You misunderstand my meaning. Earlier when you promoted the position CLWR was destined for financial glory and based that view heavily on the technical strengths of WiMAX with OFMDA, MIMO & AAS, I disagreed with that conclusion. I disagreed for four main reasons; 1), That the New CLWR structure and strategic partners would limit CLWR's revenue opportunities, 2). The "acceptable" data-centric business model was flawed (along with the neutral provider), 3). It would take far more capital than CLWR's sponsors estimated to build a useful network, 4). Technology alone (especially that based on intellectual property already in the public domain or easily licensed) would not be sufficient advantage to prevail over far more powerful industry leaders.
I never disputed the utility of the spectrum for certain markets and applications, or the utility of the spectrum were it in the hands of different owners. But CLWR and its shareholders are bound to the conditions, capital & time given it. For common shareholders that opportunity has virtually played out.
No doubt the spectrum will be used by future owners and hopefully put to good use.
And by the way, I think your more recent posts reflect a more realistic view of the business environment CLWR finds itself and I actually agreed with some of them. But I had to laugh when I visited the board and saw newbies calling you a basher. Guess that's the price of being a realist.
You obviously haven't been following CLWR long. From even before the creation of New CLWR Teamrep was CLWR's most vocal promoter. He completely bought into CLWR's "Home & Anywhere" strategy and Intel's WiMAX dream. He continued promoting CLWR even after CLWR diluted shareholders multiple times just to continue promoting the dream. He blamed everything and everyone for CLWR's inability to succeed until no one was left except CLWR management.
Eventually even Teamrep got tired of making excuses for failure. If it has come to the point where Teamrep is considered a basher that means pumpers have lost their best champion and there is no hope for CLWR's grand dream.
CLWR tried on multiple occasions to sell spectrum in the open market and there would been have NO Sprint-CLWR related encumbrances and they still couldn't get a buyer. This proves the carrier's objection to the spectrum had nothing to do with encumbrances but the spectrum itself.
Reality is that CLWR is an insolvent company that would already be in chapter 11 if it were not for Sprint's continued cash infusion. At New CLWR's inception the company was cash and time to prove itself. It went back to the capital markets many times and still couldn't demonstrate a successful business. For CLWR's public shareholders time and money simply ran out.
"As far as I remember Clearwire couldn’t even attract a single large wholesale customer other than Sprint for years even when Clearwire has decided to enter the LTE market." Quite right. The entire concept of the "neutral Swiss provider" of spectrum capacity CLWR hyped so much was doomed from the start because top tier carriers don't want to put their customers on spectrum they don't control. Potential spectrum partners also know that once they bring their customers to CLWR's spectrum they have no barganing power in future contract renewals.
For CLWR to say they couldn't offer potential partners the "governance they desired" underscores the obvious failure of the concept. For Crest to argue that CLWR's value should be between $9.54 and $15.50 a share with a business model that had no hope of succeeding is a stretch.
Intel has already released a lot of information about Merrifield, but they are well aware of the lesson of Osborne, and that is not to over promote the thing you don't yet sell over the thing you sell today.
You don't know what you are talking about. MAC addresses are unique ID's associated with network adapters and they're necessary to route data to and from the target devices. Microsoft uses MAC ID's and other PC attributes to implement its licensing policy. So you're saying Microsoft is violating the law? LOL. Anyone that believes a MAC ID is intrusive would have a stroke over Intel's facial ID feature.
In the example of someone wanting to stream movies from a another room all they have to do is click a button for their profile. It's that easy!
Investors don't make decisions based on personal beliefs. They expect analysis of the facts. You ignore facts and simply regurgitate a belief. It's very clear to anyone reading the thread that you have not advanced your case.
After two posts you still haven't addressed a single relevant issue. LOL. If you are part of the Web TV effort it is definitely doomed.
It is not a negative post. It is the truth and if you knew anything about software development you'd know how easy it will be for Netflix to add subaccounts to its service.
Further, I have stated that there are many reasons to be bullish on Intel and I fully expect Intel to continue to dominate its traditional markets and do extraordinarily well in mobile. However, that does not mean everything Intel does is great. Intel just doesn't control enough of the media's critical assets to dominate in live TV or extract enough of the recurring service profit. As pitched Intel'a Web TV effort is largely a camera monitoring patent looking for a problem to solve.
In the press release interveiw, Intel's Eric Hugger's described Netflix's shortcoming as the single account for all family members and that this limitation prevented Netflix from personalizing viewing recommendations for each family member. However, Netflix can quickly and easily remedy this and they don't even need their customers to buy new hardware. Today when launches Netflix on their device the interface immediately opens to the single household account. However, with only minor changes in software Netflix can add subaccounts to give each family member their own customized account and viewing recommendations. Selecting the individual account is a mere button click. Further, Netflix captures the unique MAC address of every Netflix device in a household and can allow specific subaccounts to be the default account in specific rooms (such as the ten year old daugher's room), so for those devices the button click isn't even necessary. Thus the parents don't need to see movie recommendations for the ten year old and vice versa. And best of all this personalization is done with no intrusive spying.
Further, the Intel box is going to have a problem in any room where two or more family members are present because while it may be able to uniquely identify them it will have difficulty deciding who to give viewing priority; for instance the first person in the room? The oldest? One can imagine the family disputes this could create.
In short no amount of "intelligent" boxes and intrusive spying will replace common sense. And if Netflix can easily add this backend customization so can Vudu and every other movie streaming company. So with minimal effort today's movie streaming products can neutralize the over-hyped intelligence of Intel's Web TV with no new hardware, no extra cost to the consumer and with far more common sense.
You complain about the parallels drawn between WiMAX and Web TV yet you offer nothing that refutes the facts and that Intel doesn't control the critical assets for being successful in the video streaming space - such as content or distribution - any more than they controlled the dominant carriers or their spectrum. As the industry's first 4G technology Intel's WiMAX even enjoyed first mover advantage but it still wasn't enough. The titans of wireless industry that controlled the critical assets and paying customers crushed Intel in the marketplace.
And FYI, Intel's plan to monetize people's privacy via the camera has not been addressed. Many journalists that have reviewed Intel's Web TV call it creepy and even New York Time's Walt Mossberg told Intel's Huggers to expect a lot of pushback on that feature. You can be sure that topic is far from over. And furthermore, Intel clearly announced they were not offering "a la carte" programming, though they said they would offer bundles and it would be no cheaper than what consumers are already paying. Well "moving towards the goal" of "a la carte" is NOT a la carte so obviously it is you who is trying to distort the facts.
Where is the argument to support the theory that the chances they will win is in Intel's favor - because it's Intel? That's not an argument, that's called hope. If you believe everything Intel touches turns to gold you should review Intel's investment in WiMAX. That project and almost everyone associated with it have been blasted out of Intel.
There's nothing wrong with Intel being entreprenurial, but they can be criticized for bad judgement. Intel's 10 year adventure into WiMAX made great press claiming how Intel was going to transform the wireless industry - much like the press today about Intel's Web TV changing the TV industry, but after $10 billion dollars and many misguided steps they lost the standards battle to the carriers themselves as the carriers upstaged Intel with a similar but better wireless technology called LTE, which today is the global 4G standard.
The parallels between Intel's WiMAX project and Web TV are remarkably similar. Intel enter's the business of a different industry dominated by other tech industry titans that own or control the critical assets of their industry. Intel introduces some good technology and good ideas but the incumbent industry titans take the market opportunity away from them as they replicate the Intel solution and do it better as they still control the critical assets. In this case the assets are content and distribution instead of spectrum.
It would have been better if Intel had simply designed the box then offered it to cable incumbents form them to implement, with Intel inside. But what will not happen is the cable industry allowing its control of the consumer or revenue be dismantled by any over-the-top streaming service for live TV. And if the ad revenue of spying on viewers is necessary to make Intel's business model work, it's a definite fail no matter whose brand is on it.
The biggest issue consumers have for cable HDTV is the price they have to pay but that is partly because cable service is a legal monoply in most markets across the U.S. Unfortunately Intel's service doesn't do anything to change that, nor is it offering a la carte selection. However, the Intel service could easily have the consumer paying significantly more for Internet service to accomodate the large amount of IP streaming.
There are many reasons to be bullish on Intel's stock, but the bulls should be looking at Intels progress in its core business (especially Haswell), smartphones, tablets and the Internet-Of-Things to get them there. Intel's Web TV, as pitched has huge headwinds.
Intel's Web TV streaming service will not succeed of fail because of WiDi. The device & service must first deliver competitive TV viewing content and options relative to what consumers already have and that is not assured. Intel already said this isn't a value play so don't expect Intel's service to be any cheaper than one's monthly HDTV cable service today. And everyone knows how intrusive the built-in camera can be and Intel's intention to market family member's personal data to third parties. Intel has not even mentioned that streaming live TV all day long via IP can easily exceed the customer's monthly data allocation broadband providers have for their customers, therefore owners of Intel's Web TV can easily find themselves paying far higher bill for Internet service than they did without Intel's Web TV. This FCC no longer expects ISP's to deliver fixed-price unlimited service. Today, broadband service is tiered. More data means higher cost.
Interestingly, the cable companies can stream IP video all day long to their customers but they don't count their streaming against the customer's monthly data allocation. This gives cable companies a built-in advantage over any competitor with an over-the-top streaming service. In fact, about the only business model innovation Intel brings with their idea is the additional revenue generated by spying on its customers but that is also the most objectionable part of the service.
If there's good news to Intel shareholders the project doesn't cost much and the Web TV project is setup as separate effort with a different brand. It will be easily to eliminate the project and staff when its failed.