is there any body who could share his views about long term future of forbidden technology.i am holder from tech buble times and still hope best is yet to come for FBT

FBT still have almost no customers. Their turnover is a tiny 40,000 per year. Almost no one in the world is using Java based video streaming. There is a world standard and it is Mpeg-4 which all the large users are committed to.

In fact the situation is so bad for FBT and similar companies that it is not possible to name even one large user of streaming video who is using Java based systems.

I doubt very much that last year's conference had anything to do with the share price rise. Company's share prices do not normally rise when they go to conferences. This is even more apt for FBT as nothing came out of the conference that was beneficial to them.

It looks more like the price rose as the results were due at the end of September. There were rumours (false of course) that their turnover was going to be good. The results did come out and they were just as bad as usual except the cash burn had increased and the losses were higher. Once the results had been seen the price plunged and has continued to do so for 11 months now.

Haystack - So you don't think the price will rise in September?

You are always so quick to respond on anything about FBT, Why is that?

The price may rise towards results, it does soemtimes. It ALWAYS falls after though every time. The results are ALWAYS poor.

I see that FBT is down this morning. Isn't that contratry to the rise before conference theory.

Not really as there were NO sells only buys!!!
I predict a rise just before the conference and during

But why? It is just an attendance at a conference. It is a broadcasting conference with over 1,000 exhibitors. Nothing came out of last year's attendance. Why would this years be any difference.

The price is down today for some reason. There may be delayed sells not reported yet. The Techmark and the FTSE are up, yet FBT is down. It looks like it is just contunuing its downtrend.

Haystack to be honest your opinions are always well backed up with market knowledge (How accurate it is I'm not sure, but it does look impressive, as seems to show you know what you are talking about)

But as FBT seem to be improving their technology every week, you can not see a possibilty that they are on to a winner. I agree the technology is not 100% there yet, but as it gets better, then I feel more and more interest will be paid to this company by the likes of mobile phone carriers, web sites, etc

Here is an interesting posting from another board where people do discuss things about FBT (both the positive and the negative!!!) I'm afraid on this board discussions on FBT seem to die out pretty quickly

Most of it is reportly from FBT itself
Haystack feel free to pick it apart if you want, be interested in your views, especially on the points of "AVID", "collaborative editing", "adding EDLs to FORscene for the IBC launch"
As this e-mail reportedly came from FBT it is of course pretty positive, what are your thoughts?

Tokyo




A discussion over on Advfn raised a few questions and a summary was posted to the company for comment.

They kindly obliged us with a very detailed and informative response.

Both shareholders and non-shareholders I suspect will find this a very interested read. Especially in the run-up to the IBC.

The questions should appear enclosed in angle brackets < << like this >>>.




-----------------------------------------------------------


< <<<<<<< (1) Collaborative editing

Collaborative editing was mentioned at the AGM for higher end users. Other editing products also appear to offer a form of collaborative editing including Avid.

What differentiates ForScene from other products enough to allow Forbidden to win customers new to video editing / content delivery or existing users of other products? >>>>>

Existing collaborative editing products were generally designed as non-collaborative systems. Collaboration was tagged on as an afterthought. As a consequence, like the editing systems themselves, they tend to be very expensive and inflexible in comparison to FORscene.

For example, those promoting collaborative systems at NAB in Las Vegas this year were recommending 1,000,000,000 b/s Ethernet connections, restricting collaboration to a single site.

FORscene is more advanced in that it allows editing over the Internet with a standard 512kb/s broadband connection - without the need for any hardware or software installation.

The capital cost of buying a traditional high end collaborative editing system is high, whereas with FORscene, there is no capital cost as it works in a web browser on standard computers.

Videos edited on FORscene can be published for the web (using FORweb) and mobile (using FORmobile) using industry standards such as Java and HTTP. We also support the de-facto Symbian standard for high end phones. Videos are automatically hosted on Forbidden's servers, minimising server load on the FORscene users' websites.

Systems such as the Avid completely lack the publishing and hosting aspects of FORscene. Luckily for Avid users, FORscene runs on the Avid, as Avids come with IE.

< <<<<<<< There is no documentation available on the internet that suggests Avid is available as a Java program, suggesting its ease of collaboration / integration with the web may be much lower than ForScene or more costly (or both!). >>>>>>>>>>>>>

Avid is designed as an expensive system, and generally comes with software and hardware. It appears to be along way from being shipped as a Java applet - Avid's MPEG compression technology is not suitable for web editing, for example. Avid has been a near monopoly in its market for too long, and like other monopolists, they appear to have lost the edge.

< <<<<<<<<,(2) Integration with other software

Do Forbidden view ForScene as a complement existing toolsets for the specific purposes of addressing video streaming? I.e. users would continue using other editing tools that may be more appropriate for delivery over other mediums. >>>>>>>>

FORscene provides a complete end-to-end solution for web and mobile video streaming. This includes editing, publishing, hosting and playback functions.

FORscene has everything you need to convert content from your source format to web and mobile formats for delivery on to the end viewer.

In the professional video industry, there are so many video formats used in the video industry (DV-CAM, mini DV, VHS, beta-SP, MPEG-2 and JPEG, D1, ... on multiple tape or disc formats), that the edits which make up a video are represented in a standard format called an EDL. This gives the time code for each clip and allows the video to be reconstructed on any system.

We are adding EDLs to FORscene for the IBC launch so that FORscene integrates neatly with existing systems.

< <<<<< If so would provision be needed for converting to / from Forbiddens own format and other video formats? >>>>>

In web and mobile, no other format is required.

We accept input in many tape or electronic formats, including beta-SP, DV-CAM, AVI, and Quicktime.

We even accept Microsoft's non-standard Windows Media Player format. Microsoft claim this is twice as good as old standards like MPEG. We will support any format if there is demand for it.

Videos for broadcast can be made from the FORscene EDL on any broadcast quality system. This prevents generation loss as the final video is made from the original sources.

< <<<<< (3) Volume markets

From the AGM ForScene product looks to be to targeted at all levels of user from individuals through to professional users.

Is Forbidden confident of being able to cope with payment collection where large volumes of users are involved? >>>>>

Yes.

FORscene charges as you use it, preparing itemised bills. No human intervention is required.

Professional users have large budgets and will pay per programme. We may opt for a well know brand to distribute a consumer version.

We can charge for mobile content in mobile phone bills, so there is no limit to the number of end users we could support with our current infrastructure.

< <<<<<<< (4) Upload of content

Currently the compression-bureau manage the uploading of raw content. Mention is made on your website however of an upload facility.

Does this mean content could be uploaded directly to your servers, bypassing the compression-bureau (and also any control over what type of content is uploaded)? >>>>>>>

Yes - this is already the case for FORscene compressor owners. They capture video live off tape (from anywhere in the world), and it appears automatically in their FORscene "Files" window for editing/publishing in FORscene (from anywhere in the world).

You have to realise that what yu have posted is slanted somewhat by FBT's view of their own products. There is little indication that there is any need or desire for collaborative editing of video over the internet. Why would people want to collaboratively edit video in different parts of the world. Even if there were a few, is this the basis of a money making business. How many unusual people like that would be required to make a profit. The business model looks seriously flawed.

Collaborative editing is possible now and has been for a long time as a networked system of PCs using Avid or one ogf the many other editing systems produces the same effect. Editing packages like Avid are industry standards and there is a general pool of trained people available to use them. How many companies are going to swithch their operations from something tnat they have invested large sums of monoey in, to a new system that depends on the internet.

There was some amusing talk of targetting the home internet users for video editing so they could have their very own streaming video on their web sites. That is one of the funnier ideas that has come out of FBT in a while.

haystack tell me honestly. Are you shorting fbt?????
if yes please feel free to deramp this share. Otherwise please keep your comments to yourselfand concentrate on companies you are involved with.

I post on FBT for my own reasons. It is a stock that I have been following since they originally floated.

It has been as high as 250p whcih gave it a market cap of about 200m plus. This is not bad for a company with less than 3m in cash and almost no customers, makes a bigger loss each year, has a turnover of 40,000 a year, has an increasing cash burn.

I like posting on it.

would it not be fair if you explained "your own reasons" pls

I, for one, particularly enjoyed the statement We even accept Microsoft's non-standard Windows Media Player format.

I expect Microsoft are truly grateful for this magnanimous concession from the mighty FBT. And what would Microsoft do if FBT had not been gracious enough to accept their non-standard format? Would the Rockies have crumbled? Seattle sheared off the Pacific North-West Coast into the Pacific? The Redmond campus imploded in an all-consuming ball of fire?

Somehow I think not.

I asked an American television producer friend recently (who uses AVID and all that stuff) what he thought of FBT. He replied "who?"

Thankfully, I have no position in FBT.

LOL!

who are you people and why are you aginst this company

basharat, you started the thread asking for views and you got them, some quite detailed. You've got some pretty experienced investors here giving you the benefit of their opinion. You should think carefully about the negative views as well as the positive ones. It is no accident that your own posts contained the words "hope" and "faith". Unfortunately these are nothing to do with making money. If after having considered and understood the positive and negative business and technical arguments you are still convinced (not hope) that the company has a brilliant future, then this is the company for you and there is no need to worry about negative opinions. You will win eventually. If instead deep down you are afraid of the negative arguments because they sound convincing, then it is time to reconsider.

thanx guys

blue again today, my buy at 23 pence looks to have been a good one, against the opinions of a few people on this thread, still expecting a good rise when we get closer to the IBC

BREAKING NEWS
Archive

Fri 13th Aug, 2004
Recent press
160 characters reports: "Mobile users can for the first time send and receive video and a branded player by Bluetooth ... Forbidden has packaged its advanced compression and white labelled mobile player technology into one commercial tool to deliver mobile video via Bluetooth to today's range of ... 2.5G mobile phones".


This looks like good news for me, and I personally feel this is the way the company should go, mobile phones now have digital cameras and everyone has one over here, if FBT can stream video onto mobile phones there will be a massive market for them over in Asia, as well as in Europe once the mobile technology catches up

All IMHO

Tokyo

Of course FBT can stream video to mobiles as can all the other Java based video streaming companies (and there are loads of them). The interesting thing is that none of them make any money.

One of the problems is that almost all the content for streaming is owned by companies that do not use Java based streaming. They use Mpeg-4 based systems such as Windows Media, Real and Quicktime. They do this because Mpeg-4 is a world standard in the same way as Mpeg-2 is for digital TV like SKY and Mpeg-3 is a standard for music (mp3).

With Mpeg-4 you get a fuller range of features and better quaklity than Java based streaming. You can resize the viewing area which you cannot do with FBT's system.

That being the case and the content owners are already committed to streaming on the internet using Mpeg-4 then why would they not want to use it for mobile devices. They are not going to want to pay twice and set up two different systems.

It is all about interoperability.