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 : WAVX Anyone? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WTSherman who wrote (6831)	5/16/1999 12:04:00 PM
From: John Finley	Respond to of 11417

Re:>>Until there is a significant base of PC's with the technology it will be hard or even impossible to sign up large numbers of content providers, no?<< Content providers are always looking for new outlets and new ways of getting money. According to WAVX (from my memory) content providers aren't a problem. The problem is getting a "critical mass" of the platform to make it a standard. You are right that it isn't going to happen overnight. For the installed base now they are relying on add-in cards (e.g. HAUP) and maybe USB dongles. Can they get critical mass? If the answer to that was a certain "yes", WAVX would be more expensive <g>. JF

To: WTSherman who wrote (6831)	5/16/1999 12:26:00 PM
From: SDR-SI	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 11417

WT: > > > it would be years before a signficant percentage of PC's had embedded technology< < < The above observation is correct, and would be quite discouraging if the only means of getting the system into operation were its integration into the embedded circuitry of the computer and its I/O chipsets. Part of the "trojan horse" strategy of Wave is to advance this time line and to advance the rate of deployment by encouraging its back door introduction into a much larger number of computers by its inclusion in peripheral devices - TV tuner cards (HAUP), set top boxes (various STB manufacturers which base their systems around the Sarnoff MPEG system implementation), smart card readers (integration into ATML's chipset), special purpose dongles, etc. These implementations will leverage the installed base on a more immediate schedule than could ever be realized by dependence upon embedded chips within the computers themselves - which objective is also being pursued. It should be borne in mind that WAVX's goal is not to be a chip provider or manufacturer, but to be a *service company* which provides a key service for a system concept which will be hardware-implemented by others. WAVX holds the (hopefully defendable) patent for the system concept for which, ideally, the hardware implementations will be embedded into many others' products at relatively small incremental cost to their own general purpose, special purpose or proprietary chip designs. > > >For providers it doesn't seem logical for them to only provide content through WAVX< < < Your observation is correct. IMHO that it is clearly not WAVX's intent to supplant previously existing business models available to content providers, but to complement same with a new business model that provides a potential new and significant business development and revenue stream realization possibility. Response from many areas (data broadcast, gaming, etc.) seems to confirm the desirability of such concept. Since most of the promise for the future of WAVX is dependent upon the unknown future acceptance of such concepts as those enumerated above, the "numbers" projections for the future of the company are not now accurately quantifiable, and the investment decision at this particular time must be made based upon confidence in the concepts and upon one's evaluation of the company's ability to achieve its goals of "universality" and "ubiquity". As time goes on, the numbers on which to make an investment decision will become more quantifiable at the cost to the investor of (hopefully) higher and higher stock price. Each investor must determine his own comfort level at which to make the investment decision. There is no "right" or "wrong" decision point or decision. JMHO, BWDIK. Steve