Greetings=20
Just wanted to add a bullet in your last statement about PV and MS.
4) Is it because MS have some problems to enter the mobile market with
their products under the Microsoft brand? They don't have a good
reputation in the fixed PC world regarding stability and realibility,
two words that are important in the telco world. By using PV as a front
this problem gets less noticable to the end users. Or in other words,
they are trying to get their technology on the market with another
brand.=20
MS might also encounter regulatory problems if they try to get in to the
mobile market. (they will simply become to big, and EU and other
regulatory instances maybe have something to say about it). By using PV
they will still be able to get their technology supported in the mobile
world, and eventually who knows... Maybe one day PV changes name to
MS... Or maybe one day, PV stops developing servers and content
productions systems, this is done by MS, PV only develops the player for
the mobile termnals...
//Daniel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Santagata [mailto:jsanta@audiencetrax.com]=20
> Sent: den 1 oktober 2002 03:14
> To: keitai-l@appelsiini.net
> Subject: (keitai-l) Re: 3G and wireless video
>=20
>=20
>=20
> At 01:35 AM 9/30/02 +0000, you wrote:
> >greetings all,
> >
> >(1)
> >news about Emblaze,=20
> >http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=3D621070
>=20
> Emblaze is an interesting company but it seems that their=20
> product roadmap and strategy has been all over the map. I=20
> first used their Emblaze product (when they were GEO) back=20
> around 1997. It worked very well, especially considering what=20
> it was trying and the fact that it was over 5 years ago.
>=20
> Shortly after that, though, they went out of the packaged=20
> software business=20
> and got
> into the "end to end" rich media creation/distribution/mgmt=20
> business with a, in my view, very cumbersome and pricey solution.
>=20
> They obviously have large war chest to ride out any economic=20
> turbulence as they state they have $328 mm in the bank and no=20
> debt -- I guess that's one of the good things about selling=20
> stock at a market peak.
>=20
> But they're hemorrhaging cash now losing $22.1 million for=20
> the first half. This wouldn't necessarily be too bad, except=20
> for the fact that even with with revenue of $18.6 million for=20
> first quarter of last year, they still=20
> lost $6.25 million
> so I would expect large loses for the foreseeable future.
>=20
> If I were a shareholder, the statement from Emblaze CEO Eli Reifman=20
> wouldn't make
> me feel too good. "We feel it is unrealistic to see revenue=20
> generation=20
> alone as an
> indication of our success."
>=20
> Which would mean to me, "expect low revenue for some time to=20
> come and corresponding losses because we can't control our=20
> expenses and/or our business model is broken".
>=20
> >and I haven't heard from PacketVideo for a while.
>=20
> The last I heard about PV was earlier this month when MSFT=20
> and PV signed an agreement to start streaming using the MSFT=20
> WM9 system.
>=20
> This raised my eyebrows, since PV was a big and early=20
> proponent of MPEG-4 (and MPEG-4 promise of interactivity and=20
> interoperability) for the mobile=20
> space.
> Lots of possibilities why PV did it -- I can only speculate.
>=20
> 1) Was it because PV was out running of money and this is=20
> first step to getting money/buyout from MSFT? Or was PV just=20
> broadening options?
>=20
> 2) Was PV/MPEG-4 not able to make it yet in the low=20
> bit-rate/low processing power market - i.e, mobile? I'm big=20
> proponent of MPEG-4, but=20
> from what
> I've seen and read WM9 performs better at lower bit rates and=20
> I believe that PV was only supporting Simple Profile -- so=20
> the quality would be far lower than if Advanced Simple=20
> Profile was being supported (ASP supports B frames and 1/4=20
> pel motion comp.).
>=20
> 3) Content encoding/creation: Lets face it, the MPEG-4=20
> creation tools that=20
> enable
> interactivity leave a lot to be desired currently. So, without=20
> interactivity (and with
> the limited interoperability) what are you really gaining=20
> with MPEG-4 in=20
> the mobile
> space, especially when you can have the power/reach of MSFT=20
> behind you and=20
> get a
> better looking result at the lower bit rates.
>=20
> Just my take.
>=20
>=20
> James Santagata
>=20
> A U D I E N C E T R A X
> Monetize your Media (tm)
> http://www.audiencetrax.com
>=20
>=20
> This mail was sent to address Daniel.X.Nilsson@telia.se
> Need archives? How to unsubscribe?=20
> http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/=20
>=20
>=20
Received on Tue Oct 1 14:16:04 2002