["Part of the reason I think it might be more profitable (for the Directors) to keep developing Clipstream indefinitely rather than finishing it and competing for market share."]
Really? And how is that. You might want to check how many shares the CEO bought at what prices before you wonder into conspiracy theory land.
It's also not consistent with what you argue, that the product is not ready so how can they compete?
Nor is there any rewriting of history, as you claimed a couple of days ago. That history is really rather simple. They had a product which they thought it worked. I thought it worked, and in fact it did work, but in confined conditions.
Then it ran into real world problems, like some ISP throttling, and they could not overcome these problems with their own codec.
So now they're trying again with a much more efficient (bandwidth wise) codec. It might suffer the same fate, but perhaps not. Jury still out.
Unlike the last time, this time there is hardly any betting on its success, which one can see as glass half full or half empty. Half empty as nobody seems to believe they will pull it off. Half full as in case there are signs they do, the share price will move a lot higher.
This is simply what can happen when small companies try something which is complex on many counts (doing this stuff in Javascript is complex, predicting all the different real world conditions in terms of devices, operating systems and resources like CPU, GPU, memory, bandwidth, etc. is even more complex).
It happens all the time. Small biotech companies think they have a winning medicine, only for it to run into producing unacceptable side-effects, etc. History is littered with what at one stage seemed very promising new solutions and tech, only to falter when it meets the real world. In fact this is probably more rule than exception, and there is certainly no need to re-write history.
