Please, "Howard," if you're going to spend such an incredible amount of time on a post like this, you'd be better advised to do some due diligence first.
First: the only thing that the Barrons article exposed was the ignorance of Claugus, and your citing it as somehow "exposing" Wave is a further citation of your own ignorance.
Second: you ask: "will WAVX set up a customer service department to do [dispute resolution]?" Uh, yes, why in the world wouldn't they?
Third: you ask: "Why would a content provider WAVE enabling lead to increased sales?" Uh, because of increased sales once Wave was fully deployed; seems kind of obvious, doesn't it? The assumption, which hardly seems baseless to me, is that consumers would frequently use their Wave-enabled computers/STBs to buy digital content over the internet, whether it be games, software, articles, short-stories, movies, etc. That's why...
Fourth: you wrote: "Also, this rent to own thing is ridiculous... another example of adding features that are not needed nor wanted. I prefer a free trial period, and most providers looking to get market share use that approach." I don't know about you, but I've never bought software, games, music, movies using a free trial period. If there's providers using that approach, there's damn few of 'em.
Fifth: you wrote: "Then why has only 1 no-name Box maker signed on? If this process is so compelling? Who wants to incorporate a WAVX that will never be used now that the ECML standard is in place and digital wallets will be the de facto rulers of the E-Commerce landscape?" I agree that Haup isn't Dell, you're right about that. However, do you really think that OEMs in negotiation with Wave are going to announce that fact and give away their advantage to their competitors? I don't. Will the OEMs make any money from the ECML standard transactions? Nope. And that's why they're, ultimately, going to deploy--they need the revenue.
Regards,
Ecommerceman |
