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: TripleT who wrote (40213)	7/6/1999 9:45:00 AM
From: 24601	Respond to of 122087

Open your mind. There is no 40% being "tacked on." Middlemen who add no value are being cut out. Economies in packaging, distribution, rights management, record control, and piracy-prevention capture savings that translate directly to the bottom line. Even with Wave and the platform and the crypto partners taking an aggregate of some 44% (25 points of which is Wave's), the content provider nets more than under the status quo. (And, for you Visa fans, if the buyer's WaveAccount is capitalized through Visa, they get their little vig, too.)

To: TripleT who wrote (40213)	7/6/1999 9:56:00 AM
From: 24601	Respond to of 122087

TTT: Please allow me to quote from a post on another board by a person called DooWopGuy, who said it better than I did: "Whether it is Wave providing the solution, or someone else, we are making a major transition in the way digital content is distributed. The old rules for distributing books, magazines, music, games, and video will apply less and less over the next few years. The reason is simple and the case is compelling: economics. Publication, distribution, storage, and physical sale of these items is expensive and slows down time to market. Digital distribution is significantly cheaper and much faster to market. The percentage of a sale that will be given up by the content provider or aggregator is probably about the same as in the current, physical delivery model, but the delivery will be more secure and less exposed to fraud of all kinds. Equally importantly, the total market will expand, because consumers will be more likely to buy smaller increments that aren't worth selling in the current model. "If the shorts want to argue that Wave and the OEM splitting 50% of larger transactions is unrealistic, then they have a case. In fact, it's an argument supported by Wave when they talk about a sliding scale in which their percentage decreases as the transaction size increases. But that, in my mind, is a "So what?". The beauty here is that I will be able to buy all kinds of digital content for under $2 that is simply not available to me today. And, I will be able to buy it from sources that don't exist today because the cost of entry into the physical distribution business is too great."

To: TripleT who wrote (40213)	7/6/1999 10:08:00 AM
From: John	Respond to of 122087

Triple-T, Sorry you chose not to read my post that you cut a quote from. I go into great detail explaining that WAVE does not take a retail price from their Digital Content Provider and Mark it up 40%. WAVE gets the wholesale cost of the product and marks it up to a retail price. THE CONSUMER NEVER SEES A MARK-UP! But if they do want to purchase something out right, they get a 20% discount. Even if they rent all the time, once they have paid 80% of the suggested retail price, WAVE permanently un-locks the code so the consumer now owns the product. Again, Imagine WAVE is a storefront for Digital Content. Every time the EMBASSY is deployed, it is one more store. Over the next 5 years if the deployment schedule is on target, you will see 50-100 MILLION NEW DIGITAL STORES FROM WAVE. Plus, WAVE stores are more secure than a brick and mortar store (or server based software store) and offer more price options. If you want to disagree with a position taken, at least read the post you disagree with before you post silly looking messages. Are you having fun yet?.......John