Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ecommerceman who wrote (7710)	7/3/1999 7:18:00 PM
From: Mama Bear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

I did not confuse you with another poster. You commented on my point, I reiterated my point. It is irrelevant if I do business with Tom, Dick, or Harry on the web if I have Visa or Mastercard between me and them. "Perhaps you missed my previous statement that, once Wave is widely deployed, it will no longer be an unknown company." Catch-22. They have to gain acceptance before it's going to happen. I'm not short WAVX. Barb

To: ecommerceman who wrote (7710)	7/3/1999 7:55:00 PM
From: genejockey	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 11417

Why WAVE will not be widely deployed by box makers nor used by consumers, my response to your post on Yahoo. The pie in the sky WAVX business model has been exposed by the Barron's article. I am amazed at how many bloated no-name companies there are claiming to be the one that will redefine E-Commerce transactions. Did you ever here of CUST? They now have an over 700 mill market cap and they claim to be the one with the revolutionary technology 2nd only to the browser? It's funny how both CUST and WAVX think they are contenders when in actuality they are both pretenders. I'm sorry, but unless it's VISA or Mastercard, nobody and I mean NOBODY is gonna be willing to put money into a depository such as WAVX. CYCH's failure should clue you in to this. Discussion after this point is rather moot because consumer's are going to use their VISA for E-Transactions and nothing else. Why would I want separate WAVX bills when I could get it all on Visa? I want Visa to handle all my monetary transactions cause I get price protection, theft protection and they will resolve any diputes I have with vendors... will WAVX set up a customer service department to do that? I think not. Will consumers be willing to use their charge card to fund a stagnant WAVX account and accrue credit card interest on the WAVX balance? Also, I think you guys are woefully unaware of what the competition is up to... are you aware of the recent announcement of the ECML cosortium, a group which includes MSFT, IBM, SUNW, VISA, MasterCard, CYCH and other heavyweights I am forgetting. The ECML standard allows one now to take a digital wallet on your desktop (one is embedded in the MSFT browser by the way) and fill out personal/Credit card info once so that it is as simple as just dragging this wallet onto the commerce site to fulfill the transaction and if say you are using Visa for the billing, it will show up on your Visa statements. Why on earth would anyone choose to store away money in WAVX rather than just drag and drop an E-wallet for a purchase? "Back to Claugus: "Content providers must view this as a viable way to be paid and modify their product offerings. Content providers must also be willing to give up 50% of the revenues of the transaction just to transact." -------Yup, and they'll be happy to do so if by so doing it leads to sufficient volume of sales." Why would a content provider WAVE enabling lead to increased sales? Will Wave market at their own expense all content providers that are WAVE enabled? I think your logic is off on that one. WAVE enabling something will not increase nor decrease the sales of an item (this rent to own thing will not be an inducement, see below). WAVE enabling will give a consumer an alternate pathway to conduct a transaction if they so choose. However, as I also state below, consumers will choose VISA over paying a premium to use WAVX. "Okay, if Joe Consumer has a computer with a Wavemeter installed, and if he can make micro-transactions to rent (and finally purchase if he chooses) software and/or entertainment of all kinds, and do so with full security, why in the hell wouldn't he? " Another big flaw in the WAVX business model is their belief that somehow, consumer's are willing to pay a premium on the transaction price for being able to transact on WAVX. This WAVX 40%, and Box maker 10%... is nonsense. Visa goes 2%, so who would I rather use?... WAVX or Visa (or even CYCH in a digital wallet) to purchase the same item knowing that the WAVX transaction will be at a premium? 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. Standards such as Adobe don't need to go for free trials nor rent to own because, they can just say buy it or tough. "So is it in the interest of OEM's to deploy our chip? Clearly."- 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? Regards---gj