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.
If the industry knows WAVX are in financial distress then the value of any salable asset will be heavily discounted. The $20 million asset can easily be further discounted unless there are several vultures circling the carcass.
123
Alea - WAVX has provided plenty of evidence that "the whole supply side theory has been a disaster". This doesn't lead to the conclusion that "it's what buyers want that counts".
I see very little evidence (in my day job of bringing products to market) that success correlates to giving the customer what they want.
Customers select from what is available. Companies with no market share have to maneuver around existing players to get their product visible without getting their product crushed by the existing holders of market share.
I like the illustrative story of Guastavino, builder of the Boston Library, St. John's NYC and the Tea Room at Grand Central NYC. People really loved his work and the product was far superior to steel construction especially in terms of being fire proof. But, the customer suddenly couldn't have what they wanted. Construction standards were rewritten requiring that the design be accompanied with calculations of stress. Mathematicians didn't know how to calculate the stress in a thin shell curved surface. The existing suppliers of building managed to kill that product.
Years ago I brought a product to market in a stupid way by advertising and making people away of it. Generated lots of interest. Dupont was threatened as it was directly aimed at displacing one of their products in Europe, Japan and Korea. Suddenly my product appeared on a trade restriction list claiming that it had military uses. I wasn't allowed to sell it. The fact that customers wanted it didn't count for much.
To me it is all about the supply chain and distribution. Off-radar setting this up is essential. Otherwise one is dead before they even begin.
Once a friend (founder of a public traded company) was bringing a new product to market that had a price 60% lower than market and of superior performance. Since there were 8 suppliers in that market, and since none dominated, I pointed out that he would likely go bankrupt because such a market distribution cannot be penetrated on price and performance. He went ahead anyhow. His business died a quick death in this product area. Satisfying the distribution channel is far more important than satisfying the customer. Customers are willing to put up with all kinds of garbage (examples Microsoft, crappy cars) did anyone ever want these product headaches?
My experience with dismissing a CEO might not be applicable but worth airing.
Board members have some clear liabilities for not acting in certain situations. In other words, even the most corrupt Boards will act to protect themselves when warranted. This sudden taking action has nothing to do with serving the interest of the shareholders.
In one instance the CEO made an innocent investment in a start-up company that was a supplier to his company. Because of the circumstances the conflict of interest would not even require a trial, the consequences are defined by regulations and jail term was mandatory. Fortunately the misstep was found prior to it becoming well known and the history of the situation was wiped out and the investment dissolved etc. The Board, no longer feeling exposed to liability then decided to do nothing against the CEO – we all believed he was simply young.
In another case the CEO said something in an annual report that was not true although it was presented to him as the truth. The company traded on the NYSE and the jail term, defined by the SEC – so I was told) was mandatory. The only way out was to make the lie become true. Over 1.3 billion dollars was spent making the lie become true. I was in the midst of this entire fiasco and so I know a lot of details. Again the Board felt just a little bit on the safe side, just a little, and so they let the situation play out under careful observation. Had the conversion of the lie faltered even a bit, then the Board would have dismissed the CEO and also notify the SEC.
In another case where I was a Board member, the CEO conducted himself in a manner that put Board members at risk for law suits from investors for failure to perform their duties. Over two years went by without action because it was hearsay. The CEO was sacked once the issue started to have a paper trail and became undeniable.
If Sprague is dishonest and had an equally negligent BOD, do not expect anything much to change. Such people are motivated to play musical chairs if that eliminates a particular liability.
Why expect a negligent BOD to suddenly act with integrity? If all of these guys are crooked, then the game continues unabated. The sacking of the CEO was merely the next act in an otherwise never ending play.
When it comes to computer security I have been most concerned about the US or Israel spying on companies for commercial secrets. More recently I've added China. About ten years ago it was indicated to me that NSA routes all hotmail out of the country, scans the email, and then routes it back into the US. It wasn't said, it was indicated, by a high level NSA manager.
This using government and military power for the benefit of business friends is not new. I recall how surprised I was to find in a company repository all kinds of technical documents lifted from foreign companies detailing their processes or underlying scientific theories. The source of the documents - the US government. That experience was about 35 years ago!
In my company, to protect our investment in advanced technology, none of our computers with technical content are connected to the web. No technical documents are transferred by any form of direct link to another computer. Employees are given two computers, one for internal work and another for connecting with the world. No one is allowed to travel with computers having technical content (we spend a lot of time in Israel, China, Korea, Japan and naturally the US (stone age in this technology). And for phone communications we have a rich vocabulary of code words so that we do not discuss matters in the clear.
The Snowden disclosure was not a surprise to me but the extent of non-essential spying on people is disgusting. Even the code names for their spying programs reveals a juvenile mentality- these are immature jerks not serious defenders of their country.
I understand the need to gather communications from our sworn enemies and I don't mind some excursions into my privacy to assure completeness.
Barge - I have at best a poor understanding of this space but have two data points that may be relevant.
I just attended a meeting at Samsung for strategic partners (my presence is related to a different technology space - not security). There were many VPs there and much discussion about what Samsung needs and what market conditions they face, etc. One slide caught my interest because it illustrated the rapid shift away from Microsoft with consequences for Samsung. One VP stressed the need for better security products which caught my attention because in no sense did he convey that they have a solution in their hip pocket. The need is real and growing rapidly per his statements but there was no mention of the TC group or Wavx but other strategics were mentioned. I asked several people about Wave Systems and the name was unfamiliar. Of course, a company the size of Samsung would have many people not aware of any specific company.
The other data point is a fellow business partner in the energy space and also comprising data security. A group of investors in Europe are making impressive funds available to him because of his team and their progress in solving issues specific to this industry. He only has about a dozen coders but he says they are doing impressive work. (He only talks to me because I'm a useful sounding board in structuring deals and am not of any use in understanding IT issues.) In the course of the discussion I expressed that Wavx along with the TC group claims to have solved data security issues. He waved the comment aside so much as to say they are irrelevant. Later I forced the discussion as to why he hasn't simply engaged Wavx for the security aspects. He said he knew them well and considered looking them up at the last RSA conference but was too busy talking with people that had more to offer. He had to catch a flight back home and so the conversation abruptly ended.
I don't check in much anymore. Buried a wavoid this past year who was "all in" and wanting to leave his kids a nice sum but died believing he was foolish.
Last night I met a competitor of wavx. He claims to know the wavx guys pretty well. Says they are brilliant people but only on the technical side. Says if they knew business they would have made money long ago. He faulted the approach of deploying a perfect solution that requires a major change in the industry. Between where we were in the past and perfection - there are many market acceptable iterations. It is in deploying the acceptable iterations that one makes money. Eventually the world iterates to the nearly perfect solution, but it is usually a long trip. He stopped following wavx a couple years back and so he does not have an opinion about the reasonableness of expecting business anytime soon.
He felt that besides the business model repeatedly being flawed for so many years, the CEO is not a likable person and certainly not one to inspire trust - which he felt was ironic.
He offered to ask around for insight from the buying side and for me to just feed him specific narrow questions. I don't know enough to ask specific questions.
My big regret is not meeting the Aleajactaest person when everyone gathered to celebrate. Have long felt that this person has a most unusual mind and thought it would be interesting to see how it works on topics beyond investment thinking.
For the long investors - I hope wavx is now in the final stretch and wins big. Either way, the management is just plain weak when it comes to making a business.
Alea - the key word in my statements is not "opportunity". I agree with your thought that superior technology creates superior opportunities. Patents that make money are relatively few, perhaps because technologist rarely have a good business mind and therefore cannot help harvest the opportunity they created.
Your thought that eventually the superior technology will result in business, even though the managers do not understand business creation (even in the security space where the need is super-critical), does not fit my experience.
Can success happen to clumsy managers? Yes, but that is not instructive (business successes are statistically insignificant - there is much more to be learned by studying failures). Intentionally investing in superior technology that is guided by weak business managers is not appealing to me.
Naturally, I hope WAVX is successful as an investment. If that ever occurs it will not indicate that these managers understood business. The record speaks for itself - they don't get it.
Provoking a paradigm shift is completing different pathway than any other type of business. Doing so without a sales base is a deeply flawed strategy. It suffers on two fronts: credibility with the industry and funding the transition (excessive hold in position cost waiting for the sales opportunity to "emerge".
Orda - these are certainly much more important than having a superior technology.
Every year I'm invited to talk to graduate business students (they all have advanced technology degrees from an Ivy League and are taking a set of courses for entrepreneurs).
One message I drive home each year is that having a superior technology is the least important contributor to business success.
In business, I just don't worry if a competitor has a superior solution set for the market.
It appears you are arguing the wrong point. How do the members of a discussion board impose even the finest policy on a essentially closed company?
The professional investors seem to have spoken loud and clear - they are not buying the stock.
It is absolutely irrelevant that I think the management team cannot execute. I think they are great on the technical side - so what? They are not asking for my praise or censor.
It isn't a matter of success or failure for the little shareholders. Us little people just go along for the ride. We knew or should have known that it was a tightly held company when we decided to invest.
The Board has the power to change things but they have decided (willingly or not) not to do what some here are advocating.
I think it is unlikely that those of us discussing the matter have sufficient power to impose a change, even if we had purely objective measures of performance.
I am not comfortable with the status quo.
Not really. The fundamental issue isn't the defined goal but in knowing how to meet it.
Incentives are motivators, these guys do not need motivators - they are already well motivated to succeed in business but don't know how.
"pay for performance" is a bad idea for WAVX. WAVX management doesn't suffer from a lack of motivation. They suffer from lack of knowledge of how to make a business. A pay for performance incentive only prompts them to try something stupid to meet the goal, even if circumstances have changed during the year.
Pay for performance belongs in old nearly dead companies where the downside risk is minimal because the business is no longer strategic. It is then proper to provide an incentive to management to lower their cost 5% because otherwise they avoid the issue. If achieving the cost reduction hurts future performance, the Board doesn't care because the objective is to milk the cow.
SKS - technical genius - yes - business genius - no way.
He didn't have the sense to bring on people who understood how to monetize what WAVX has.
Remember the Olympics?
Even an out of shape wheezy old guy can eventually finish a marathon. Doing so doesn't make them an athlete.
No matter how successful WAVX becomes the business record stands and it is a poor one.
The big question, can SKS get himself out of the CEO role and put someone in who understands business? If not, WAVX will miss many more opportunities.
Nothing much new here, except for those whose primary news source is TV.
WAVX can do very well even is this environment. There is a growing recognition of the need for security and a low cost effective means for managing the security of many computers in an organization. Just because the company does well does not mean that the stock will do well. Both of these types of successes depend on the health of a different market (computer security for WAVX, stock market for investors in WAVX).
The confused masses already trust the McAfee brand for security, that is worth a lot in terms of shifting people to a new paradigm. They already have great access to the market of security. If Intel didn't absorb them then this brand would continue to work against the new paradigm and that is also costly.
I'm wondering if there are five more buying opportunities over the horizon or twenty five.
My situation might be repeated in many other companies. I wanted to upgrade our total IT infrastructure and also bring on all the security capabilities provided by TPMs and Embassy.
No go.
Even though I’m a significant shareholder, an officer of the corporation and sit on the BOD, I couldn’t muster enough support in favor of the decision. I hired three external consultants and obtained opinions from a Manhattan company specializing in corporate security. No, No, No - No.
Two things worked against it. We have a mixed system of PCs and Macs. WAVX said to one consultant that they do not support the Mac platform. The other reason, more prevalent, is that the consultants felt that the more tried and true solutions would provide much of the security and convenience we could obtain without TPMs. So, they reasoned, why be the guinea pig?
My impression is that the TCG and Wave have done a miserable communications job. When one uses old language to define new approaches the audience only hears the old message. Even my own marketing people, in rolling out a product for us, made up new words, new terminology to avoid having the customer confuse the new technology with the old technology offered by the existing players.
Not long ago this discussion Board was pretty excited about something Steven wrote to explain why TPMs should be turned on and put to use. In the same spirit of excitement, I passed it to my wife. She shook her head no and said “this guy really only knows how to preach to the choir - our stock is never going up”. As a technical writer, I think she knows what she is talking about. I also got a similar opinion from my daughter who “translates” technical stuff for a national news company so that the average drone can “understand” the discoveries or issues. Communicating with those outside the core group, those with no prior understanding of the implications of your message, is radically different.
I then engaged a smart guy from the IT department of an Ivy League university to give me his opinion. I offered him $100 / hr to delve into the subject so that I could use his recommendation to get buy-in from all participants. Thumbs down. Wait and let others suffer through the implementation issues. However, I could tell from our discussion that his mind kept responding to trigger words in what he reviewed for me that were keeping him well away from what distinguishes TPMs and Embassy from what others are offering.
Just the same, I'm now convinced that the best approach is to sit back and wait for others to shake out the flaws, even though I don't know of any (too ignorant to know). Maybe others are being pushed to the same position.
We are upgrading the entire IT system - but no use of TPMs or Embassy.
sorry for posting old stuff - still the advice to remove Embassy is on many university web sites.
Some publicity among computer experts - ran into this while researching something else. Perhaps this helps to explain our upgrades situation. Elsewhere in this site there is more about removing Embassy. I have no way of knowing if these problems persists.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/OS/Microsoft_Operating_Systems/Windows/XP/Q_23149386.html
03.05.2008 at 04:20AM PST, ID: 21049630
I was having the exact same issue and my problem turned out to be because of a program called "Embassy Trust Suite by Wave Systems" that was pre-installed on the laptops by Dell. Once I un-installed this software and restarted the laptops Offline files synchronised without any problems.
Accepted Solution
03.12.2008 at 06:54AM PDT, ID: 21105939
The suggestion to remove the "Embassy Trust Suite by Wave Systems" from my DELL laptop did the trick. Also some other strange security related issuses seems to have dissapeared. I hate preinstalled junk
03.24.2008 at 04:04PM PDT, ID: 21198295
So as I have been dealing with this. I have had 2 other users experience the same problem on 2 new D630's. I removed the Embassy Trust Suite from all 3 and it only fixed it for the 2 latest users. Not the original user that started it all. Also, I have another client that had a user have this problem with a new desktop and removing the Embassy suite resolved it for them also. I have spent over 11 Hours on the phone with Microsoft Tech Support to try and resolve this and they have not been successfull. In the mean time, they managed to lose all of the permissions on my "Users Shared Folders" directory. That was interesting. And they also seem to have corrupted something with the Offline Address List for Exchange. I'll keep working on it and let you all know what happends. Thanks for all the ideas and updateded info.
03.25.2008 at 06:38AM PDT, ID: 21201751
I had recently placed two Dell D630 into production and had the same exact problem with synching files. Once I removed the Embassy Trust Suite all was well. thanks for the answer!
03.31.2008 at 04:19PM PDT, ID: 21250005
I was also having the offline sychronizing issue on my new Dell D830 but was not willing to remove Embassy Trust Suite in its entirety since it is the software that was provided with the computer in order to set-up and manage my Seagate Encrypted Hardrive and the Biometric Finger Print Reader, which I specificatly wanted, so that the confidential data on my Laptop Hardrive would be protected if my laptop was ever stollen. After much investigating I found that it was not Embassy Trust Suite in its entirety that was causing the problem but the Document Manager module. I removed the Document Manager module while still maintaining the rest of the program and eliminating the sychronization error. I have placed a call into Wave Security Support regarding this issue but have yet to receive a solution for why the Document Manager causes such a problem.
DataBitz
04.08.2008 at 09:56PM PDT, ID: 21311857
Experiencing the same problem with a customer, contacted Wave Systems and received the email below. No instructions yet but to remove the Document Manager component we removed Embassy Trust Suite and reinstalled it, the trick is during installation select the custom option which lists all the components and de-select the 'Document Manager'.
awk - I think you might be confusing the technology with the company. Perhaps the technology is so important that it will surive.
A friend of mine took in about 100 million of equity investments, had firm orders for his product, major contract with a top tier company, was six months from positive cash flow and only needed $15 million to bridge the gap. It collapsed. The product is doing well today.
About three times a year I am approached to acquire the IP of a competitor (should it go under). In the pitch one usually see outlined the nearest term commerical prospects. Occasionally a company is very close to success, the customer has invested a lot in the relationship and yet, it goes under.
In one case the issue was purely political, the main client contact was afraid to approach his managment to bail out the situation.
oknpv - per your request - Universities typically patent technologies and not knowing much about applications and market structure they tend to not be in a position to patent that which makes value.
Value is the gap in performance between your invention and that of other approaches to the same objective. If others can devise ways to close the perfomance gap, in real or perceived terms, then the value decreases.
In protecting value it is just as important to patent your developments as it is to patent developments others could make to close the gap.
Also, if one patents the technology but not the specific applications then two things typically happen. Someone will wrap your patent with their own. Granted they cannot practice since their patent rests on yours, but, you cannot advance into the space since the wrap blocks your progress.
The other typical response is to patent very narrow well defined applications of your technology.
A simple example is a guy who patented a fast response pressure reading device. A wonderful invention. Others patented its use in specific devices benefiting from from having a fast response pressure reading system. In other words they patented the value (applications of the system) while he patented the technology for providing a pressure reading. His "customer" worked his butt off for years in resolving application issues, for a small fee and often for no fees. I met him when he was looking for financial support. I reviewed his situation and told him he was dead but just didn't realize it (I tend to be explicit when discussing business). As far as I could tell his "customers" were waiting for him to realize it and give up. Within a short while I could find no indications of his company having survived.
Over tens years he slaved, he just didn't understand the game.
I am too ignorant of WAVXs space to judge if this has happened to us. So, I raised the question.
Snackman - I bought into the agnostic concept a long time ago. In reviewing my assumptions I'm dealing with a different issue now. How does one explain the lack of financial support from people who, we think, ought to most benefit from WAVX's survival.
Can you explain it?
Can you explain why the key collaborators do not seem to have turned on the TPMs? The beginning of this thread is an article about all of the TPMs not being turned on and even offering products that negate using TPMs. Does anyone have an explanation?
I offered one possible explanation. I'd offered it in the hopes of hearing alternative explanations - not dismissals.
telstarjohn - I did the "loan game" while at a public company, I know of two other situations in the same public company also aimed at supporting suppliers. The company I referred to as offering to provide support to my company (when it was starting) is a Japanese publicly traded company.
Private sector companies often don't have the financial resources to provide this kind of support.
It is not nuts, it is quite normal.
Snackman - the fact you note is relevant to the analysis. It is a sign of support. Thanks Any more signs?
cartoon - not correct. In business one should never kill the competition. This is not war. In war, when one kills an enemy the individual is dead. In business, kill the enemy (a company) and the individuals spring back to life in another form. So, in business you starve the competition so that their talent remains in a state of suspended animation, always striving to dig out and never a threat.
There is another reason for allowing a partner to slowly starve - cheap labor. Companies that are hurting are much more agreeable to offers to work for free, provide good advice and otherwise do everything they can to improve the relationship in the hopes of getting business.
Ramsey2 - so are you satisfied with ignoring a substantial set of facts? I tried to explain a set of facts - total financial non-support by "partners". What is your explanation (assuming you can emotionally deal with unpleasant facts)?
mundo – yet more evidence that WAVX partners want them to die?
This thought has been crossing my mind for the last few months. It is not unusual, in technologies covered by patents, for your collaborators / customers to be patiently waiting for you to die. Obviously, no one is waiting for IBM to die so that they can practice key technologies. This death wish dynamic is only a strong factor in the start-up / early revenue world.
Your post is full of yet more evidence that this could be happening to WAVX. Some time ago, I don’t know how many years ago, I bought into the logic that the trusted computing “industry” needed a neutral third party, WAVX, in that the big boys would never entrust the responsibility to each other.
Lately, I’ve been rethinking this original logic of comfort because the facts are consistent with the opposite.
One key to deciphering the situation is whether WAVX patented just the technology or also the value. I know too little about the space to make the determination. Further, the clearest sign that there would likely be a death wish amongst WAVX’s “collaborators” and “partners” is if WAVX patented the technology and the others patented the value. That is a real killer.
The other signal that WAVX’s collaborators might wish they were dead is the total lack of effort to feed them money. Several times in my corporate life I was in danger of losing a key supplier or a key customer. I was always able to flow money their way to keep them going, to build a bridge to stability. Once, for a dying customer, I decided to declare the previous ~year of shipments to be defective products and authorized an immediate cash refund and additional compensation for their losses. This enabled making their payroll and longer term I earned a great customer.
In my current business, in order to test my collaborators’ true intentions, I once spoke of my dwindling cash reserves and financial difficulties. Almost immediately came offers for exchanges that would provide funds. This was just a market validation test and actually dramatically helped to boost the company's valuation with the VCs.
In extreme contrast, WAVX’s partners drag them around the world for industry training, draining precious cash, and seemingly provide no financial support. To feed WAVX money, DELL could easily have compensated WAVX for the effort. Perhaps this would be contrary to their true interest.
The Olympic partners could easily have paid WAVX ten million $ for this project, up front, to bridge them to success. Is it possible that Microsoft would ever have devious intentions?
BBC Leads the Way onto the Web
For online video streaming, the BBC's iPlayer has been a huge success. U.S. broadcasters like ABC and NBC could take a lesson
by Mark Scott
After a tiring day at the office, most Brits like nothing better than to put their feet up with a cup of tea and watch the "telly." Yet more and more now are turning to the Internet to get their TV fix. And while video-sharing sites like YouTube (GOOG) and Daily Motion are popular, the real push into online video is being led by a surprising actor: old-media stalwart British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC).
The BBC's remarkable success in delivering its news, entertainment, and educational programming via the Internet has caught the attention of broadcasters all around the world. Traditional TV companies—both producers and distributors—are nervous the Net will undermine their business models, yet they badly want to jump on the bandwagon. The BBC has proved an unexpected trailblazer and is now a model for companies such as Italy's RAI and Germany's RTL, which are looking to replicate the BBC's popularity in their home markets.
The secret of BBC's success? In a word: iPlayer. No, it's not a new gadget from Apple (AAPL), but rather a Web site that streams full-length BBC TV shows from the last seven days on demand. Launched last December, iPlayer has combined a slick user experience with popular content to triple its unique monthly audience in Britain to 2.2 million, according to researcher Nielsen Online. That makes it one of the most successful streaming video services in the world.
An Older (and American) Audience
Unlike youth-oriented YouTube, the iPlayer has also been a hit with an older audience. The BBC says more than 60% of its viewers are 35 or older—and they stay online for almost 30 minutes per session. That's a powerful draw for advertisers, who have long sought to capitalize on the public's growing interest in online TV, especially among a well-heeled adult audience.
"The BBC iPlayer is well ahead of the game when it comes to online video," says Adam Daum, media analyst at technology consultant Gartner (IT) in Britain. "We definitely could see the model exported across Europe." It's already proving to be an inspiration for British commercial broadcasters ITV (ITV.L) and Channel 4, which are in talks about joining forces for a shared online TV portal.
Not just European broadcasters could take a page out of the BBC's playbook. U.S. content providers, such as ABC (DIS) and NBC (GE), have experimented with online TV since 2005. So far, they've been swamped by YouTube, which commands 57% of the U.S. Internet video market, according to Forrester Research (FORR). By mimicking the iPlayer's dead-simple user interface and large content library, U.S. broadcasters finally could cash in on online video, says Bobby Tulsiani, a New York-based analyst with consultancy JupiterResearch. "From day one, the BBC's iPlayer started with the right experience," he says.
To a large extent, the BBC's model has been mirrored by the new Hulu online TV service in the U.S. A joint venture (BusinessWeek.com, 3/14/08) of Fox (NWS) and NBC, Hulu has signed up more than 60 content providers to offer TV shows all from one Web site. Despite launching only a few months ago, it is already attracting 2.4 million unique visitors per month.
How the BBC "Kick-Started the Market"
How has the BBC, founded in 1922 and once so stodgy that Brits affectionately referred to it as "Auntie," been able to crack the Internet Age? Gartner's Daum reckons it comes down to three things. First, the Beeb's government-backed business model has allowed it to try new technologies without fear of angering cost-conscious shareholders. The BBC already has spent $11.3 million on R&D and technical investment to support iPlayer and figures to shell out a total of more than $260 million by 2011 on its ambitious video-on-demand plans. "You have to make it easy for someone to have a great time on the site," says Anthony Rose, the BBC's head of digital media technology.
Second, Daum says the BBC's dominant position in the British TV market has attracted viewers looking to access its large (and free) content library. According to Nick Thomas, a European media analyst at JupiterResearch in London, getting a critical mass of shows means people don't have to jump between different Web sites to watch their favorite programs. That makes the experience more customer-friendly and builds brand loyalty to the BBC's site.
Lastly, the BBC has used its large presence across TV, radio, and the Internet to raise awareness about the iPlayer. Cross-promotion, such as radio DJs or TV presenters telling audiences about the service, has helped boost iPlayer viewership by 20% per month from its December launch through April (the most recent month for which figures are available), to 21 million shows. "The iPlayer has really kick-started the market," says Rebecca Jennings, principal analyst at Forrester Research in Britain.
Some Challenges
The first few months of the iPlayer have also produced a host of lessons. The first, says Jupiter's Tulsiani, is that the more impatient nature of the online audience requires advertising breaks in programs, as well as the ads themselves, to be only about one-quarter as long as on TV. Ads also need to target specific audiences, he says. For now, advertisers are paying about a 50% premium for Net ads on a cost-per-viewer basis. But with fewer time slots available than on TV, analysts caution, the revenue to broadcasters may not be enough to make online services sustainable.
Another unexpected challenge has come from Internet service providers, which have complained bitterly about the amount of bandwidth being gobbled up by the iPlayer's streaming video. As more people start watching TV via the Net, ISPs say, content providers should help pay for the necessary infrastructure (extra switches, fiber-optic cables, etc.) needed to make video stream seamlessly. Complicating matters, some ISPs have made their own moves into online TV, which could lead to a battle between them and broadcasters to win over audiences.
Gartner's Daum figures both sides will find a way to live with each other. Broadcasters, for example, could cache their content on ISP servers. That would reduce the amount of bandwidth viewers use to watch programs online. Partnerships between ISPs and content providers also could limit the investment risk for companies looking to move into Internet TV.
European and American broadcasters must overcome such hurdles if they want to grab a piece of the online video market. But what they no longer have to worry about is whether there's consumer interest in Internet TV. That question, at last, has been answered by the success of the BBC's iPlayer.
Scott is a reporter in BusinessWeek's London bureau .
Technology July 2, 2008, 1:58PM EST text size: TT
http://www.businessweek.com/print/globalbiz/content/jul2008/gb2008072_556416.htm
88Carrera - I did absolutely nothing to hasten or promote their demise.
But, I did have a choice of partnering with stronger suppliers but that would have been a threat to my company (suppliers often forward integrate) so it made most sense for me to select a supplier that had little or no ability to forward integrate. I'd be stupid to pick a supplier that would have the strength or skill to force me out of the space.
I was lucky in that I found a supplier that had inept management, little chance of them pushing me off the scene.
There were many ways that they mismanged their operations. Without me they would have died sooner. Their employees were happy to have me offer them jobs. Not one chastised me for my actions. I even told one key person that if the company failed I would take actions to support the employees. I didn't want this lady to bail out as she saw the end coming.
WXP is also managed by inept (in the consumer market) managers. If they were sitting across the table from me, I would not get burned. I doubt that Microsoft will get burned - they are surely more competant then to allow that to happen.
Dory - doesn't the name TVTonic sound sick to you? It is an awful sounding name for a consumer market. Just a tad better than TVDiarrhia.
These guys should stick to what they do well and stay away from direct consumer sales. Even if the Olympics gives them great exposure, they won't know what to do with it.
When you are outside your field of expertise, you are an amatuer - regardless of how great you are within your field of expertise.
"Logic dictates" is extremely encumbered by the limitations of the individual exercising the logic.
Once I selected a partner believing that they would eventually go bankrupt leaving me with a stronger position due to technology rights. I was off by almost a year (it took the clowns longer to die than I expected). Just two months ago I signed a preferred supplier agreement with the provision that, should there be a change in control of the supplier, there is a negative pledge of the technology to our company. While I hope they perform, in the event that they cannot manage the growth, I am not exposed either way.
The quality of a logical conclusion cannot be any better than the premise upon which the logic is initiated.
The premise your logic regarding this Olympics deal is highly suspect.
Alea - in addition, this managemnet has proven to be quite inept in moving a technology to the consumer. I'm invested in WAVX because of their security related business.
In the hands of competant consumer products managers, WXP could have been a great story in execution, long ago. Instead, it remains a dream that hasn't yet come true.
This is classic failure of managers refusing to assess and recognize their weaknesses and stay focused on where they are strong.
If WaveExpress is sold for fifty million then our management massively failed, considering how much of a drag it has been on the company.
Either they are selling the family jewels out of desperation or they are admitting that the jewels were a luxury they couldn't afford to begin with.
Trustcousa are you kidding. Vista already has WXP, why would Microsoft want to buy it at a premium? Surely you don't think Vista will fail without WXP.
Clearly the management is inept, could not monetize a leading edge product and so they deserve to loose their shirts because they failed to create a measurable value. When you are nearly broke, rich companies don't feel particularly obligated to pay "fairly".
givelove - thanks for the clarification - I'm not able to listen to conference calls etc (weak hearing).
tampa - the fastest way to kill this company is to remove SS. He is the driving force and he will personally sacrifice a lot to make it a success.
Anyone else doing the job would only be in it for the money / career. Money doesn't make one stick it out through all of the agony.
If SS leaves, all smart money would leave.
inindiana - sports analogies to business are meant for employees, they don't actually understand business and so the analogies are not incongruent.
From the beginning to the end of a season - football is still football - its the same game. From the beginning to the end in business, the game constantly changes and matching skill sets to situational needs is a very dynamic activity. Nobody has the scope of skills needed to take the whole trip alone. The CEO brings in new players as new skills are needed at each stage of the company's migration to success.
When SS asked for help in the form of business leads he was saying several things. The first is that he doesn't know how to handle the sales step of the business and the second is that he disagrees with Snackman who feels that "Until Dell gets the computers out there with the FDEs in them there is little Wave can do or sell." Apparently, per Snackman, SS doesn't realize that he doesn't need to worry himself about finding leads.
Please don't group me with those who want to throw SS out the door. I have no desire to change CEO. Just adding my voice to those others who seemed to be stunned that SS would ask for leads or offer a paltry excuse for the slow sales uptake.
Asieeit - the newcomer would be mostly correct - there are a lot of experts here and there are a lot of good solid people contributing to this grand discussion about WAVX. This discussion group tops all that I have ever been involved with over many years (I'm an old guy).
There are a few who can't take reality and prefer to hear only positive self-esteem building comments. Such talk is typical of grade school. We are not in grade school anymore - get with it.
As for buying too soon, you really don't get it. A company progresses along a path to success. This path is treacherous and wrong judgements can kill the company. A great start doesn't portend to a miserable failure. No one can fully predict what all can work against a company along the way. Hopefully, the CEO has enough experience and wisdom to bring on the right help as needed for the situation. The evidence is now self-evident that SS has failed to meet this last challenge. SS progressed fabulously through many difficult trials. He has fumbled and is blaming others. Enablers as encouraging SS to persist in his delusion that others are at fault for WAVX not having a faster uptake. He needs help.
Snackman, please, get beyond your emotions and read what is actually written. I'm not slamming the guy. I still think he has done marvelous work. Truly marvelous. His own words strongly suggests that he has a blind spot when it comes to selling a product or service (perhaps he knows how to sell horses). I think he needs to become aware of his blind spot which is so obvious to others. That is not so awful.
What can be awful are people telling someone that they don't have a blind spot when they obviously do have limitations.
If it isn't obvious to you, then maybe you also have little understanding of what it takes to sell or to strategise obtaining sales.
Why do you resist the collective wisdom? More and more you seem to me to want conformity on accepting SS and only discussion on purly technical matters.
I'll remain invested because it is only money (what little value that is left) and I think the product has lots of potential - in the right hands. Eventually he will run out of excuses and maybe face reality - at that point he will hire the right help. So I hope.
In my own company we were having severe difficulties selling a particular market. One of my employees expressed that he thought I was the problem. In his opinion, I was too knowledgeable about the science behind the technology and was intimidating to certain types of customers. I thanked the guy, stayed home and things improved in that slice of the market. At no point does a mature manager feel threatened by opinions.
I hope you are not suggesting that SS is such a jerk that he cannot take constructive criticism.
SS isn't lying, in my opinion, he clearly has no idea what it takes to sell to customers. He clearly can sell an idea to geeky collaborators - infintely easier. He has proven that WAVX has the talent to deeply restructure an industry.
His request for sales leads was the most silly thing I have ever heard from a CEO, except from recent MBAs wanting to do a start-up and gratuitously naming themselves as CEO.
By his actions and explanations, SS admits that it never occurred to him that a technically inferior product could win against WAVX's offering. Technical superiority is the least important criteria for success of a product. Microsoft has made crap from practically day one, awful products from an awful company, yet very successful.
In my own business. I never worry about a competitor having a superior product. I always am tuned in to how well they can sell.
For those who want to defend SS as awesome, please explain why SS never anticipated the competition or strategized how to win the customer. Long term contracts with competitors was an obvious move for entrenched competitors (entrenched in security products). His offering that excuse as an explanation for the slow sales build was shocking to me.
SS failed miserably, not on all fronts, but certainly on the sales development front. Somehow, it seems, he naively expected everyone to become educated about WAVX's superior offering. All of the delays by partners were opportunities for WAVX to further educate and clinch deals. Certainly, at a minimum, they could have prevented selected accounts from making long term commitmentsto inferior alternatives.
He needs to be woken up to the fact that WAVX is missing key talent in the sales & marketing area. Remember how long we felt WAVX was staying off-radar for strategic reasons? Maybe it wasn't strategic after all!