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 : XYBR - Xybernaut -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Invstd who wrote (2587)	5/9/1999 1:36:00 PM
From: Brasco One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6847

So earnings by friday hah???

To: Invstd who wrote (2587)	5/9/1999 2:21:00 PM
From: Dave Shoe	Respond to of 6847

>>>Meanwhile, the Mobile Assistant has been >>>strutting its stuff at New York fashion shows. While I strongly suspect the MA-IV was strutting its stuff only because the fashion designer was able to buy/rent the unit (he didn't necessarily like the MA-IV, he just needed it because it fit the theme for his show that day), when is the last time an item seen walking the fashion concourse ever hit mainstream popularity? This has never been a good PR for Xybernaut, but it was free so they used it. (The fashion angle was cutely obtuse, but this would only have worked if Xybernaut had already been in good stead with it's shareholders, which it hasn't been lately, all JMHO.) Xybernaut seems to cater to people with money. This is understandable to the extent that they are not yet cash-heavy. Also, many people come out of the woodwork seeking freebies, but most are jerks who have no intention of ever purchasing anything (maybe that Government office has a reputation - I don't know). Serious companies are willing to pay for sample units, especially from struggling start-up companies. Shipping free samples if the receiving company opens a purchase order with an "option to buy" clause, does show good intent on both sides of the deal. Maybe this is how Xybernaut is doing it. Naw, I've given them the benefit of the doubt on their "public silence" routine and keep coming up short when they are forced to show their real hand, so they are probably just screwing up. Hey, I just re-read the article. The GCN Lab only wants to "review" the MA-IV, which suggests it will be returned to Xybernaut afterwards. Well, I'm going to have to lean toward the GCN Lab having a bad reputation. The article does state they've been waiting "two years", when they must know the MA-IV has been available for less than five months. If they are going to whine, they ought to at least get the facts straight. I don't want to cut Xybernaut any slack here, but that GCN article is obviously biased. >>>Which brings me to another question: have any >>>of the MAs been subjected to testing against >>>any real standards? I'll scream to Xybernaut again: SHOW THE AGENCY APPROVALS ON YOUR WEB PAGE! (And update your site weekly, not semi annually. And rev date each page.) I want to know that TUV has run Safety, ESD, RF, and mechanical tests on this thing, and that UL, CSA, and other agencies find this to be a fit product. Based on the web info, I must assume this has never been tested - though I can only trust that Sony mandates appropriate testing on all products they manufacture, for liability reasons. Also, put the battery life specs, and all those other missing specs onto your web page, dammit! This AIN'T a fashion show, shoppers need the geeky facts. (On the other hand, it IS made of die-cast magnesium, so it's probably rugged as hell.) Optimistically, Shoe.

To: Invstd who wrote (2587)	5/9/1999 4:31:00 PM
From: Invstd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6847

A few more tidbits from GCN: I found these (now dated) articles under a search for "wearable": ntgov.com The most pertinent have to do w/ the Army's "Land Warrior" program, scrapped by congress in Oct. '99 for technical and cost reasons. Although it sounds like we're in XYBR's arena here, the development contract was w/ Raytheon. Also, the Marines have an ongoing contract w/ General Dynamics Corp. for the development of handheld devices running on a CE platform for Marines in the field. None of this sounds too promising for XYBR. IMO. Comments?

To: Invstd who wrote (2587)	5/10/1999 12:29:00 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Respond to of 6847

XYBR response to GCN article I forwarded the GCN article to Mike Jenkins at XYBR and received this response. Posted with permission: From: Mike Jenkins <mjenkins@xybernaut.com> To: "'wtf@adelphia.net'" <wtf@adelphia.net> Subject: RE: GCN article Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:31:25 -0400 Bill, ok have a few minutes. First, I cannot tell you why GCN would print such a comment because they DO have a unit in evaluation. Second, it obviously has not been 2 years since the introduction of the MA IV (so I'm not sure why they would say that it has been). Thirdly, GCN, in this instance, has never let the facts get in the way of a story. That is to say the units that were sent to the fashion show were either non-functional or pre-alpha units and MAYBE one pre-production system. Side note: What is interesting about this is that even the pre-alpha units worked (but there was no way that we would send these units to magazines for evaluations). Additionally, we (Xybernaut) are not (and were not) trying to convey that the MA IV is a "fashion accessory" I believe that our product will be a fashion accessory as much as a walkman is considered as such. We were asked by the coordinator of the fashion show if they could borrow our equipment to highlight Steve Spruce's concept of futuristic clothing. I can still see it that if ViA would of lent their units to this show (if we had declined) we would of been bashed by our shareholders for not getting our units out in front of the population at large and how we are "losing" to our competitors. This really was a no-cost promotion. That being said, I have mentioned my dissatisfaction with GCN's comments to our marketing staff and hope that they will contact them to "clear the air". As to your question about sending evals to other magazines, I should have a copy of who will be doing articles on our product when you arrive at our offices on the 12th. So, no there is not a problem getting units out to the media for evaluations and first looks. To sum up, I think that the comments made by GCN is totally unwarrented, short-sighted, and probably an indication that "they just don't get it". Comments? Mike A follow-up note responding to my request for permission to post Mike's remarks here clarified the situation with GCN's evaluation unit: From: Mike Jenkins <mjenkins@xybernaut.com> To: "'wtf@adelphia.net'" <wtf@adelphia.net> Subject: RE: GCN article Date: Mon, 10 May 1999 11:51:26 -0400 No problem, but let me clarify the unit they do have (in some defense of GCN). First, I don't condone what they printed, but when I asked our marketing dept when they received the unit, they received it the day of the article. Maybe just poor timing. I don't know. But they shouldn't have said it in the first place. Mike