Replies to post #153490 on Verb Technology Company Inc (VERB)

[Mooky]

Hey man. Are you ok Man? '$VERB

[Acehole]

We do not deserve you, ted.

Exceptional write-up.

[buysellrepeat]

Haha Tedflix...that’s awesome. We were all part of a pretty impressive con. I’m almost impressed I was duped to that extent on the ride to $3.

[NotRichYet2]

GREAT POST

[tedpeele]

Proprietary? -- Walkouts, ITV, and Interactive Videos:

Last post for a while - going back into watch mode...hope for a good Q3 report..

With VERB taking hold in the MLM space, it may not matter to many investors how proprietary the above technologies are anymore. Being first to market may be more than enough to ensure success ahead. This post is for those that think it does matter, or just the curious.

<<Q: Is the code proprietary?
A: nFusz CEO: "our source is proprietary and protected by copyright"

Q: Couldn't another company replicate the software?
A: nFusz CEO: "I believe it’s now more than 10 million lines of code and it would be exceedingly difficult for anyone to duplicate">> here

Over a year ago I looked into this and posted about it. In response to initial questions about what I had done I wrote:

it is not generalized...And it isn't cloud-based. Nor is it tailored for CRM or education. It's just the raw technology...Obviously it is not everything Rory's team has done = I'm not pretending that it is. But at this point it is not clear to me how they have required 10 million lines of code to do what they have done.

here and after that

This probably is only a fraction of what is required.

here

Clearly this contradicts the oft-repeated humorous charge that I claimed to have duplicated everything NFUSZ had ever done in 1000 lines. Rather, I only looked at the parts considered to be disruptive, and the bolded part was the crux of my concern. There are plenty of programmers that can generalize code, make it cloud based, create a CRM application, make it scaleable, etc...And that perhaps could take a million or more lines, but "10 million lines" was the answer many shareholders had relied upon for how safe the company is from someone else coming along and re-creating Walkouts, ITV, and NFUSZ-style Interactive Videos. THAT presumably was the basis behind statements such as "if Oracle could easily duplicate what VERB has done, they would already have done that".



If the truth were discovered that in fact one or more of the parts considered to be most disruptive could be duplicated more easily than was thought - in far less than 10 million lines - wouldn't shareholders want to know such a thing? Wouldn't that be pro-shareholder? Isn't knowing the truth about one's investment a good thing?

Wouldn't you want to know?

None of us can know for sure. We haven't gotten a peak behind the curtain. We are in the dark. But maybe not for much longer, as integrations are presumably happening as I write this.

But for now fellow truth-seekers may want to consider the following:


Rocky Wright spent years developing the Qubeey platform. A programmer can create 100k - 200k lines of code per year. It is conceivable that Qubeey - really a pretty impressive platform - took over a million lines of code. Check it out here

But if you look at the Qubeey video - it seems as though much of what Qubeey brought to the table is no longer part of Verb's products..IF that is the case, then perhaps the vast majority of the millions of lines are not really part of what we consider the disruptive technologies that makes up Walkouts, ITV, and Interactive videos. Since the time of Qubeey the html video tag was created - allowing open source programmers to have a level of flexibility with videos much more easily than had been the case previously. So, was the Qubeey platform replaced with open source? Who knows? Someone more proficient at deciphering source code might be able to get more definitive answers than I can.


In any case, the following may be helpful, or at least interesting:

WALKOUTS:

Shareholders were gaga over walkouts because they thought they looked cool. The really big thing was that nobody had gotten it to work on APPLE products before NFUSZ did it. Shareholders thought they had something really special.

When I looked into it, I saw that the html video tag doesn't allow for the 'alpha-channel' -- ie videos with a transparent background. I then found that there is a javascript tag called canvas that will copy - like painting onto a canvas - a picture or even a video into computer code..at that point one can also take a color and replace it. So, I thought - why not take the green screen color and replace it with the transparent color in real time and write it to the screen using the javascript canvas tag? I then saw that it looked like NFUSZ at the time was doing something similar (you could see their javascript code and they were using the canvas tag). And I found a very small handful of examples on the internet of some people tinkering with the canvas tag to recreate a video to help guide me. So I tried it and VOILA! It actually worked.

And it worked on my IPHONE. The very thing others said no one else but NFUSZ had been able to do....

However, as I said at the time while it worked on quite a few devices and browsers that I tested, it didn't work on some of them. But it didn't take a million lines to set this up and see it in action either. I was somewhat surprised and concerned because it challenged my previous beliefs about walkouts.

It may well be that getting it to work on all Apple products, all versions is in fact extremely difficult. After all, legacy shareholders know that it took far longer than expected before Rory finally announced that it was working. At that time he had explained that with each new version Apple came out with it broke their walkouts.

Maybe that happened again because while NotifiAiR came out a few months later (early 2018), it seems to have since disappeared. So, we just don't know the answer on this one...the curtain is closed.



ITV -- INTERACTIVE TELEVISION:

Investors were also very excited about the prospects for NFUSZ technology leading the way in ITV.

In reality, despite Rory's teaser about clicking on a Jersey during the Olympics we never saw evidence that the technology was transferable over to televisions. What we did see with the Rap Battle experiment was a video watchable via the internet. And in some ways that was kind of cool. And the hyper-auction demo for UBID looked pretty cool too.

But was the technology complicated - requiring millions of lines?

HTML has a video tag, which is fairly new in recent years. Javascript has a timeout function. When one plays a video one can use the timeout function to measure time. Javascript also has pause, play, and current time methods and properties -- see this In essence all of the components are available in open source to play a video, and insert clickable hyperlinks or other elements to appear and disappear at certain places and times during the video. AJAX enables the computer to take input from the user (a survey or vote, for example) and record it into a database, query it for info and nearly instantaneously display that on top of the video using the HTML positioning elements.

So the two things that we've seen in the VERB ITV examples - making items in the video clickable and the ability to record and display user actions back to them - are accessible with open source. It may be that Qubeey figured out how to do some of these things before they became standardized, but when I got around to it, it was pretty easily done. So, my experience made me question how difficult it would be to duplicate the same kinds of effects we had seen from the ITV VERB was doing. It's a question without an answer to date, as it has been quietly stationed behind the curtain for quite some time now.


Interactive Videos:

When I saw V2 it appeared to me that the setup for clickable elements for Interactive Videos and for ITV were done the same way -- ITV more likely would just have more elements to click on as things moved around on the screen. But the IV often had a phone you could click on and sometimes would have an option to download something, or to complete a form with information. The downloading within the video used to be a bit hairy with older browsers but there is a new download feature within javascript which makes it amazingly simple to do. With javascript one can easily capture the phone number as a user clicks on the buttons, and once the computer has that -as we've seen with smartphones a call can easily then go out.

So in all, it appears the open source tags and functions found in html and javascript may make the interactive effects we saw VERB doing fairly easy to do. Again, can't say for sure, as the curtain is still drawn.



In the end my experience in trying to duplicate features that shareholders believed to be disruptive and proprietary was puzzling to me. But to my surprise, several other posters seemed to not be surprised at all.

For the first time I had seen on the board, a few other posters seemed to be saying the disruptive technologies that many or most investors had been captivated with enough to invest in maybe were easily duplicated by others!:

There's over 50 CRM companies and other companies with interactive video solutions to some degree.... even several YouTube programmers.

here

The bare bones code of raw inserting clickable links, forms, etc, I can see taking less than 1000 lines of code.

here

That was a first, I think. Prior to that point much effort had been made to show how existing interactive videos fell far short of what the ones by NFUSZ, and nobody was talking about 'bare bones' or 'rudimentary' mockups of features widely believed to be disruptive and valuable.

The thing is, the 'bare bones' is what I - and I think others - had been thinking took millions of lines and was what set NFUSZ apart from all of the others. While I didn't disprove the 10 million lines claim, my findings caused certainly caused me to wonder about it.

So, proprietary? Sure, ok. In the end it is up to each of us to decide how much any of this matters. Even if things are different than we may have thought when we first invested, we know that VERB may still be FIRST TO MARKET with one or more potentially disruptive technologies that might be well received by many people, and being first to market can be enormously valuable...

I do believe when it comes to investing the truth will set us free, and while I'm personally doubtful about the proprietary advantage I could be wrong about that. Hopefully soon all will get to look behind that curtain, and will like what they see.

As the new catch phrase says -- from what I know and in my opinion.

And remember - don't rely on a message board for your DD.

[tedpeele]

A REDBULL PROSPECTIVE -- long post:

repost:

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=151337086

[bluesky70]

ted...a great presentation. bravo! anyone who hates on this lives in cultville. congrats