Alea: What about the March Wave 2000 placement of $122M?
Wave squandered every cent of that large funding rather quickly. Nothing to show for more than a tenth of a billion raised.
I disagree with New Wave's (and Solms's) assertion the company's shaky financial footing is behind the failure to sell VSC 2.0. I believe and there is some evidence, the real reason is the crappy Wave product.
No one wants it. It has been a year since its debut, with just one large partner using it that we know of.
Your post and that of New Wave's you quoted seems to rest on the unlikely assumption Wave has a great product and sales will soon start as soon as Wave can demonstrate it will be around for a while.
I look at the nearly two years since Solms came aboard and the expectations he raised with his unrealistic "goals" and targets of profitability which remain as far off target as during the worst days of the previous regime.
If a product is good, it will be bought, assuming price and other points are reasonable. If Wave was going to be able to sell its wares, wouldn't it have begun by now?
Geez, the whole world is crying for security and looking high and low for answers. If Wave solved the issues we have been led to believe it solves, IMO, it seems it would have been selling like hotcakes on a cold morn by now.
It seems the entire argument is completely skewed. There is no evidence of any take-up of Wave's products, beyond the paltry results announced so far. Those results merely mock what is truly needed in the revenue department: strong and repeated sales to significant enterprises.
And that is exactly what we do not have, and IMO, are not likely to have before Wave sinks into the muck it created by the repeated lies of imminent traction and profitability--dating to 2003.
Until Wave achieves some kind of sustained revenue flow, IMO, it is foolish to speculate on when such a flow will begin. The question is not when, but if.
Continuing to pretend Wave is temporarily in some little current marketing eddy it will soon get out of, and then take its rightful place among the giants of technology--is nothing more than a fantasy that has sold millions of shares without a single piece of evidence indicating any of those wild dreams will come true.
IMO, Wave's desperate straits are caused internally and not externally.
Excuses like "our shaky financial ground," "the trusted computing group failed to evangelize the TPM," "the market doesn't get it," and other rationalizations invented to cover up the brutal truth: Wave simply does not have a product anyone wants in quantity enough to save the company.
Wave is pushing its smart card, while the experts say the market is moving away from such technology. If Solms doesn't grasp this basic fact, he will preside over Wave's funeral, IMO.
Put me down as highly skeptical of the view Wave just needs to make some little adjustments and they will be home free. The only reason Wave is still in business is because it uses the massive sale of shares to support itself. This is not a sustainable business model.
And I doubt whether Wave could float another large funding--given the little success following all the other placements, discounts, etc. that brought in half a billion bucks--a half a billion bucks to get Wave to 60 cents when they need to be over a buck within the next week or so. And that after two reverse splits and a de-listing and another current threatened de-listing.
Doesn't the arc of this company's 'accomplishments' over nearly 27 years define it? Or does the magical dead dream of massive wealth for every shareholder define the company?
I say results and reputation are what count in evaluating Wave--and it has failed on every single objective count for at least two decades.
Blue
