3: We disagree on the small bits, but agree on the big bits--Wave's course, past, present and future. So let's quit arguing about small things that are mostly irrelevant, OK?
Read Player's two messages this morning. No min., no guarantees of purchases or royalties--v similar to many other Wave 'announcements' that sounded real good, but almost never resulted in revenue to Wave.
More importantly, IMO, is Player's point about SAC's commitment on this agreement--there is absolutely no commitment at all--it is a pricing schedule. Oft times, supporters have spotted these pricing schedules and thought Wave's ship had come in. So far, it has not and is not likely to come in soon.
But Player pointed out a worrisome quote in the PR: Here is Player's post # 243655, in part:
"It is also worthy to note the following quote [from the Wave PR today] "will require additional financing for operations in the near term," so it seems people are being warned that even at 107% APR, the company couldn't get enough money last time."
To me, this is a show stopper. They virtually bet the entire company with the bridge-loaners. Wave must have raised all the cash it could with the loan, but it will not be enough--so stand by for more funding, perhaps on even more onerous terms than the 107%.
RE: 3 heads, your comment about my analogies and comparison being off topic and out of line--I gave the illustrative examples of VHS/Beta and Blu-Ray vs HD DVD--because they were new technologies that came out of nowhere and were quickly adopted, like when CD replaced vinyl. I don't think those inventions waited around for standards groups to approve their efforts. That was my point and now I will drop it.
Re: Beer at the Sevens--anytime, my friend--and I will gladly buy all you can drink.
Best wishes--Blue
