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 : General Magic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mark Oliver who wrote (5587)	3/14/1999 2:08:00 AM
From: Sea Otter	Respond to of 10081

I'm feeling at risk, too. Watching closely. And lets all get past the "long" and "short" stuff. All I want to do is see frank posts - and offer frank posts - so as to help determine the right course of action. Positive, negative, it makes no difference, as long as it is logical and credible. I estimated 1.7M for the quarter. I'd like to discuss one factor that went into that estimate. It occurred to me that carrier "trials" would involve GMGC expense. Both in terms of equipment and people (obviously some of the NOC must be allocated if there is to be any testing, and some GMGC personnel have to deal with the carrier). So: I figured GMGC would be billing the trialing carriers. Nothing exorbinant, but at least a token (250k came to mind) to help cover expenses. That 250k would be the price of admission, to cover expenses and establish that this was a serious undertaking. This is standard operating procedure, not to mention good business. Nothing is free - if it has any value. Therefore, I concluded that there would be surprise upside, since no one else was taking this carrier trialing revenue into account. This is how I came to my 1.7M number (trialing revenue plus my too-optimistic guess at Portico sub revenue). Imagine my surprise when it became clear that the trialing carriers had paid zip for Q4. It wasn't the 126k that depressed me, it was the fact that this number signalled a very different relationship with the carriers than I had envisioned. From this I conclude that either 1) whoever negotiated the carrier trials from the GMGC side should be shot or 2) these trials just aren't that meaningful. Option 2) was reinforced by the cc. They seemed to be backpedaling from the carrier strategy in favor of the internet-partner strategy. Where this leaves us, I don't know. Personally, I've got my finger on the trigger. I need more facts. Sea Otter

To: Mark Oliver who wrote (5587)	3/14/1999 2:38:00 AM
From: Sea Otter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10081

It seems to me that the private placement with a friendly firm is the only credible path. Market isn't friendly, convertibles are death, the product isn't exactly a revenue oil-gusher, and they don't want to sell the firm. So by process of elimination we are left with door #2. Perhaps this is already a done deal, which explains the confident attitude in the cc. Sea Otter