We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I'm not aware that Nanoco had any restrictions not to produce cadmium dots if the market was demanding them, at least it would have produced an income stream and let the market come to them for CFQD. Possible made the wrong call sitting on the side lines expecting a cadmium ban.
ddubya: I should have included you among those who understood Nanoco's sales and business incompetence. I have lost track of the number of times that Edelman has made specific claims that ultimately proved to be wrong. I have no doubt that many of these claims were purposely misleading. However, I never expected Merck to renew until Samsung responds to the lawsuit.
Think that about spot on Basscadet, although Samsung has already proven (using NANO tech) that CFQD quality Is amongst the very best in Display, including with Cadmium dots. It does cost more though.
NANO must achieve a breakthrough in sales, either in IR, or potentially Display, but it has a very poor record of securing a purchase order after the initial test batches. That is what must change ASAP.
LOAM will be acutely aware of thIs position and no doubt is doing what it can, including commitment of more funds at negligible discount.
I am hoping it is simply a matter of time but no news of any description from Merck does concern me. If an update could not be provided in reasonable course, Mike would have done better to say nothing at all specific to Merck.
It's not quite as simple as that TLWilliams. Nanoco's USP is that it's product is cadmium free. Nanosys's success over Nanoco's is really a story about how the market, with the exception of Samsung, haven't embraced that. Nanosys's performance is all based on cadmium dots.
Cadmium based dots perform better and are cheaper. Until there is either a step change in quality and/or price of cadmium free ones or the environmental legislation we've all been waiting so long for comes into force it's unlikely to change IMO.
That Nanosys has been far more successful than NANO is undeniable but it is also unsurprising. Samsung has been funding and supporting the non competing Nanosys yet allegedly deceiving and stealing from NANO, which operates In the same CF space, and hoped to work with Samsung as a partner.
Today's position reflects the position after a good 'mugging'. NANO is rather obviously not going to be in best of shape, but it lives on and has other strengths in IR, which Nanosys does not share. For me the litigation should not be our focus as we cannot predict how or when it will be resolved, or with any degree of accuracy.
Fortunes should be revived in the IR space and that's where my hope lives. So far it has proven to be as difficult a path to commercialisation as Display, and there are times do I wonder if better marketing skills are needed but if ST Micro (or the silent Merck) can produce orders this share could turn around in short order and cement NANO as one of the World leaders in sensor development.
I hadn't given Nanosys much thought until I read some of the recent contributions to this board. A simplistic comparison of both websites gives an indication as to why Nanosys are currently the more successful of the two companies. In my view Nanosys have found a route to success, by focusing on display, and in selling their product effectively. Nanoco seem to lack the sales, negotiating, and marketing expertise to raise awareness about their innovative technology, and to bring it to market. I am surprised that the major investors backing Nanoco do not insist on giving the board of directors a "shake up", and insist on hiring appropriately qualified and experienced executives to take the company to somewhere approaching the level achieved by Nanosys. Nanoco are currently "one-ball jugglers", and appear to be relying on the patent-infringement action against Samsung to bring the company to life.
The messages on the respective websites sums it up: Nanoco - Infinite Possibilities. Nanosys - Our Story. 17 Years to Overnight Success. ( >100 products featuring Nanosys Technology 2019; 30,000,000g of Nanodots shipped to date; > 470 patents to date). Granted that Nanoco have more patents, but how do the other statistics compare?