Replies to post #240277 on Wave Systems Corp. (fka WAVXQ)

[aleajactaest]

hi mmbg,

isn't the difference that one is measurable? thus one can offer an objective opinion or correct an inaccuracy with reference to a set of audited statements.

the last chap was rather clever at making folks think wave had something special but that glory, while inevitable, was deferred. his methods of achieving this state of confidence were questioned by many. but the opinions you are describing appeared to have their source in exhalations from the c-suite.

with the new chap, you know they are making efforts but there is no guarantee of eventual success. there are few folks touting inevitability or product elegance any longer. and the unsourced posts that began "as i understand it ..." have all but disappeared. it's an evenly matched food fight these days.

[dig space]

mmbg,

From my corner there are those things that are steeped almost entirely in perspective and bias for which there is no NIST device (e.g. atomic clock, ruler, mercury in glass thermometer) that can provide a comparatively unbiased largely reproducible measurement of what is.

In your question there are words: "robust" "elegant" "complete", and when I Dig into my drawer the only tool I find that can measure these things and provide a value is a thesaurus, a tool best used for clarity or spin, but not measurement.

Revenue and sales on the other hand can be measure with calculators, dollar bills can be picked up and physically counted, and other people around the world inside and out of Wave or iHub can reproduce these results (e.g. independent auditor KMPG in Wave's case).

From my corner blue is once again wandering off the reservation into making measurably false statements. Blue insisted to me in clear terms that Wave had made "no sales" some time ago, we went around on it, the position occasionally gets modifies with all sorts of non-measurable qualifiers ("significant" "large" etc.) which in my opinion is flopping around seeking to spin false statements into true ones.

Observing and pointing out a false statement (to me) does not encumber the observer to make any sort of comparative analysis of the statements of others that do not afford themselves to clear measurement.

There are times when the statements are less clearly measurable but migrate at least a little closer to something the preponderance of folks would interpret (if forced to choose) as true or false such as the recent assertion that Solms continued to indicate that Wave was “right on schedule”, a point I found remarkable as my hearing of the Q3 CC was a clear statement that Wave was officially behind schedule (clear enough for me to make “significant” modifications to my exposure), but it is my experience that folks are less inclined to contest these less measurable points.

What I find absurd is the basic thesis (that Wave is a failing company) and the follow on speculation (that Wave will continue to fail) can be made rather easily without reliance on false statements on matters that afford themselves to broadly accepted means of measurement.

[24601]

Saying that sales are zero is, to put it as nonjudgmentally as I can, inaccurate. Saying that Wave's products are robust, elegant, or complete solutions is, to put it as nicely as I can, puffery. Both are useless.

Wave is not, and never has been, more than a speculative play. In the beginning Wave contemplated a commercial Internet supported by subscriptions. Instead, advertising models flourished. Then Wave contemplated that security in hardware at the edge of the network would need centralized management. Instead, things like “bring your own device” flourish without it. Now Wave is focused on reliable identity for the not-so-thin clients that tap the cloud not just for storage but for computing, itself. Secure identity is not a solution in search of a problem. Just look around. Still, whether Wave's products can be commercially successful remains a speculation.

My point with the other guy is this: Can't a person state the case that Wave is a failure so far without making stuff up? Isn't the truth damning enough?