Member Info for Kooba

Maybe some are closer to the company than others and believe everything said and are convinced of the imminent new dawn but trashing anyone who comes up with third party reports that question any assumed narrative must be a good thing surely. Not entertaining questions especially if there are no sensible answers looks odd.

Its odd the same guys who say people were far too over optimistic about the litigation settlement and should have done more research and asked more questions are the ones who won’t allow any question backed by research of just how positive developments are on the organic side and what product might be an end use. Strange change of tack.

Very grown up..not.

Seems some just want to ignore any evidence that STM does not get linked with vision pro components by diversion tactics in just trying to trash a shareholder who is asking questions. Why don’t folks put up evidence if there are errors or omissions in posts not just silly personal attacks..would be far more informative. If they can’t and are just relying on blind faith , that hasn’t been the best strategy here.

Oh i understand , prepare for the eventuality that the order comes through anyway…hardly seems a cautious approach and not exactly taking the stakeholders ( employees into account) but means you can accommodate if it lands.

I think Nanoco did that ahead of Apple last time...serious financial and staffing implications if it doesn't land. At least they should be aware of these matters having been at the alter a few times before.

NGR..im not sure

“ What I do know is the company I work for is very cautious of assuming an order will come and scale up in advance in case it doesn’t.”

Makes any sense.

Either way i acknowledge that Nanoco say they are prepared and are indeed scaling up as they have a few times before ..but i guess being ready on short notice for a mass market device rather than a low volume ( getting lower) device is a substantially different proposition in terms of capacity , staffing and materials supply…so not exactly easy to prepare for any eventuality without some serious potential cost implications.

It seems other parts of the supply chain are contracted now and well aware of what they are expected to deliver down to the quantities ..hardly surprising so they can appropriately prepare production facilities and materials to deliver. Since Nanoco , if they do receive an order would be getting it via STM I suppose they are further from the customer but one would still expect any key supplier to be forewarned of what will be expected to ensure they can deliver appropriate volumes ..maybe that is where the company’s assumptions come from. Whilst i understand the need for confidentiality , such commercial agreements are used all the time. The ability to deliver reliable product in large volumes is not something that can be assumed overnight!

I’m not blaming Nanoco..i was pointing out potential issues that were raised in the mass media yesterday , hopefully if the device is low case pro vision and any contract is further delayed or the size of any contract is disappointing the market might be better aware of the supply chain issues limiting initial production well below any existing guidance on the low case cited and might better manage their expectations.

Apparently everyone is shilling for someone even FT journalists..but especially if anyones view challenges any narrative put forward by Nanoco ! I don’t know anyone directly at either company but i had a closer look at Quantum Science , who’s there ,where they are based and the newsfeed on their site…you can then cross reference names on Nanoco Patents. They seem a credible lot to me.

I think nanonono’s view on Quantum Science is not objective and i think they might be shilling for Nanoco.

Meanwhile it seems they have just won an export award..well done them .

https://quantumscis.com/2023/07/03/quantum-science-crowned-new-to-export-champion/

Nanostory..thanks for post on competition.

I note Quantum Science are based just around the corner from Runcorn site and has a number of staff who feature prominently on Nanoco patents.

For a small private enterprise they seem to have far more news flow than Nanoco!

https://quantumscis.com/news-and-blog/

“Meanwhile, two China-based sole suppliers of certain components for the Vision Pro reportedly said Apple was only asking them for enough for 130,000 to 150,000 units in the first year.”

Seems that they have spoken to a fair few in the supply chain..but ok lets ignore it.

Here’s a much more upbeat look at Apples pro vision aims..i think this is very objective and not shilling for Apple ! Is that how this works? Anyway interesting read either way i thought..

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyhackl/2023/07/03/future-vision-peering-into-apples-ai-and-ar-game-plan-for-the-vision-pro-in-the-era-of-spatial-computing/

Nanonano

“I take most of these articles with a large pinch of salt. Most of them are written by those who are far from objective or shilling for a competitor.”

This has originated from the FT ..not entirely sure dismissing articles as you do is entirely proper..the FT is not known for shilling for competitors or lacking objectivity.

I believe it is called guidance ..what the company at the time (oct 2022) thought was appropriate to put into the market and should consider a reasonable outcome in a range of possibles.

The low volume example was headsets ..could be a couple of million units a year ..then there were other higher volume examples..but they are assuming a low volume case as above which they said would be a few £m worth of production revenue a year for first order.

If it is the headset i would assume that 150k headsets 2024 rather than a couple of million a year would be a factor in the few £m of production as a first order.

Of course it could be a different mass market product and we could be in for £10s m production revenue imminently. Lets hope so.

I can’t help feeling that the share price will guide us before any rns.

Yeah I’m sure it will all be ok as it always is for Nanoco!

It does seem significantly well down on even the assumed volumes that BT last discussed ..that is if the pro vision is the device and there is an order.

Agree though any commercial order better than nothing…its not exactly being priced in.

That is talking 450k units already well down on market expectation..this is now talking sub 150k units leaving most forecasts massively out..so i guess it is news!

I’ll let the FT know it’s old news…they seem to think otherwise as do other leading media outlets.

however if production is reduced there are minimum volumes pre agreed…but no detail.

“the qdmsa also commits st to certain minimum volumes in the event that future commercial production orders are required.”

https://*************.net/nanoco-group-sign-qdmsa-with-stmicroelectronics

Apple users will have to live in the real world for a little longer as its mixed-reality Vision Pro headset, unveiled in June and in development for seven years, has hit a manufacturing snafu, the Financial Times reported.

According to multiple people with direct knowledge of the manufacturing process, Apple plans for its Chinese contract manufacturer, Luxshare, to only produce 400,000 headset devices in 2024. However, the production figures could be much lower.

https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/apple-vision-pro-hits-manufacturing-snafu-causing-production-cuts-ft-says