Let me point out some errors in your facts: 1) Investors did expect a launch in 95/96 and were disappointed, but once digital delivery of the TV signal became the standard no clear thinking investor should have been expecting anything until the infastructure to deliver it was in place.
Why should IATV go to the expense of launching an analog based product that would be short-lived and inferior?
In a previous post I said that it's quite possible that the benefits of a slip from 1996 to 1999 outweigh the downsides. However, I will maintain that just because it was ok to slip for the past 3 years does NOT make it ok to slip another 3 months. If you cannot understand that now is a very very different time than 1996, then we're not going to agree on much.
2) This product is not just "vaporware". That term applies to non-existant technologies that companies claim they are about to introduce.
If I were a cynic, I would say that the reason it hasn't shipped yet is because they don't have a working product. Hence, it's possible that it's vaporware. I'm not saying it is. In fact, I firmly believe that the product exists. However, I also believe that after 3 years of slipping, it's now or never. Their window of opportunity is closing.
If you don't believe the technology is here and works, then you shouldn't even be talking about this stock.
Why should these forums be limited only to people who have positive things to say about the stocks?
I feel darn sure that my fellow shareholders (Janus, Tudor-Jones, GIC, LMG, etc.) have the expertise to verify this.
How many institutions held CPQ before it crumbled?
3) IATV has nothing to do with TVGIA introduction or operation. They simply licensed TVGIA to use their product. IATV has ZERO to do with when and how TVGIA runs their business.
Well, then we're worse off than I thought. I had given IATV tremendous credit for TVGIA releasing on time, and felt that if they could get the TVGIA software ready by labor day then there was no reason why Fox Sports couldn't ship in 3Q. But if the project is mostly TVGIA running on its own (and they found enough digital boxes nationwide to support their app, by the way) then IATV doesn't get as much credit as I had previously given them.
4) Stocks go up. Stocks go down. If you don't grasp that, stay at the bank.
Thanks for the insults. At least you have the courtesy to use your own name when you post unlike some others.
5) Those figures refer to worldwide shipments of STB's. Our initial concern is Texas.
True. Why is Texas having so much trouble getting STB's when the rest of the nation isn't having any trouble at all?
Besides, you were worried about penetration figures... I'm assuming that you wanted to see something like "10% of all cable customers subscribed to IATV" or something like that... well, what's wrong with saying "10% of all cable customers with Digital STB's subscribed to IATV?"
6) AT&T did select WINK, just like I'm sure they will test several platforms before settling on one or two.
You are quite possibly right. My point was only that there are competitors out there now that weren't out there in 1996. The market is getting crowded, and we risk getting screwed.
7) MSFT is developing a OS for the STB's, not applications.
Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. Check the MSFT/AT&T press release and it mentions in one sentence (only one sentence) that MSFT would be developing a client and a server in addition to the OS. When it talks about AT&T helping MSFT with its release to 3 major cities in 2Q00, it doesn't say whether that's Windows CE only, or also the client and server. No capabilities of the client or server are mentioned.
I worked at MSFT for a Summer and believe me, I am well aware that MSFT is known for announcing roll-out dates and then slipping multiple times (remember Windows 4.0 was supposed to be a 1994 release that slipped to Aug '95 - I'm also pretty sure Win '98 was supposed to be Win '97 and ship with the rest of office '97). However, MSFT does this on purpose because it causes those who have to make product decisions to hold off on the decisions until MSFT releases their product (see Caldera vs. Microsoft press releases). If we release 3Q99, then we're out 9 full months before MSFT is even allegedly scheduled to release, so the likelihood is strong that IATV and MSFT will just coexist in the same space. If we wait until 1Q or 2Q00 to release, then who knows who the other content providers will choose... maybe they'll wait on MSFT rather than selecting a company who promised a product in 1996 and never released it...
Plus, the last time I checked, they are not noted for their razor sharp understanding of TV viewers and the factors that push their buttons.Consumers do not want to watch a computer.
However, IATV is all about convergence between television and internet. Plus, MSFT has media connections (NBC notably) and MSNBC is a reasonably successful cable channel.
8) IATV is making no excuses, you are projecting your thinking on to them.
I haven't re-read the quarterly reports to see whether you are right or not. Perhaps there are no excuses. What do they do then, just every quarter state a release date and then next quarter push it forward without any reason why? Shouldn't they have some reason for slipping a product for 3 years?
Why should they make excuses for a delay that they did not create. Not one of their partners has blamed or accused them of failing to deliver their product.
IATV is not a Fox subsidiary. IATV could sign other content contracts, but hasn't. IATV is not going to get rich just off of the Fox deal, it's the Fox deal and all the deals that follow.
I think that the bottom line is that you don't feel that they need to live up to their promise and release 3Q99. I think that it's critical. The rest is just commentary.
-Mike |
