?!?!?!?!
I will simply say that I have communicated with both Dean and Rob.
As for being a shareholder, I don't just SAY I am, I am; if you have doubts, we can talk about that separately.
My inferences of situations is NOT a personal attack. You are free to disagree, but that is a fact.
The share price has not been "relatively stable" during that time period.
They're already LESS than a cent on the dollar!
You may "happen to know a lot more about RCC and why breakeven was predicted by the company and what changed," but Dean should share that information with EVERYONE, not just his favorite shareholder to whom he gives ONEV's tech for free. That's AJIMHO!
First, you didn't read my "For starters..." remark, obviously.
Second, let's take a look at the substance of some of his positions, as summarized by you:
"Telmex would never happen"
The jury is still out. Parse all you want about Telnor being Telmex; the fact is, Telmex has NOT happened, and I think that reasonable people reasonably can be concerned with a deal that has taken 6 months to negotiate, and where during the course of those negotiations, there is no indication available to shareholders about how ONEV will and has been compensated for Iris usage by Telnor since its launch. Dean NEVER EVER EVER has addressed the compensations structure FOR TELNOR. Telmex, we still don't know if it will happen. Even by Dean's statements in the SEC filings, it is stated as nothing more than being very condfident, or some such language. That is not verifying that it will happen, which, after all, is what your position has been -- that these things WILL happen, not that they might, but that they WILL.
"That MTNL would go the way of Telmex"
Such an assertion by SBB is baseless, as we still don't know what way Telmex will go.
"That no one at Motorola knows about the Onev deal"
You should know my position on this one, as I am the first one who warned people not to fall into his trap about calling MOT to check on it. You also saw my extensive tracking of his misstatements on this. Again, though, I can see how you are willing to write off those things regarding which I have agreed with you simply because on other things I have disagreed. I have noticed that penchant of yours toward me.
"That the MID OEM's's would be another Tier 1 Deal"
Frankly, although I may not agree with him at this point, I certainly do share a healthy degree of skepticism. ONEV touted that Tier One deal till the cows came home; then, when it got delayed, it simply got excluded from the SEC filings...no explanation, no reasoning, no accountability.
"That the 411 company being mentioned was only there to sell shares"
I don't share his view here, either. Nonetheless, I am concerned that because this is yet ANOTHER negotiation, we will fall victims to the same protracted period of negotiations that have been constant for the revenue critical big deals -- RCC (which never came to fruition), MTNL and Telmex (which is six months in) come to mind immediately.
"That the seven new positions advertised by Onev was also there for the same purpose to sell shares and it wasn't advertised outside the company"
I believe that I have addressed this assertion to, at least with respect to that portion pertaining to advertisement outside the company, as I am the only one who has posted an independent verifiable link showing a posting outside the company for at least one of those jobs.
"Office Max....blah blah blah"
Again, you ignored that I already have countered his nonsense in this regard by providing information that I obtained.
As for your attempt to avoid the issue presented by me regarding RCC and breakeven, you are doing precisely that -- avoiding the issue. The issue is whether you can consider as "verifiable" a link to an ONEV PR or an SEC filing simply because ONEV said so. I say no, you can't. RCC and breakeven are demonstrative evidence of that. You can't ignore the past, and if you don't understand why, read some Karl Marx (putting aside whether and to what extent one might agree with him on his general philosophy, he has address problems with ignoring the past as you consider both the present and the future).
I am in this conversation because I am a poster on this board, and my posting is not dictated by the topics on which you wish me to post. I disagree with your assertion that the filing of something in an SEC document makes it VERIFIABLE. If that were the case, we would have hit breakeven in Q1 '06; instead, we still haven't come close. In that scenario (the aforementioned breakeven one) NO ONE would have have been able to provide a "verifiable" link disputing the allegedly "verifiable" SEC link on breakeven, because RCC wasn't speaking about the fact that they were not launching with ONEV, despite ONEV's "verifiable" statements to the contrary.
Don't be cross just because someone disagrees with you, veno; it's unbecoming of you, IMO.
breaking even .01 on the PPS???
Hopefully soon again!
There are not any independent verifiable links to the ones that I have noted, as far as I have seen. I do not count as "verifiable" links those PRs or SEC filings from ONEV, as the point is INDEPENDENT verification, not self-serving verification.
"We also were told that over 90% should stick of the DSL users"
No, we weren't. In fact, I would venture to say that at the time that Dean made a <bi>similar statement in the CC, you were one of the posters who said that his statement didn't have a whole lot of meaning, as he didn't provide the current sample size for which the retention rate applied, for instance.
He said something to the effect that the uptake rate on contacts with subscribers as of that point, was around the 90% (or something close to that) level. He did not say that 90% should stick.
For starters, I don't agree with SBB's substantive position.
That being said, you are asking him to prove negatives in those situations, where the only PRs information given about those items has come from ONEV, some in PRs, some in SEC filings and some in both. When you state that ALL of those have been proven with "links," none of the links provided for the items listed is from anyone other than ONEV or ONE's IR (or through a poster from said sources) -- the exception being OfficeMax, to the extent that posters, including myself, who have reported INDEPENDENT verification of the ONEV statement.
Okay, now I have an independent verification for the job stuff as well: http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/sof/698818222.html
and
http://www.voipwereld.com/General/Senior-Software-Engineer-San-Diego-20080529.html
Otherwise, there has been no independent link VERIFICATION of points 1, 2, 3 (ongoing being the key there -- MOT has a lot of their own stuff going on; although there likely still is an agreement, it probably is not active -- the way ONEV has dealt with things going inactive is by removing them from the SEC filings: ATT remote; Cingular; Lucent; Tier One), 4, and 5.
No, he is reflecting that price action impacts dilution, and dilution currently cannot be afforded given that with the pledged stock, we already are beyond the 1.3 billion A/S. With continued price weakness, dilution for existing convertible debt continues to expand, and continues to do so at increasing rates. That's why price action matters right now for investors, and with the continued failure to have any suggestion that the revenue picture will improve, even as the costs component continues to grow, whether through the private placement or the ever-growing credit line. That divergence is not beneficial to stockholders, plain and simple.
There's A LOT of overhang, though; now .03 will be as hard to crash as .045 was last year!!
Yeah, my cost average is north of .02; and with the millions of shares sold so far under .01 (I would guess somewhere in the 70-90 million range looking at the chart), there will be a lot of selling pressure in the area of .02-.03, and we will need some stellar news to bust through that. Would have preferred, chartwise, a close around .083 rather than .085, although maybe the close will get some penny newsies attention. We really need some revenue positive news, though.
Also currently in stock at the store in Everett, MA; so it's on the East Coast as well.
If you are talking about the DA prospect, you are incorrect to suggest that it is a carrier that is referenced in the 10-Q.
Here, instead, is what is said:
"The Company has successfully passed the testing phase with a national yellow pages provider and is now discussing commercial deployment and licensing terms."
Obviously, that is my emphasis put in there, but it is NOT referenced to be a carrier that does the yellow pages. Rather, it is a "national yellow pages provider." I so not believe that the provider is likely to be R.H. Donnelley (Dex), however, as its testing of a voice-enabled yellow pages DA was with a Toronto-based company as recently as last fall, per http://blog.searchenginewatch.com/blog/070905-105954
That is not to say it could not be R.H. Donnelley, but the other company seemed to have the position. Nonetheless, it is true that Qwest, ATT and Verizon dominate the yellow pages industry in the US (per Wikipedia), but to infer a carrier into the SEC filing would be precisely that, an inference. There simply is no such reference in the actual filing (unless I simply missed it, which is possible, I suppose).
You have six million shares purchased UNDER a penny??? What is your cost avg??? I have slightly north of two million, but not at this price range, and two cents wouldn't even, frankly, meet my current cost average, but I am not sinking anymore money into this.
So you think the new investors already are hedging their positions and shorting shares??? Why would the new investors be on the ask at THIS point other than to short the shares??
ONEV has submitted an Amendment to the remote control patent application. The amendment seeks to cure deficiencies on those claims disallowed in the First Office Action, while adding new claims, too.
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN4gPMATJgFieAfqRqCLGpugijnABX4_83FT9IKBEpDlQxNDCRz8qJzU9MblSP1jfWz9AvyA3NDSi3NsRAHxEBJg!/delta/base64xml/L0lJSk03dWlDU1lKSi9vQXd3QUFNWWdBQ0VJUWhDRUVJaEZLQSEvNEZHZ2RZbktKMEZSb1hmckNIZGgvN18wXzE4TC8yNS9zYS5nZXRCaWI!#7_0_18L
Click the "image file wrapper" tab to then view the various submissions made, including the revised drawings submitted, the argument for patentability and the amended and new claims submitted.
"Intel researchers demonstrated a speech interface controlling the task of creating connections between two mobile devices and a wireless display with the goal of sharing resources and services. For example, consumers can speak commands in a natural manner to synch their mobile device with a large screen television to share recent photos of their children with grandparents."
Hopefully Intel had "ONEV inside"!
lol...that has been the plan for a long time, and they opened it up initially in approx. Feb of this year, although the new SDK is a fuller, more complete version. I think that ONEV plans on getting to it, as you can see from the job posting on the ONEV website.
BTW, as far as I can tell, no MCC on Office Max yet (online); anyone have an ETA on that??
Agreed. The interelatedness of the sites is worth pointing out.
It truly was there last time I searched, but I never posted because it didn't seem like a big deal to me given that it is to Telnor, which we already know about. I was looking to see if Telmex was there, and I check that about once a month.
That has been there for a while in the search; I think I did a site wide search about three weeks ago, and that was the same entry that came up. Will be good to see it come up on the Telmex side!!
By the way, not saying that it will happen this way, but just so all of us are not surprised if it happens, ONEV does not need to call a full-blown annual meeting at which to raise the A/S.
It can be done, instead, through a vote of the holders of a majority of the shares of the O/S of ONEV. At present, I do believe that the funders likely still own more than 50% of the shares of ONEV.
If ONEV were to elect that process to effectuate an increase in the A/S, then we could expect to see a Section 14C filing. Under that scenario, the Board of ONEV could approve an increase in the O/S, and then, in lieu of a meeting, the holders of a majority of voting shares in ONEV could provide ONEV's board with a written consent to such action.
Basically, under Nevada law (Nevada General Corporation Law) an amendment to ONEV's Articles of Incorporation (an increase in A/S requires such an amendment) must be approved by ONEV's Board of Directors and approved by a majority or the outstanding shares entitled to vote. The Nevada General Corporation Law also provides than any action which may be taken at a meeting of shareholders may be taken without a meeting and without prior notice, if a consent in writing, setting forth the action so taken, shall be signed by the holders of a majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote.
Just an FYI to all of us who may think that there needs to be a meeting to effectuate an increase in the A/S.
The problem right now, though, is that there are no authorized shares to give out, when one considers the warrants and current convertible debt. The question, it seems, is whether the stock for the private placement will be PREFERRED shares, which currently are untapped? If so, then, the next question becomes what will the preferred terms be??