RE: CFQDs3 May 2022 20:08
I suppose the danger with a company like Nano is that the products for which this tech is applicable are so complex from a design, manufacture and supply chain point of view that the chances of projects not reaching commercialisation is sadly quite high. It’s not like we are producing garden sheds here. When you think about your average phone, consider the steps and the incredible symbiosis required for that product to come to fruition, you can easily see how a project can fall apart, especially if a large company starts having jitters about dealing with a small company like Nano who are as yet unproven when it comes to commercial production.
Coupled with at present unhelpful exemptions on planet trashing chemicals for display production you can see how the headwinds are pretty relentless for Nano. Proving commercial viability with STM, if it happens, will be a major turning point for us. Proving we own our own IP will be another.