Member Info for LowiePete

the dates and text don't make sense for 2019 - the text relating specifically to MVR fits closer to the launch of May 2018

Well, the nay-sayers need their time too - all gone quiet again, rustling up what next to vent about... ;)

The question I'm asking is: if FB are intending a buyout, why top-up the petty cash tin when they could be adding EVRH to their shares portfolio? Do they only do 100% / majority or nothing? My guess to the answer is that they are intent on sticking to their hosts philosophy, rather than becoming content providers. Then the meaning of the word "may" in the RNS does mean allow, rather than perhaps.

I don't think the MVR app will disappoint them; they'll have seen and discussed stuff we can only dream of hearing about. Their cash injection does more than stop the company from having to raise funds, though I fear it'll probably not stop the shorters from bleeding the company dry. I'm making no guesses about how the SP will behave, but I'm definite about staying put, though a rise soon would obviously be good ;)

Let me put this another way. Some people I fear may think that when most of the pieces are in place, like users and live gigs, that the cost of the latter won't be much more than perhaps a CD album, or its modern equivalent. I beg to differ. Let's imagine that Ed Sheeran fans get wind of him launching several new songs at a gig in Los Angeles. What are the die-hard UK fans going to do? Well, of course, they're going to sell their souls to get there in person, to be part of the crowd.

Okay, so let's examine that in terms of reality, cost of fares, hotels, meals, ancillaries and not least the concert tickets themselves - maybe not much change out of 15 hundred quid per person? Then there's securing the time off, enduring the travel to and from through quite a few timezones, and then getting a decent position in the stadium. None of that is dead simple; not as simple as putting on a headset in familiar surroundings certainly. So how much is the latter worth? I'd see £150 as an absolute bargain, but, I'd want the technology to match my expectations, and then some! That's where I'd suggest MelodyVR want to be, nothing short!

Servicing 1,000 by £150 clients makes MVR a load more money pro-rata than trying to service more than 10,000 @ £15; it places much less burden on providing the source material and is still resounding value for money for users - that is if you're a die-hard fan. By contrast, would you pay £15 to view this on a mobile phone and increase by factors the incidence of disappointment through use of inadequate tech, as already clearly expressed by nay-sayers over Liam Payne's little gig?

To me, the mobile phone would not be appealing at all, not at any price! I'd just hope that a recording of my favourite artists gets shown on my 2D TV at some point, and in that case I'd turn up the surround-sound volume instead. So, standing still to possibly supply the masses, when you can make loads, loads more money by properly immersing your intended audience is clearly the way to a proper profit. Oh, and the more exclusive (historic?) the audience, so will that be reflected in the charges, I could be guessing way too low!

For the full blown concert, with the opportunity to freeze it, repeat it at will, and also be in so much more control of all your surroundings makes buying a ticket at the same prices as actually being there a much more realistic option or even worth quite a premium. Taken to its logical conclusion, eventually you'll probably be charged according to how close to real your immersion can be i.e. which resolution your headset can cope with.

I get the feeling that they are striving for quality over quantity. Why invest in high-grade cameras to serve a technology already well served by Spotify and YouTube? The goal is to go as immersive as possible where the headsets begin to match displaying what can be captured. Technology is surely about forward steps. While I get the numbers deal, bringing down the tech cost by making it mass-market is where the ongoing money is going to be. EVRH/MVR have shown few signs of short-term thinking.

Max, quite possibly, but the company focus is on VR, so I don't see much prominence given to mobile phones in the short term. It looks like FB want to continue avoiding the "content provider" status and this RNS more or less confirms that. Once they release their new headset, they'll be off into the AR universe which will bring clever interactivity to their version of the MVR offering, staying within the FB philosophy of bringing friends together. FB would monetise through advertising as always, with maybe a small proportion going in MVR's direction.

Personally, I think the statement allows other major players to make their bids for their own versions, so, rather than there being one instance of MVR, it acts as the "browser" for any corporate to place their stamp into. So, Google would have its YouTubeMVR, as could any of the record labels or concert venues etc. There could even be a Spotify-MVR. The possibilities and permutations are almost endless, but one thing is for certain, EVRH / MVR is not in any way being mis-managed!

Guys, I think the answer to your questions are actually in the FB update RNS. It's clear that EVRH have been commissioned to provide a proprietary version of the MVR app for FB on the basis that... " Following the launch, the product may also be made available on other platforms."

It looks like the recording standards are set, so providing a differing "corporate" feel / stamp to each MVR version will be like the contrast twixt visiting respective websites. Each version will still be accessing MVR's bank (money source) of recordings, though some of these might be exclusive enough to be separate money earners on only a few headsets. FB are clearly in the game and I expect there will be similar announcements of involvement with other big players, until eventually some greedy beggar wants the lot for themselves and has the cash to splash to achieve it. Hold on tight folks!

Don't give up Acro, we've both qualified for exemption from IHT; it needs those 2 years...

Giving the RNS a second read (a trick I learned a while back) I've learned that this announcement is basically MVR producing a proprietary software for the forthcoming Oculus hardware. This leaves the door open to other big players to have their own agreements. What it also tells me is that FB see MVR as their killer app for marketing their hardware, so they have seen figures which clearly indicate where their money should be aimed. So, a buy-out by FB should perhaps not be so prominent as first thought. There could yet be a bidding war.

Over the past weeks I've read some pretty outlandish c0ck'n'bull over how poorly the management of EVRH have performed in every imaginable direction. In my book, they're still playing a blinder - power to their elbows!

If it was the record labels who pumped all the money in, then would they find a Facebook deal a bit restricting? I'm thinking consequences of FB possibly not allowing offer of MVR on non-Oculus headsets. Also, was there not talk of some M$ involvement with MVR and I'd assume a sale to FB would ruffle feathers there too...

If MVR is to become the Spotify of the VR universe, won't it _have_ to be available on all platforms? The bit I can't get my head around is that to date FB have not professed to be content providers, indeed they have often denied this, particularly in rows with a multitude of legislators. MVR changes all of that, surely!

Well, well, well. No news is good news...

...or is it? Those who are convinced MVR will be bought outright by FB, do you also think that a buy-out price has already been agreed and that us investors are just being drip-fed the occasional morsel? If so, that's all very well, but will that interfere with existing agreements with music labels and venues? What about the other big player VR wannabees, like M$ and Google and insert other names here. Are they going to be denied a bidding war?

Well, I'm buying - 10k shares for pocket-money? No problem!

Is that Crowcast still at it, casting his aspersions? When is reality going to dawn with him? For starters, lets get rid of this idea that the EU are our friends! What they see is a UK electorate that wants out but that's a view which is _not_ supported by MPs in the HoC. So, all they have done is manipulate the situation so that eventually the will of the people will be overthrown by lily-livered MPs who are more concerned about their own careers than the future of the country. I hope they recognise the danger of the games they are playing! All of this is about money and who controls it. If the EU were our friends, they'd be outlawing the need for foodbanks in the 21stC as quite a high priority.

We have the weakest of weak governments, headed by probably the most arrogant leader we have ever seen in all our lifetimes. She is not exactly renown for bringing people on side, other than by issuing threats with no substance. All you had to do was substitute her every utterance of "in the National interest" with "in the Tory Party's interest" and everything rang true. That isn't leadership and it doesn't engender any support or sympathy here. Oh, and it isn't to be found on the opposite benches either, sad to say. I would have loved to say give them all a bloodied nose and vote Green, but their erstwhile leader rejected democracy and the real peoples' vote the day it was announced!

It's time that people in the UK started believing in the UK. Then you'd see that a WTO exit is no bad thing. The EU federalist ambition will then properly be a non-starter and it'll be the UK that leads the way out for everyone else who might get sucked in. We just need some balls shown by those whom we have elected and purport to represent our best interests. I live in a fishing town, once the biggest herring fishery in the World, and our excuse for an MP hasn't the guts to represent our clear local view.

We live in very dangerous times...

Crowcast - in deepest East Anglia there's a term - what a load of skwit!! Typical Millenial approach, blame everyone else and even denigrate the majority just to make a point. If you think that all the leave voters were swayed by the arguments on either side, think again! Many people were just turned off by the constant stream of BS, so quite a few of us looked forward, rather than back.

For many of us it wasn't about immigration, or the draining of funds to the NHS, it was about taking back control and, more importantly, not relinquishing any more control. This especially to a bunch of Johnny Foreigners that we have no choices over, by ballot or otherwise. So, what is the stated future aim of the E.U.? Oh yes, to become the F.U. If you think I'm being crass, I'm talking about Federalism.

To the casual observer, that F word doesn't sound so bad. However, I don't think that too many understand its real implications. To those who want to remain, or want a second vote so that we can mandate a remain, I have one very simple question. It's this. Would you countenance just one member of our armed forces being put into harm's way by people that are appointed, in other words that we haven't elected, into a tin-pot conflict that the British Government would ordinarily have nothing to do with?

If your answer is No, then think very carefully about remaining. If we do stay, we won't get much say, as our position now is so weakened. It gets worse. Once we do federalise, the burdens of conflict resolution, human and financial, will fall more and more heavily upon the best-funded forces.

Being as we are where we are, we should crash out without a deal. That's gonna focus minds on the important stuff, like getting a trade deal. This government should never have accepted this "discuss divorce before trade" scenario. The only outcome of that is that trade constantly gets kicked into the long grass. The E.U. has form!

Only 150? That figure seems suspect! Did everyone who applied to go to the venue get a ticket, to the point where they couldn't fill it? I got the impression it was filled to capacity. I'd also not describe a short gig in a small London club as a flagship event - it was MVR's first live broadcast - fairly low key, just as it should be, just in case there was a failure. The RNS about the event does not indicate such a despondent approach. With 36 countries able to participate, I very much doubt that the average number of viewers per country was just 5.

MVR being all things to all men in VR? Naaaah. It has its niche,; it has built its base thoroughly around all aspects of its niche with just one objective - to be the best! I'm perfectly happy with the direction it has gone so far. Now is not the time to diversify. How do we know there isn't a Chinese company with equal ambitions to come West as MVR are to go East? Now that would be taking your eye off the ball...

I agreed to the point where I read about burning cash for no progress. Not true. Every bit of cash that goes toward recording anything marketable in VR is an investment, more or less forever. Yes, some might not bring much immediate return, but as the recordings get more strategic, so will their monetary return. Even Liam Payne's recent free outing will eventually make a return simply as historic live-stream footage and probably as part of a back-catalogue. In 5 years time, when 2018 is seen as ancient tech history, people will also pay money to use the footage as "how it once was!" Every recording will be a social history capsule no matter when.

There's no question that this company and its BoD have played a blinder so far. All the calls for changes here and more of this, there, are totally premature. All they clearly show is a lack of DYOR and an understanding of what that research tells you. Almost all the fundamentals that you could wish for are in place. Yeah, I know past history is still patchy, but aren't we also warned sternly that it matters not when it come to future predictions? The people in place have the relative experience. All they need is the space within which to operate to full potential.

Probably the main reason why the share is being shorted almost into obscurity is because the company has a healthy petty-cash pot. (A clever move by two guiding lights) All that the shorting is doing is slowing down the progress the company could be making. It isn't a victimless activity as some people try to dress it up to be. Those posters who appear to support such an approach should stop their attempts at its justification. If there were fewer excuses for it posted here, the shorters would soon get jittery. While it might not be illegal, the ethics are certainly questionable.

The "not invented by me" syndrome, and its attendant jealousies, seems to be alive and well here. May it soon perish!

Jimmy, I've been wracking my brains trying to find the source. Maybe it was a throw-away line in a video interview.

As for all the other shenanigans, I no longer have a view. We could probably get a clearer picture if the SP were allowed to float closer to where it belongs. The biggest problem is that everyone knows the company has a healthy petty cash pot, hence the shorters not letting up. What comes across to me is that AM has a pretty clear vision of where he wants MVR to go and he's taking the BoD with him. If there is a pre-existing deal with any big player, then the sum involved is definitely going to launch the SP skyward - the potential is there for all to see.

Just sit tight for the time being. Every £1M spent only builds and extends a library of lasting social history that can only grow in value!

IIRC there's an AM quote where he discloses his minimum price and with the current BoD recruited he'll have probably revised it upwards since.

As far as it not being Xmas without the shorters, ain't that the truth? That level of greed and misery is why the World is going to the Devil in a hand-cart! What makes me cross is that there's a whole other section of caring society who are taking the blame on their behalf.

[i]Illegitimi non carborundum[/i]

The fact that MMs see your stop-loss settings was not something I'd considered. However, I was always led to believe that if you invest on AIM, part of the excitement is that you take the risk of losing everything. Therefore, you don't invest the family silver, unless you have reserves buried in the back garden. Yes, I'd be very miffed to lose it all, but having done my research, I share everyone else's excitement at the prospects of this share. The shorters only prove one thing, that greed breeds greed!

Regarding EVRH's latest recruit; is he in place to get us the best price for an imminent sale? Is the possible / probable bidding war not so far off? Seems the guy has form and is fully briefed on AM's ambitions...