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 : Ampex Corporation (AEXCA) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Trenton A. Scott who wrote (9812)	7/4/1999 11:54:00 PM
From: Anthony G. Breuer	Respond to of 17679

Trenton, I think you've made a VERY valid point (or four). I've voiced these same concerns myself. Television is still a very expensive medium to produce, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to make any real money on narrowcasting. But it won't stay this way for very long. Bad as it is, the technical quality will improve - opening up the medium to larger audiences. I truly believe internet video is the future. Then Ampex will be a $50 stock (after a few splits, I hope). :-) Tony

To: Trenton A. Scott who wrote (9812)	7/5/1999 12:48:00 AM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

Trenton, you are correct that cable is more suitable than streaming media for broadcasting. And that is why internet TV will not kill cable or broadcast. But you are missing something, and that is that there are several things you can do with the internet that you can't do with cable: 1. More selection. While cable is limited to say 500 channels, you could conceivably have 10,000 or more channels. Thus channels that might only have a few hundred viewers worldwide become possible, so long as there is someone willing to pay the bill. 2. Video on demand. Maybe you missed the fireworks live, you can watch they tomorrow morning, or whenever it suits you. 3. Interactivity. With internet you can have a live chat going on at the same time as the video is running. The audience can easily interact with the guest hose. I've seen talk shows where you can ask the talk show host questions in chat mode, which he may or may not answer in the course of the chat. 4. Ability to shop while you watch. Similar to the interactive mode, you can click on an ad to make a purchase. 5. Lower production and broadcasting charges. Because the quality of video needed is lower, production costs are reduced. Transmission cost is much lower through the web than through cable. 6. Limited access at a reasonable cost. While pay-per-view is possible over cable, the cost of this service would be much lower through the web. 7. Ability to access the video from anywhere in the world so long as phone service is available. So you see, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. As an example I have tried (thus far without success, but I'm still trying) to interest a national Drycleaner's Association in sponsoring a trade association channel which could be used to transmit training material to paid members. As others will point out, the quality will improve with improved bandwidth. Perhaps cable will develop some of the capabilities of the internet and eventually maybe there will be some convergence. But for the time being, these are two very different medias, with two very different sets of strengths, that can be used effectively for very different purposes. The biggest thing holding back internet TV is the reaction of the I'm getting from Drycleaners that it is interesting, but they can't quite figure out how they would use it. As more and more people find niche uses for internet TV, others will follow with other similar applications, and internet TV usage will explode. Can AXC generate meaningful revenue from internet TV? Can AXC grow rapidly? How big will they ultimately become? These are very difficult questions, and not easily answered with very little financial information to fall back on. But we do know that TVoW had $750,000 of internet revenue last year, and something like $1 million in the first quarter this year, but I don't recall for sure. Gardy-McGrath, now a subsidiary of TVoW, had production revenue of $4m last year if I recall, and presumably a substantial amount in Q1, and they were profitable last year. This is already significant revenue, and if they meet their channel growth targets, that combined with the substantial price increases will lead to even more growth. But to see how much, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. In the meantime, keep in mind the differences as well as the similarities and you will realize that these are two different markets. HBO sort of is in the the same market as movie theatres, but they both serve different markets and both exist side by side. The same should be true of internet video and cable. Carl

To: Trenton A. Scott who wrote (9812)	7/5/1999 1:25:00 AM
From: Don Kelly	Respond to of 17679

>>>In every category important to me, the Internet video product is extremely inferior....I guess this is why AXC remains a $4 stock today.<<< Trenton, the operative word you used is "today." If you have the foresight to see today's Internet TV as an early version of a "horseless carriage," you might not be so concerned about those problems you mentioned: Get A Horse! The proud owner of a new horseless carriage often loaded his family into the machine while the neighbors ogled with envy. Invariably, the budding driver would over-dramatize the ritual of donning his gloves, checking his equipment, and cranking the engine into sputtering, back-firing action, while onlookers held their ears. With heads held high, the driver and passengers would then begin their baptismal trek into the country, beaming with arrogant satisfaction. They would take the way which would lead them past the "right people," of course. If ever there was a "thrill of a lifetime," this was it. But such were the ways of life in those days that such joyous beginnings didn't always have a happy ending. Somewhere along the way, the tiny engine would start to cough and sputter. The driver would assure his frightened passengers that there was nothing to worry about, but the mechanical hiccuping continued. The driver's assurances would waiver, and when the motor finally died, the ego-deflated owner suffered the pangs of the damned. When no amount of tinkering, kicking, or cursing would revive the engine, the humiliating trip to the nearest farm would have to take place. The farmer would probably be glad to add to the driver's mental anguish by making remarks about "them new-fangled contraptions," but with some degree of stability, he would harness his team and hitch it to the front of the horseless carriage. The transition from a centuries-old form of land transportation to one of automobiles was not easy, and it did not just happen in a day or two. The horse was, after all, an important part of the economy. Feed and veterinary bills amounted to millions of dollars each year. The Chicago Times reported that horseshoes in 1915 required enough iron to build 60,000 motor cars. Harness makers, buggy-whip companies, carriage builders, livery stable operators, blacksmiths, an army of street cleaners, wheelwrights and even hitching-post manufacturers were all affected by the technological development of automobiles. These companies had to either re-tool and adapt to the industry or face the realities of a declining business. The coming of WWI spurred the production of motor vehicles, and also upped the need for horses and mules. After the signing of Armistice, however, the final turning point came. From then on, it was really downhill for the horse - not into oblivion, fortunately, but to a minor role of race tracks, rodeos, show rings, riding clubs, and Wild West movies. The horse retired to greener pastures (or to the glue factory) and became only a legend in transportation and agriculture. -Excerpts reprinted without permission from: autoshop-online.com

To: Trenton A. Scott who wrote (9812)	7/5/1999 1:45:00 PM
From: Michael Olds	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17679

Trenton, Let me add to the others who responded well to your post that you should check out this Special Presentation by Ed Bramson (the 28th broadcast) if you have not done so already. tvontheweb.com You will see something approximating the future of the product Ampex is offering: Video, Advertising, and Text. Along with this will be the interactive features mentioned but not shown in this presentation. Just as an example; imagine a Horseracing channel. You have the race on real time video; the odds and facts in a text window, Shockwave advertisements; and a way to place bets. We here all have confidence that the video is going to rapidly improve with the development of two things: broadband connectivity, and improved hardware and software. This is not a very long term expectation; it is a matter of months to a couple of years. It is imperative that those who want to dominate this field (and Ampex has that intention) start now. And that is the time that investors who want to make the real bucks should enter. (And then manage your ulcer!)

To: Trenton A. Scott who wrote (9812)	7/5/1999 1:48:00 PM
From: Hal Campbell	Respond to of 17679

<< I guess this is why AXC remains a $4 stock today.>> You state the limitations very well Trenton, but, for one instance, BCST suffers from the same flaws and their present capitalization is over 5 billion. Even after a 60% correction ( if it is over- may well not be), other internet TV related companies with vanishing revenues and mammoth losses have capitalizations at price to sales ratios of over 100. So perhaps we should look further when trying to understand AXC's share price.

To: Trenton A. Scott who wrote (9812)	7/5/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: Dave Heibeck	Respond to of 17679

Trenton: Little can be added to what has been said. I would like to add that, when TV came to life in the fifties, radio was not replaced, When cable came about in the sixties, TV was not replaced (Although personally I couldn't see the need for it and thought it would fail in any capacity other than rural needs. Call Phones... I laughed! Satellite, for what? What we have isn't broke!!! For a time I laughed at the internet. Now I have my cable... A satellite dish sits on my motorhome... A cell phone as well. Not one has replaced another, only enhanced my communication experience. I wait for a modem like Dave Gardy was using last night, so I might have unlimited wireless access to my internet account from my motorhome. As it is... I still need a copper pair! The past has shown the course of the future. I'll be on this boat! Hype...maybe I prefer to call it learning from my experience and sharing!