Well, yes, it's entirely possible that subsequent Universal contracts are a little more onerous, but it's still provides good cash flow and it's quite something else to argue they'll lose the contract altogether. And it still keeps growing, making the latter less likely.
["Yes and no. The core concept of "playing video without the need for a plugin" is pretty much as it has been since 2000. The implementation has certainly changed over time (Java to Javascript, codec changes, etc.) The opportunity, to the extent one exists, in my view is with whatever value added features they can come up with for some market that actually wants to pay dollars for them. Steve V clearly couldn't do this and I don't have high hopes that "CFO Fred" is a guru here."]
Different products, different value propositions.
The first (Java based) Clipstream didn't have any value added, which is why it couldn't compete when Flash came around, which was free.
The present (Javascript based) Clipstream does have value added features. For starters, it's the first way that you can get HVEC through a browser. Then there is stuff that you can do in software that you can't do in hardware, like the security ported from PlayMPE, reporting stuff for ads.
I'm not sure why you conclude Steve couldn't do that, it seems premature. They did identify a number of verticals where these added values could be useful. The fact that they do have little sales (beyond market research companies) is due the fact that the quality is not yet good enough.
Basically they don't have a product to sell just yet.
So in my view your proposition is yet to be tested. First things first, let them get the Clipstream quality to a good enough level that can actually be sold. Then we will se whether there is a market for it and whether they are able to sell it, but not before.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
