Replies to post #239350 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[player1234]

Isn't the TCG a collection of companies that do not have a history of "fluff" PRs? If they had previously set standards that were not adopted or implemented, why would this smaller collection of companies be any different with yet another standard?

[dig space]

Barge, with respect,

Your content of late has puzzled me. You were recently lamenting Solms’ apparent lack of addressing and/or even understanding attestation. I was looking at the earlier MU PR, and the comments in CCs, and was wondering of you got it on attestation. But I knew better, well at least I assumed so. Nevertheless it has seemed to me that Solms has discussed – in well over a “5 minute” fashion attestation, and has indeed updated on it with some regularity. It occurred to me that it couldn’t be the attestation idea that had you concerned (as obviously it is easy to see he has been addressing it for some time), but the lack of the word itself (which means nil to most), … and a lack of the leader getting all worked up into a sweaty lather and making wild irresponsible projections about revenues, timelines, market opportunity, engagement … you know, the standard undisciplined blather that it seems to me some require for anything to have actually been “discussed”.

Now you lament the absence of a self-avowed demand-sider putting meat on a long term development supply-sider story. Odd.

Isn’t this really just about longing for the good ole days of getting all frenzied for fantastic futures based on the idea that a company plans to build a product (while questions about when and if said product is actually purchased seem to demonstrate an aptitude deficiency)?

RE; "fluff", an entirely subjective term for which context is important. Given this Wave Systems, here, today, I view a long term development PR as "fluff". Meat is near term revenue impacting information. Had MU stated that they had advanced Wave $5m for said development, that would swap ham for fluff.