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.
Seeing the value - missing the risk
some of you older posters know me. And I have not been popular of late, because I try to take a realistic approach to this investment. some think that negative. I don't. So let me be brief here in my point. I think Wave's technology and vision offers tremendous value in security and privacy. So that's not at question. What is at question, and what has always been at question, is who wants this level of security. This kind of security could change the way businesses have access to customer data. Meaning, business customers who might use this technology can essentially lock out external entities from accessing their data - making access a privilege and need to know basis only. But what about these company's customers? If they had access to the same, they could essentially purchase goods without sharing their personal data. They could gain access to healthcare without the payer knowing anything more than their ability to pay - not who they are.
So think about it - social media (twitter facebook, etc.) all offer these businesses needed demographic information, and way more personal information that something run with a TPM chip and Wave might allow. What business wants that? If business begins to adopt this in mass, it's only a matter of time before customers get access to the same security capabilities and begin to lock big businesses out of their personal data. That eliminates targeted customer marketing. That eliminates targeted advertising. That eliminates regional analytics and decision support to help gain market share.
who wants that? It might be great stuff, but the only entities I see adopting this are military and government entities. When the public gets a hold of this architecture the whole way companies interact with their customers will change for the worse. Therefore, the risk of not using this technology is less than the reward gains from not adopting it.
hope all are well.
alea - this was my most favorite post in several years. You made me laugh.
If you say so - I will respectfully disagree. Monetizing your company's products and services is the ONLY focus for any CEO ... intelligent or Doofas.
It is not Microsoft's responsibility to monetize Wave's offerings. It is not Microsoft that you invested in 15+ years ago. It is not Microsoft that made all of the decisions for Wave and its shareholders. It was not Microsoft's CEO that spent all of Wave's $100+ millions back in 1999 - 2001. Maybe in some roundabout way you might believe that. And if you do, then once must wonder why you invested in Wave instead of Microsoft.
Stanford University back in the mid 80s was responsible for the creation of an internet search engine that could rank relevant information based on content and its relevance to the keywords that one wanted to search on. So I ask you ... is Stanford University the owners of Google? Did the CEO of Google wait for someone else to monetize the vision? What I'm saying really I suppose is that there is no such thing as a succesful Doofas CEO. Doofas CEO's don't last. To be clear, I am NOT, nor did I label Steven anything. If you read my post, I did not even try to take any credit he may have earned away from him.
I merely stated that the past was the past, and that the focus of Wave NOW should be on figuring out if their product can be monetized, and then execute that plan to make it happen.If you are suggesting that we need to wait around for Microsoft to do it for them, then I will end my response as I began it.
I respectfully disagree
Bluefang and Barge - You are both correct. So no need to quibble over whether these two have accomplished experiences. Whenever someone shows the vision, guts and drive to create a multi-million or billion dollar business out of an idea, they've done somethings very right, and have something to contribute to any emerging business conversation.
That said, the questions here are not who should stay and who should go --- that train has already started to leave the station. And I would expect more changes in the future. The encouraging note here is that someone finally acknowledged a huge problem, and then actually did something about it. This is very encouraging IMO.
Now that the train is moving we should focus on the following questions:
1. Does Wave (or has Wave ever) had a product that people want?
2. Is it a must have or a nice to have offering?
3. Why hasn't it sold thus far? And what focus is needed to get it selling?
4. Is Wave adequately capitalized?
5. Are the right people in place now, or is there a focused plan to get them there so as to encourage the confidence of investors to capitlize Wave appropriately?
6. Are the shareholders adequately informed (not about Steven) but about Wave's past, present and future strengths and weaknesses in the marketplace.
7. Does Wave have closers in its sales force?
I could go on. But this board has always been extremely dilligent and competent about sharing knowledge and information when they know it.
we should all want to know these things and put a little more focus in our efforts towards getting these answers.
Regards,
T123
titlewave - Remember, SKS is nothing more (really)than a shareholder himself now. maybe now he will understand the importance of shareholder value, now that someone else is in control of his current and future investment.
BTW - I found that comment extremely amusing myself. I also found it amusing that he still touts great progress, but only in the current and future quarters.
T123
kisamura - whatever anyone thinks about Steven is of no interest to me. The only thing that I have seen and know is that Wave has (thus far) been unable to monetize it's technology. Now that a new CEO has been named, even if only in the interim, the ongoing and future direction of Wave must be known and communicated to its shareholders.
The haunting question all these years is, why isn't anyone turning on trusted computing? Steven, regardless of his accusers or supporters seemed consistently perplexed as to why companies weren't turning on his technology en mass. So maybe the question isn't why not? But rather, why should they? What is it about this technology that is so compelling, or makes it a must have?
You don't need a company's laptop to steal their data. You don't need Wave to encrypt files or drives. You don't need Wave to delve out tokens. So what does one need Wave for?
If one can reduce or remove operational risk, then banks should want it, healthcare should want it, and likely several others. So why aren't they turning it on? If I wanted to hear anything from the new CEO it would be one thing. Lots have kicked the tires, pipeline continues to grow --- so what are the reasons that many aren't buying? Let's start by communicating that in earnest. That would be a good start for investors like me.
BlueFin - Welcome to a very not so exclusive club of intelligent thinkers.
kisamura - Although that was my point exactly, there was an additional "watch and see" mentioned in my posts. It is also possible that the interim "sales" CEO may be in place to close some deals that may be extremely critical to the board's plan for the future.
What will be MOST interesting is to see the resume of the CEO that the board replaces Steven with permanently. That person's resume is the one I want to see. I am encouraged by the interim CEO placement, because it emphasises sales,revenue, piepleine and opportunity growth and closure. I can only hope the next CEO has a resume that ... Well I'll stop there for now.
T123
kisamura - exactly correct! That was my point
No - that's not what I'm saying. So since it's not, I'll just stop with that and let you read the entire chain of texts. I think you'll find what I meant in that.
kisamura - I respect your opinion, and your high praise of our interim CEO as being a talented asset. My point about Feeney was not really about Feeney himself. Rather, my point being made was to say that usually when a company is for sale, either because the preferred investors are tired of pumping money into it, or the company's technology is not able to be monetized properly the company will usually get a competent CFO to drive the buse in thes cases.
thi can be done in the background of course too. But I don't believe the company's search for a new CEO spells sell to me. That's all I meant.
T123
Alea - my experiences suggest that if Wave was going to be sold, then Feeney would have been put in charge. That said, there may be some opportunities out there (i.e. Gov. Other large opps.) in the pipeline that should they close makes Wave's price tag go up.
All things are certainly possible, but this script doesn't read like a sale at present to me.
Regards,
T123
trust12 - If your conjecture were true, then 1) I don't see why they'd go through this action only to sell it back to Steven privately. They could go private without doing this. Also, if they even consider doing that the way you've described it, there would be 15 years of shareholder lawsuits IMO right on the heels of that move.
So not so plausible IMO
T123
It's up to all of you! Let's be honest for a sec. The vision is a great vision. And we as shareholders know, and knew the risk when we invested. So I for one blame no one for the risk I took.
That said, we as shareholders have the rights that we do for a reason. If we believe that the vision is sound, and it's the execution on that vision is lacking after these many years, we as shareholders posess the right to make a change via our votes. Even if the proxy votes and other circumstances leaves Steven as the CEO, and allows the board to stay in place as is we have no one to blame but us.
We have never put Steven (CEO) on the hot seat really. The stronger supporters have rights (like us) to vote whatever way they choose. But, and I say but, if you as a shareholder are unhappy with execution ... while it's nice to complain on this board (I do too), it's better to send a stronger message of disapproval with your votes.
10 years ago, everyone was a supporter. 5 years ago some got anxious. Now, after a second reverse split is planned along with an employee compensation increase is at hand it is up to the shareholders to vote their opinions. Even if the vote doesn't carry, it still will send a much stronger message to Steven and the board then complaining here would.
It's really up to you to see the proxy, be proactive with your vote and spaek your mind with that vote. It really does work if enough unhappy shareholders voice their displeasure.
barge - The bigger question might be, did it even make the lower amount? You know how Steven always paints the bigger vision and scenario and then under performs it all.
Even in his email response where explained why he wakes up at 4:30 am every morning in a new hotel, there's never been anything wrong with the vision! And in typical Steven fashion, the vision sounded great!
But, after this many years it's obviously NOT the vision. It's the execution, and everyone's (including his partners) responsibility to turn opportunity into revenue. Any sales person who carries a bag can tell us that. Instead of feeling our pain, perhaps he could (just once) explain why we continue to feel this pain? If we don't lose to anyone, and we have the best product out there ... then what exactly is the reason people don't buy?
That post I'd be interested in reading.
Regards,
returnsatlast - do you really think it was someone at Dell making outlandish promises to Wave?
Thanks for the reason to giggle a bit
Wavedreamer - I agree with MIB. It was a good post. And I'm sure many on this board hope youre right. From what I've learned about the government's buying behaviors over the years, they generally tend to buy during the calendar third quarter. While this is not a given, I believe it is more of the rule than the exception.
So some time remains for more research. While I don't like the unrest in our world, I did hear the secretary of defense on the Closing Bell today speak about how cyber attacks are this country's next Pearl Harbor. While I don't hope he's right, I do hope he's willing to push for measures that protect our country from cyber attacks. That can't be bad for companies like Wave. Then it just becomes a matter of whether Wave's solution offerings are good enough.
We'll all find out soon enough.
Regards
Hi barge- always have enjoyed your posts. Still do. I don't feel like going back to posts every year since 1998 where you, me and others said the exact same thing about TODAY, and now is the time. And I hope I'm still around in 2020 to discuss anything with you then. I'm okay with that.
Take care. As always, I hope you're right. The real evidence so far places you and I in the same place as 15 years ago --- waiting, wondering and hoping. I still think that I would benefit from someone who knows telling me why the past 2 years of pipeline hasn't produced more buyers than tryers. What went wrong? Anyone?
telstar2012 - everyone's right to post whatever they want, without demaeaning or vulgarity is what these boards are supposed to be for. So they should be able to post here as often as they want. Just like everyone else. Trust me when I tell you that I am not negative on what Wave is tryig to accomplish. I am heavily invested in Wave. That said, I am disappointed in their ability to generate revenues thus far, or gain adoption by some of their so-called OEM supporters.
Everyone, includeing those companies needs better security. I work in this business and continue to be perplexed. Not because no one ever seems to have heard of Wave. But rather, because they have and have little or nothing to say about them. If they were the answer, I should hear more. If they were the best, I would hear more. If their solution wasn't fully baked, then this is the only reason that is plausible that I can offer. Cause if it were fully baked and tried by many .... I would have heard more (positive or negative) by now.
But I haven't. Barge could be correct. Wave could finally have it figured out. And I stay invested because if they ever do, many who post on this board will get fairly wealthy ... including me. But there does come a point in time where impatience works better than patience.
returnsatlast - I would agree. And if his research uncovers another stock like Wave, then we all have plenty of years to find this company on our own. No need to share it now
1260 - Those are your words "Doom and Gloom" not mine. The reason why many are offering up their posts of disappointment, frustration and inpatience is quite simply because they've had very good BUSINESS reasons to do so. This board, like any other is not a cult board, or a Wave groupie board. Rather, it is a board for those wanting to share their views and opinions --- ust like you do.
I feel it somewhat naive and immature of those believing that only positive posts are the only way to learn something. What I feel we have learned so far is that Wave, and Wave management by its own admissions have not executed according to their own expectations. They continue to speak on conference calls as if progress is being made every quarter ... as if the current year's revenues will be better than the last ... as if the pipeline is full of 200k+ seat prospects ... as if most of those prospects are only 1 qurter away from making a decision ... as if they're still at the beginning of the education process ... as if the next generation of offerings (Chip, SW, PC ubiquity, Laptop ubiquity, tablet and phone ubiquity, etc) will be the thing that Wave and its investors should count on, and be patient enough to await its adoption.
Well, that's all well and good if any of that ever happens. I don't know about you, but I've been invested in Wave since 1998. As you are well aware, Wave went to $50/shr around 2000, and then steadily declined from there (as did many other stocks) for the past 13 years. While any investor recognizing the inherent risk in any investment should know that if they didn't sell at $50, $40, $30, $20 ... whatever then they should not be blaming Wave for that. And in fact, I don't believe many do. While there may be some extremist posters to the negative side on this board, I believe tha majority of those posters YOU and other positive-only Wave posters can't seem to appreciate are simpy looking at Wave for how well or poorly they have performed. They/We/I am not not blaming Wave for my the losses of our investments, we are questioning Wave's management and eexecution to date.
Nothing they have promised, other than signing up with OEMs who have Wave as an optional offering at pennies on the dollar has come true. They have not had a great deal of revenues from their enterprise ($40 per seat) sales. The government, who has been sold to and testing Wave for the past 11 years or so has not appreciably adopted Wave, such than any substantial revenues has surfaced. Revenues from their partnership or agreements with Seagate has shown ny appreciable revenues for Wave either. But Seagate's stock is showing revenue increases at significant volume.
Okay, enough of the history lesson of disappointments instead of successes. You tell me what Wave's management and its company has done for its shareholders in the past 11 years? I already know that they've stayed current with the evolution of endpoint users by continuing to invest in development --- Great! I know they've positioned themselves well enough to be understood, tested and evaluated by many interested prospects ... some by Wave's own admission were large prospects --- Great! I know that Wave is soon to come out with a new Mobility Solution that works with Windows 8 better than 7 --- Great!
But what historical performance measures can Wave show that would lead you, me or anyone else invested in Wave to believe that this forward-looking attempt at creating shareholder value is going to be any more successful than the string of unsuccesful forward-looking statements Wave and Steven have made in the past? We can go all the way back to Societe' Generale and go forward from there to list the failures. And, we all know that Wave is in this business to make money for themselves and their shareholders.
In summary, it is logical for everyne to question Wave's forward-looking statements. It is logical to assume that many would question almost anything Steven says at this point. It is logical for those who have an investment in Wave to post whatever opinions or concerns they wish to post. It is not logical for you or anyone else to judge or belittle anyone over why they stay invested, or continue to post. This is their right, just as it is yours to stay positive and supportive in your posts, even though revenue execution is clearly lacking.
No matter how hard you try, you are not going to get rid of these posts. No matter how hard you try you are not going to make anyone feel informed or uninformed enough to sell their shares if they don't want to, because you don't pay their bills or make the money for them. So give it a rest. The best position for you to take would be to continue your support for Wave, and continue to post the ay you want to and let others do the same. Perhaps someday, the words "I told you so" can be posted to let all of those naysayers know that you were right, and they were wrong.
Unfortunately, you will find this a hollow claim, because those who are shareholders in Wave are waiting to say those very same words .. whether they are currently positive posters or negative posters. Anyone invested long in Wave wants the smae thing you do. The only difference between them and you is that others don't believe that 100% positive vibes and blind support is best for them. Proof will cure a lot of negative posts. Like the movie said, "Show me the money"
Please note, I am not attacking anyone with this or any other post. But the longer you can't understand why we do question Wave and try to chase those of us who do away ... the longer I will continue to sporadically post responses to your posts to explain why we do. Long Wave shareholders are supporters of Wave.
kisamura - perhaps you're right. I am not as close to the actual Wave as I once was. I was speaking in general business terms, and only remember Steven from his calls and annual SHM. It's okay if I'm not correct, as long as this company doew something to make money now. Worst investment I've ever made so far.
T123
Jo-Jo ssprague@wavesys.com
Kisamura - yes I would keep him for now, and heres why. Steven had, and still has the vision and the gift of gab. So he has always been the perfect startup CEO IMO. What has always been lacking is the execution, the expense management and a board that can actually help the company get business.
That said, you do not begin making changes at the CEO level here IMO. You leave Stevven as the Marketing face of the company and you bring in a COO who can run Wave day-to-day. The COO is the internal CEO in most companies anyway, while the CEO (in startups) remains as the visionary face of the company until they cross-the-chasm so to speak. They have not done that yet IMO. They have chased the evolution of the technology,instead of focusing on growing and managing the business.
You can't have a CEO who is in perpetual seminar, dinner and relationship management mode run the business day-to-day. But again, IMO he is the perfect face for this franchise at present. Now, you take the board on an individual basis and you ask yourself and the company the follwoing, What has each individual done to help this company grow?" They have left Steven in place, so they haven't done anything there. The business has made a great deal of OEM relationships, but the margins get immediately eroded, and the bread and butter for Wave -- the enterprise seats never get turned on. So how well (really) has the board performed in bringing tangible guidance and business to Wave? Not a whole lot I would argue.
Now, if the board has brought real, tangible opportunities to Wave, and Wave as a technology company has failed to impress ... and all we have is the word of Steven here that the pipeline has grown steadily over the past few years, but the revenues haven't ... so why is that? To continue the thought ... if the board has brought potential business to the table, and Wave has failed to impress, then I don't think you see everyone on the board hanging around wasting their time with Wave. You don't want to be on the board of a failing company any more than you want to be the CEO of a failing company. So if Wave has under-impressed, then I as a shareholder have been fed a bunch of misguided forward-looking statements that avoid a simple truth --- that no one wants the technology.
that said, I don't believe no one wants it. I believe that all are interested, and something is missing here that a board should be able to help decipher. If it's got every OEM signed this means something. Maybe not much, because everything is optional and as soon as volumes increase, the price per unit shipped decreases. So I don't believe (still) that this is a must-have solution for many. The only problem here is that I don't why it is not, because Steven himself can't even tell me. So that leaves me with the board.
Oh - don't get me wrong, Steven is a close second out the door if things don't improve IMO, but we shouldn't start with him. We should start by sending Wave a strong message. And that message is:
1. We don't know why you're not growing revenues and the bullshit conference calls that always look to the future as a bright, coming-soon days never happen. Either tell us why or we're going to start demanding changes. Education is no longer an excuse!
2. Board - if you're not going to take the necessary actions to grow shreholder value, then we are going to. And that starts by getting rid of any/all dead weight on the board. Either help us, and show us how you're helping us, or get out!
3. Steven - time to stop the forward looking statements and the fluff of tomorrow and focus on today. If you need to continue what you're doing to grow relationships and get opportunities (pipeline) in the door, then get someone (COO) to run the day-to-day, and help you provide better information to your shareholders. If you don't want to state gloom and doom on a quarterly call with shareholders - that's understandable. But when does shareholder value become important? Why isn't it already? What if you could lose your job if it wasn't? And finally, to disarm you before you levy your typical BS response that this is a journey, and the shareholders can''t be the priority right now ... I simply believe the shareholders and the delivery of value to your clients, prospects and partners are not mutually exclusive! If you are delivering value (not just an optional add-on nice to have) to them, then you shuld be delivering value to us as shareholders by now in the form of growing revenues, customer base and shareholder value.
So my long-winded response is that I don't believe we start with Steven ... since we've done nothing else to date to send any strong message. A strong messge to Steven and the board would be to start with the board, and then move to Steven. If Steven truely believes that growing shareholder value had to take a back seat to education, development and reverse stock splits since 2005 when he first began saying that we are now a sales driven company, then the time has arrived to let him know that this can no longer continue to be true. Show us progress or we start voting for change. It can't get any worse really. We're at less than 75 cent share price. We made or reported less rcently than we did the year before. This isn't my idea of great technology being tried by a growing pipeline. This screams bad product, bad execution, or bad support.
Which is it? I want to see what Steven can do when his seat heats up. right now, the sense of urgency doesn't seem to be there. Let's see how he performs once he knows it is there. If he can't cope, then he's next
To all Long Term Wave Followers
Like many of you, I have held most (not all) of my shares in Wave since the late 1990s. I have sold some shares to pay bills, some to make a little profit as it steadily dropped from $50 per shr. and sold some out of disgust over non-performance of this stock for the past 12 years plus.
While it does not matter how many shares I still hold, the fact that I have held shares in Wave for the past 15 years is testament to my belief in the vision that was laid out for us many years ago.
This vision has had plenty of time to be executed and monetized. The vision has evolved from a secure chip in hardware to software that enables better security within a chip. It has evolved from PC to desktop to tablet to any device (including mobile) at the edges of networks. While I applaud Wave's efforts to try to keep up with the evolution of the public's demand for newer and smaller devices, and the success they've had in signing nearly every major OEM during this evolution, I simply cannot explain why management would want us to believe that ubiquity across all devices must first be echieved before substantial profits can be realized.
I have enjoyed some successes in the business world. To achieve this level of success I had to monetize my ideas for my shareholders. Otherwise, my company would have lost its investors, the company would have been sold or I as a senior executive would have been replaced by the board. The thing that causes me to pause here is that none of these things have happened to Wave, or its senior leadership.
Sure, we can all blame the board for being in Steven's pocket, yet we as shareholders are the true and ultimate controllers of who is elected to the board, and who runs the company. It is we who continue to demand little, follow like ignorant sheep and continue to wait for a better tomorrow that has thus far simply not come.
So what is it that we shareholders really want? Do we want to remove Steven from his post as CEO? I personally would say No. HOWEVER, this does not mean that I could not, and should not begin to start putting some significant heat on Steven and the board to be more forthcoming. Why do I say this? Well, I have heard Steven say at least 50 times or more over these years that we are just at the beginning, and that many still need to educated. We have done this several times now with several OEMs, partners and integrators. I have listened to Steven begin almost every shareholder call by telling us how the next quarter and year will be better than the last, yet you can see our share price on your own.
Personally, I believe it is time to stop the love fest on shareholder calls. It is time to get the truth as to why 100s of prospects have shown interest, but few have bought and adopted. Wave's pipeline has been in a sales execution state now since at least 2005, and it has failed miserably at growing its customer base and revenues to anything we shareholders would consider significant. Why is that? Does anyone know? Or are we all still the naive wavoid followers we once were. We are not naive. And many of us are no longer folllowers. We are just holders of shares in a company that has underperformed.
If you truely want to see progress, then I believe we can start this process by demanding the truth. What is the state of our investment if it is not the sub-dollar value it now has. We now are facing a second round of reverse stock splits, or worse, Wave going private again at a value that is substantially less than our investments. The time for blind faith and following is over. Most of you have Steven's email-id. So start sending him messages that you are unhappy. Remind him that Wave is a public company and we have voting powers that we are prepared to use if a more honest and prioritized shareholder relationship does not begin immediately. Wave is a business like any other. we are entitled to ask tougher questions. We are entitled to know why more customers didn't buy. We are entitled to know what industry competitive technology is winning out while Wave continues to under-perform.
I don't know if many of you still even care at this point. But if you do and youu know something tangible that I don't, then please enlighten me. Why is a growing pipeline as stated by Steven continuing to erode shareholder value? Why is it (really) that few if any reasonably large companies actually turn on the security chip's full capabilities? If it's so easy to do, and it's such a great piece of software why isn't the volume of sales transactions and revenues increasing with significantly increased velocity? I do not know why personally. Perhaps you do.
I check back from time to time on this board to check the pulse of those who post most often. I want to see if their demeanor or their resolve has changed at all after all of these years. Some have. Some will never change. What has changed is that enough time has passed for Wave to be performing better. My investment in Wave should not be worth thousands or tens of thousands by now -- but rather 100s of thousands or more.
It is fun to have met and spoken with many of you. It is still fun to read your posts while only posting once or twice per year myself. But it is NOT fun seeing the same people voted into power time and again while nothing changes. For this, we have only ourselves to blame. The company will not fall apart if we send a strong message to Wave's board and its CEO. So start doing so. It's time...
haha - still a big opinion on me as a naysayer I see. Yet I still own all my shares of wavx. It's okay. You don't have to like me if you don't want. Noo biggie.
I guess you can rest easy knowing that I'm not costing you any money - or you me.
Take care till another time
Careful everyone. Not a naysayer here, but it appears that Wave is extending current capabilities not joining in as an existing part of the solution. That said, this still could be exciting news and opportunity. Someone on this site with a long-standing relationship with Steven should push him to announce more public details (so he complies with reporting rules) about Wave's ACTUAL role (not perceived role) in this, and if what they bring to the table - which we all know already is a given part of this offering, or if Wave is an optional feature or service.
Wouldn't hurt to push and check through proper channels before jumping to revenue conclusions. I'm sure Wave can't tell us everything yet, but I'm sure they know where they stand in this. the challenge is to find a way for us to know.
Oh - and hi all -- been a while
Tampa123
Here's hoping Wave gets to where everyone believes it should have gotten to by now. Press releases are still more of the "Wave to present at" kind, instead of the "Wave signs big contract with" kind.
Pretty obvious to me, when you begin to see more of the latter instead of the former, the explosion you continue to predict will occur. Until then, it won't. I don't post much now cause none of you ever want to hear that. I figured a post per year you can tolerate.
We need news that adds revenue --- not hope
Hello All. It's been a while since I signed in here. But now I have a reason. I have a company that I am working with that wants to use mobile tablet PCs and an attached PIN Pad to do (specifically) secure debit card transactions, whereby the transaction is initiated on the mobile tablet, but nothing is being stored on the mobile device about the customer, the transaction, etc.
Of course, the key that enables the server to recognize the device as a trusted requestor is okay, but the mobile client device is not allowed to process or store anything about the transaction or customer. My questions --- again, specific to debit card transactions (not credit) are as follows:
1. can this be done in the way I've described it today?
2. If not, is there legislation pending that would allow for secure debit card transactions as I've described to occur?
3. If it already works, who is the best person in Wave (besides Steven) to speak to about this?
Thanks
telstarjohn and Ramsey - I can see that you two have some prior experiences with the things you are discussing. However, wouldn't you agree that even if you're selling this to a Director of Infrastructure, his signing ability is likely to be limited to $100k max. Therefore, he will either approve a trial, or go to the CIO with an ROI business case to justify any spend north of $100k.
It is this ROI that should be robust, and a no-brainer for CIOs to both approve and justify up the food chain. Here's why:
1. It protects the data from theft - which today would keep any company from paying healthy fines, lawsuits, etc.
2. SOX compliance - it has the ability to show an automated MAster Data Management plan, which to many today is being implemented to help with lawsuits, etc.
3. It protects from attacks that could create massive expenses in unplanned downtime, and helping with disaster recovery plans
4. It gets into permission-driven and role-based data access, which also helps in process-improvement, content management, etc.
I don't want to start making up things that become arguable, so I'll stop here by saying that regardless of who Dell or Wave or anyone starts selling to, the ROI model should already be a simple exercise of pushing it in front of the eventual signer/approver of the spend. After that, it doesn't matter if the exec spending the money gets the value proposition.
No? What am I missing
okay - I need help. I am buying a computer. Did I hear correctly that newer, Wave-STX enabled computers were on sale at Wall-Mart, or potentially will be? Which is it?
I need to buy a new computer now.
anyone know off-hand how many upgrades were sold this past quarter, or what percentage of the revenue was based on upgrades?
TIA
Everyone - RE: FED you're not going to hear anything new regarding Wave and Fed until Calendar Q3. That's when all of the new contracts are signed, and new deals are done in FED.
I think I've said this before
I can't believe you're making this argument. The stock was down to $0.25 due to lack of performance on promises. So to make a 60% gain after very poor revenues is not that hard IMO
Love the number that Wave posted, but when you keep what you were told by Wave's CEO in its proper perspective, I'd have to agree with those who look at BE as something unattainable within any of the mulitplying stated timeframes.
You jump for joy when deed equals word ... not before. Sorry
I feel like Simon Cowell on this board when I post. No one likes to hear what I have to say, but the truth in what is being said is undeniable. So I might change my ID to SimonCowell going forward.
t123
SheldonLevine - Section 4.9.1 of FIPS Pub 140.2
If biometrics are part of the boot or pre-bott process - which I believe most are, then they must perform and pass tests as defined in the FIPS 140.2 document. These are coninuously adjusted documents, but they do spell out pre-boot FIPS requirements and tests.
http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips140-2/fips1402.pdf
I think they are going after it. The question is, why haven't they achieved it? Money? Time? Stubborn?
I don't know ... but some who know Wave better than I say this is an issue, or barrier for Wave.
sheldonLevine - while Dell might have a solution that is FIPS compliant, Wave does not. Therefore, anything that Wave would offer/sell in this area would not get sold. Sure, the TPM chip and the $0.50 fee might play into the sale, but there's no more revenue for Wave until they upgrade if someone else provides the biometric solution.
I recall Steven saying that this would be an area where Wave might be the largest player in the biometric space. apparantly, that too was a mis-informed statement ... like many other statements made that never came true.
I think we'd all agree that we'd like to see something he says actually come to pass ,,, when he says it will
biometrics
Without actually being FIPS compliant, Wave won't get any money from the government. The appearance of compliance through other companies won't cut it.
This is a wish for Wave - not a reality until they do.