and have been wondering about.
Wave has to sell its service to companies from the ground up. Is this an insurmountable disadvantage for an entrepreneur in the security marketplace?
I believe incumbents can simply include their trusted software (to the extent they have created it and clients demand it) as a new element in a security service renewal: an add-on to an anti-virus and internet security package.
A Wave investor will say - "but Wave's software is distinct. It does more trusted things than anything offered by McAfee or Kaspersky". And this can be true. And yet. The distinction between something which claims to be a total security package, and one that is hardened in silicon, is not going to be obvious to many people. So Wave's solution looks like an expensive add-on. There's historically been a yawning gap between a Wave investor's perception of what is voluntary and what is necessary, and the market's perception.
To me, distribution is the real challenge Wave has been facing. It doesn't have the existing customer base. So it is grinding forwards - making gradual progress with those who are willing to make the effort to understand the issues Wave addresses.
If an organisation like the DoD steps forward and mandates (or demands without actually mandating) use of full-on trust software of the type that Wave makes, then perhaps the clarity of the distinction and the rate of growth will improve significantly.
That is my opinion about the state-of-play. The technological foundation is necessary but it is not sufficient (is that a 24601 phrase) to create a business.
| 