To: Arthur Radley who wrote (10722 ) 9/14/2000 2:03:19 PM From: 24601 Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 11417 TexasDude: Claugus cannot now claim that his was merely a technical play, either. He is accountable for the fallacy that he propagated: that Wave's business model is to charge 40% for doing what Visa does for 3%. Can Visa provide a hardware-protected solution that operates on the client side of a transaction system (without an ongoing tether to a network) in which you can securely store whatever feature of your digital personality you wish, including (for example) your credit card information, such that you do not need give it out for each transaction? Wave is not hawking some mere payment mechanism. Ask Claugus about durable protection of copyrighted digital works from piracy. Ask him about the emerging "transmit, then select" mode of datacasting. These are not two-dimensional transactions we are talking about. Consider the needs of the creator of the digital content, and of the distribution channel, and of the end user. Wave will meet them all. To cling to a Visa fixation would be a mistake. Wave has a hardware solution that is distributed on the client side. Wave does not merely handle electronic payments a la Visa. Wave does not supplant Visa. Wave's slice is not 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. Please allow me to quote from a post on Raging Bull by DooWopGuy, who said it better than I:"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." .