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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: genejockey who wrote (40146)	7/5/1999 4:51:00 PM
From: jhnewman	Respond to of 122087

To: howard stern (7825 ) From: jhnewman Monday, Jul 5 1999 4:47PM ET Reply # of 7857 Howard: Either you're 1. Smart but don't... understand e-commerce 2. Understand e-commerce but are deliberately stating mistruths for your own personal gain. Or 3. You're dumb. You keep insisting that the consumer will pay more money using WAVX or that the content provider will be making less money using WAVX. Neither of those statements are true. The consumer won't be paying any more money and could be paying less money...and the content provider will be making just as much money...and possibly more. You know, I'm about to spend a lot of time here going into: 1. The cost of hard products (movies on videotape or DVD, music on CDs, print publications, video games on software) v. digitized products (these same products turned into digital information) 2. That digitized information costs nothing to "manufacture" 3. That over the Internet...digitized information costs next to nothing to transport and deliver. etc. etc. etc. But I've decided not to waste a lot of time doing this. Let me just say that: the price that consumers pay for a hard product ("Braveheart" on a DVD) does not go 100% back to the movie company. A lot goes to the retailer. Is it 40%? 50%? 60%? And a lot of cost goes into duplicating the movie onto millions of DVDs and then transporting them to retail outlets. With WAVX, the movie company digitizes Braveheart. It then costs nothing to duplicate and then nothing to transport and distribute over the Internet (before WAVX and its partners provide solutions that are necessary for successful e-commerce). There are several big problems with e-commerce as it exists now though: 1. Piracy of that digitized product 2. Mistrust on the part of consumers who don't want to give out their credit card numbers...fearing someone will get ahold of them. 3. Mistrust on the part of content providers (the movie company)that some consumers may not pay. For any commerce to be successful, there needs to be trust between the consumer and the manufacturer (content provider, movie company in this example)...it needs to flow both ways. WAVX's technology and its partnerships will take care of these major problems. And WAVX's technology and its partners will be replacing the retail middlemen. So the cut for WAVX and its partners will be REPLACING the large cut of today's retail, hard goods, middlemen...it won't be added on top of it. Howard, it's REPLACING the large retail cut that is already there. (Sorry to repeat, but you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this concept.) And since these digitized products are magnitudes cheaper to make and trasport...costs will come way down. And that savings can either be added to the content provider's (movie company's) profits...or shared with WAVX and its partners...or shared with the consumer...making the price of the movie actually cheaper to the consumer. So, using WAVX's technology... that $40 DOOM game that you use in your example would cost the consumer $40 (to buy or to rent to own)...or it could cost him less. And the consumer wouldn't have to go to the store to buy the game...or he wouldn't have to buy it through a catalog...or through the Internet and wait for the software to be delivered. He could buy it instantaneously from the comfort of his own home. And if he wasn't sure he'd really like DOOM...he could decide to try it once for, say $.50. And if he wanted, he could keep on trying it for $.50...until he's spent $40.00, at which point he'd own DOOM. And this is only part of the revenue possibilities that WAVX has with its ahead-of-everyone-else technology and services. And Howard, if DOOM costs $40.00 retail, as in your example (or $41.00 if bought with VISA), then the company that makes DOOM does NOT get $40. A large chunk of that $40 goes to CompUSA, who is selling that copy of DOOM in its store. Again, the cut of WAVX and its partners will REPLACE CompUSA's cut...because CompUSA isn't part of the digital transaction. And the cut of WAVX and its partners won't be bigger than CompUSA's cut...it could easily be smaller. (See discussion above about the almost no-cost aspect of manufacturing and transporting/distributing digitized products.) So, I hope you finally understand that the true comparison of this cut is WAVX and its partners v. CompUSA...NOT WAVX and its partners v. VISA. VISA is a totally bogus comparison...and your whole argument is undercut. Finally, you and most of your short friends are also trying to set up two basic assumptions about WAVX and its system that are NOT TRUE. 1. As you state in your message..."Starting with the huge assumption that WAVX is widely deployed..." That is a barrel of hogwash. WAVX does not need to be widely deployed to be successful. It has just started deploying. And it will ramp up over time...getting more and more of its chips out into the marketplace. It will also be bringing in more and more revenues as it ramps up and becomes more widespread. (We can debate how big or small those revenues might be...but they will be coming in). It doesn't have to wait until its widely deployed before it makes any revenues. So please drop this flawed assumption. And it's not the case that consumers will refuse to use WAVX's technology until WAVX has a huge number of chips out there. As I'm sure you know, all new technology goes through an "adoption" curve...with the early adopters using the new technology first...then others coming on board...and others...and so on. This is what has always happened. When VHS videotapes came out...do you think consumers didn't buy any until there were 5,000 movies on the tapes and there were 20 million tapes out in the marketplace. Get real!! Consumers starting buying them right away...and the numbers grew as more and more people found out about it. WAVX does not have to be widely deployed to make revenues and to have consumers using the technology. 2. You and other shorts are saying that time is critical...that there's a limited window of opportunity here for WAVX to be successful...and that it's an all or nothing proposition. WAVX is either going to win big or go to nothing, you say. Another huge barrel of hogwash. Why the all or nothing thinking? There's a lot of ground in between. WAVX's technology is way ahead of anything else out there. It will be gaining more and more marketshare in what is essentially a new market sector...digital metering, the measuring and sale of digitized products. In fact, WAVX is the only company now in this new market sector. (Security is also a big part of WAVX's solution, and this market sector is already established and filled with software solutions. WAVX will be grabbing more and more market share here as well.) And if you say that there is no such thing as a digital metering sector and there never will be...I can easily accept this faulty statement...and still say that WAVX will be successful just grabbing market share in the now existing on-line security sector...because it solves problems these other companies don't. At some point, another hardware solution to the above major e-commerce problems may come along. (WAVX just bouoght the only other hardward solution company that was out there: N ABLE.) At that point, it turns into your typical competition to get marketshare. WAVX's may be larger or smaller...but it will still have a nice chunk of this ever-growing sector...and it will still have a stock price that is much higher than today's. I've spent way too much time on this. Good luck to you, Newman.

To: genejockey who wrote (40146)	7/5/1999 4:57:00 PM
From: 24601	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Dear Barb and Howard: I cannot believe that either one of you is so intellectually arrogant as to reject out of hand my point about the synergy between transactional economy and revenue enlargement in post #7848 on the WAVX board. Message 10386684 Hence I must conclude that your agenda simply cannot abide it. I have read with interest your attitudes about burdens of proof or disproof. I worry for you on the basis that those attitudes seem ill-chosen for the short side. On the long side, if you presume a stock is no good unless it can quickly convince you otherwise, any error results only in a lost opportunity. On the short side, the same error results in a scurry for cover. Because you obviously are charged to cling to Claugus' fallacious criticism of Wave, I cannot justify spending any more time in dialogue with you. Best wishes.

To: genejockey who wrote (40146)	7/5/1999 4:59:00 PM
From: jhnewman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 122087

Howard: Your VISA argument is BOGUS,here's why... To: howard stern (40147 ) From: jhnewman Monday, Jul 5 1999 4:50PM ET Reply # of 40150 To: howard stern (7825 ) From: jhnewman Monday, Jul 5 1999 4:47PM ET Reply # of 7857 Howard: Either you're 1. Smart but don't... understand e-commerce 2. Understand e-commerce but are deliberately stating mistruths for your own personal gain. Or 3. You're dumb. You keep insisting that the consumer will pay more money using WAVX or that the content provider will be making less money using WAVX. Neither of those statements are true. The consumer won't be paying any more money and could be paying less money...and the content provider will be making just as much money...and possibly more. You know, I'm about to spend a lot of time here going into: 1. The cost of hard products (movies on videotape or DVD, music on CDs, print publications, video games on software) v. digitized products (these same products turned into digital information) 2. That digitized information costs nothing to "manufacture" 3. That over the Internet...digitized information costs next to nothing to transport and deliver. etc. etc. etc. But I've decided not to waste a lot of time doing this. Let me just say that: the price that consumers pay for a hard product ("Braveheart" on a DVD) does not go 100% back to the movie company. A lot goes to the retailer. Is it 40%? 50%? 60%? And a lot of cost goes into duplicating the movie onto millions of DVDs and then transporting them to retail outlets. With WAVX, the movie company digitizes Braveheart. It then costs nothing to duplicate and then nothing to transport and distribute over the Internet (before WAVX and its partners provide solutions that are necessary for successful e-commerce). There are several big problems with e-commerce as it exists now though: 1. Piracy of that digitized product 2. Mistrust on the part of consumers who don't want to give out their credit card numbers...fearing someone will get ahold of them. 3. Mistrust on the part of content providers (the movie company)that some consumers may not pay. For any commerce to be successful, there needs to be trust between the consumer and the manufacturer (content provider, movie company in this example)...it needs to flow both ways. WAVX's technology and its partnerships will take care of these major problems. And WAVX's technology and its partners will be replacing the retail middlemen. So the cut for WAVX and its partners will be REPLACING the large cut of today's retail, hard goods, middlemen...it won't be added on top of it. Howard, it's REPLACING the large retail cut that is already there. (Sorry to repeat, but you seem unwilling or unable to grasp this concept.) And since these digitized products are magnitudes cheaper to make and trasport...costs will come way down. And that savings can either be added to the content provider's (movie company's) profits...or shared with WAVX and its partners...or shared with the consumer...making the price of the movie actually cheaper to the consumer. So, using WAVX's technology... that $40 DOOM game that you use in your example would cost the consumer $40 (to buy or to rent to own)...or it could cost him less. And the consumer wouldn't have to go to the store to buy the game...or he wouldn't have to buy it through a catalog...or through the Internet and wait for the software to be delivered. He could buy it instantaneously from the comfort of his own home. And if he wasn't sure he'd really like DOOM...he could decide to try it once for, say $.50. And if he wanted, he could keep on trying it for $.50...until he's spent $40.00, at which point he'd own DOOM. And this is only part of the revenue possibilities that WAVX has with its ahead-of-everyone-else technology and services. And Howard, if DOOM costs $40.00 retail, as in your example (or $41.00 if bought with VISA), then the company that makes DOOM does NOT get $40. A large chunk of that $40 goes to CompUSA, who is selling that copy of DOOM in its store. Again, the cut of WAVX and its partners will REPLACE CompUSA's cut...because CompUSA isn't part of the digital transaction. And the cut of WAVX and its partners won't be bigger than CompUSA's cut...it could easily be smaller. (See discussion above about the almost no-cost aspect of manufacturing and transporting/distributing digitized products.) So, I hope you finally understand that the true comparison of this cut is WAVX and its partners v. CompUSA...NOT WAVX and its partners v. VISA. VISA is a totally bogus comparison...and your whole argument is undercut. Finally, you and most of your short friends are also trying to set up two basic assumptions about WAVX and its system that are NOT TRUE. 1. As you state in your message..."Starting with the huge assumption that WAVX is widely deployed..." That is a barrel of hogwash. WAVX does not need to be widely deployed to be successful. It has just started deploying. And it will ramp up over time...getting more and more of its chips out into the marketplace. It will also be bringing in more and more revenues as it ramps up and becomes more widespread. (We can debate how big or small those revenues might be...but they will be coming in). It doesn't have to wait until its widely deployed before it makes any revenues. So please drop this flawed assumption. And it's not the case that consumers will refuse to use WAVX's technology until WAVX has a huge number of chips out there. As I'm sure you know, all new technology goes through an "adoption" curve...with the early adopters using the new technology first...then others coming on board...and others...and so on. This is what has always happened. When VHS videotapes came out...do you think consumers didn't buy any until there were 5,000 movies on the tapes and there were 20 million tapes out in the marketplace. Get real!! Consumers starting buying them right away...and the numbers grew as more and more people found out about it. WAVX does not have to be widely deployed to make revenues and to have consumers using the technology. 2. You and other shorts are saying that time is critical...that there's a limited window of opportunity here for WAVX to be successful...and that it's an all or nothing proposition. WAVX is either going to win big or go to nothing, you say. Another huge barrel of hogwash. Why the all or nothing thinking? There's a lot of ground in between. WAVX's technology is way ahead of anything else out there. It will be gaining more and more marketshare in what is essentially a new market sector...digital metering, the measuring and sale of digitized products. In fact, WAVX is the only company now in this new market sector. (Security is also a big part of WAVX's solution, and this market sector is already established and filled with software solutions. WAVX will be grabbing more and more market share here as well.) And if you say that there is no such thing as a digital metering sector and there never will be...I can easily accept this faulty statement...and still say that WAVX will be successful just grabbing market share in the now existing on-line security sector...because it solves problems these other companies don't. At some point, another hardware solution to the above major e-commerce problems may come along. (WAVX just bouoght the only other hardward solution company that was out there: N ABLE.) At that point, it turns into your typical competition to get marketshare. WAVX's may be larger or smaller...but it will still have a nice chunk of this ever-growing sector...and it will still have a stock price that is much higher than today's. I've spent way too much time on this. Good luck to you, Newman.