Member Info for Maxi19

That's some strange dots you're connecting there (no pun intended).

How do you expect a tear down from anyone other than Nanoco to reveal thay Nanoco's dots are being used? STMicro aren't saying which of their sensors have a quantum film. And they're not going to reveal themselves that their sensors are being used in the device.

Yes, lee7, it's been pointed out on here before that the VD55G1 is likely to use QDs since the QE/MTF of 55% at 940 is consistent with what Jonathan Steckel has said can be achieved with QDs. Otherwise the sensitivity of silicon without them is more like 25-30%.

What is unclear is to what extent the other consumer sensors ST has in the design stage use QDs. They don't give numbers for quantum efficiency but they say things like "outstanding performance in the NIR region". My view is that there's a very good chance they use QDs too, partly because that would be consistent with outstanding NIR performance and also because the dates of their design fit in with ST's design of QD devices.

The VD56G3 is particularly interesting. ST are using that sensor in the under OLED biometrics tech they have devised with Trinamix. I think that was a first gen version of that sensor, but if you look at the documentation it was heavily updated on 23 November, just a couple of weeks after Nanoco shipped their first dots. Could just be a coincidence.

If the sensors are using QDs then it begs the question why the documents/specs don't say so. One reason could be that they don't want competitors to realise that they are using QDs. That said, Jonathan Steckel has given several presentations on it. Alternatively they may not want to advertise the used of lead in the dots.

It's all a bit unclear, so much so that I don't think it's worth speculating on too much (forgive this essay). Que sera sera, whatever sensors are eventually using them.

A reminder for everyone to report Intrusive's post with a request for the account to be suspended.

See this alternative, more accurate report:

/www.macrumors.com/2023/12/06/iphone-under-display-camera/

"Before Apple uses the perfected under-screen camera technology, it is expected to adopt under-panel Face ID technology in 2025's iPhone 17 Pro. This is expected to be Apple's last premium model to include a circular cutout for the front-facing camera. Apple will then adopt the UPC in 2027's "Pro" ‌iPhone‌ models, according to respected analyst Ross Young of research firm Display Supply Chain Consultants."

Nanonano, I saw the reports saying that the iphone's under display Face ID has been delayed again, but it looks like BS based on a misreading of the original Elec report.

The Elec report (I translated it obviously) clearly says that it is the UDC (Under Display Camera) that is being developed with a provisional release date of 2027. It does not mention under display Face ID, which according to reports is still slated for 2025.

That article and a couple of others misrepresented this as Face ID being delayed again. Other articles saw the distinction and noted that the Elec article says UDFID is still being brought out earlier than the UDC.

In fact, the timeline for the UDC still corresponds with the most recent timeline from Ross Young, which is UDFID in the Pro models in 2025 and 2026, then in 2027 full under screen for the Pro models and UDFID only for the standard models.

Let me know if you disagree.

I don't think the market really cares whether it was deliberate or not. It's a question of the CEO being untrustworthy or incompetent - not sure which is worse.

Just to be clear TG2D, I don't think BT deliberately misrepresented the position, he was just naive and his confidence in Nanoco's claim led him to say overly bullish things.

Anyway, if Nanoco does go on to produce hundreds of millions of sensor units, makes progress in display and extracts more value out of its IP this entry point is crazy cheap.

Nothing new in that RNS.

Funny how BT says the Board are confident about delivering increases in shareholder value in the medium term. Back last year he was confident about near term increases in shareholder value. Sadly the settlement hammered the share price and the commercial production order has done zilch. BT must be pretty frustrated, but ultimately if you have a majority of investors who think, right or wrongly, that the litigation potential was misrepresented then it's going to need substantial revenues to break out from the current position.

I appreciate the tone of posts on here can get lost but I meant that question in surprise rather than incredulity.

Intrusive reported again. Please everyone fed up with him also report him and ask in the comments for his account to be removed.

How on earth can QDs be used to monitor your heart? Why would you need an image for that?

Yes reported too. Can everyone fed up of intrusive please report him too and in the comments ask for him to be kicked off the site. Just doesn't add anything these days, only snipings.

Nanonano, I don't think the company has ever said large volume orders are more likely to use the gen 2 materials. If you think they have can you point out where that was?

The idea that ST would design and produce gen 1 materials without the expectation of high volume orders doesn't really make sense. Also, the gen 1 NIR material was originally slated for the iphone before Apple ended the direct relationship with Nanoco.

Agreed, it's possible that they are semi-secret and Apple will pay more to have one year or so in which only they can buy them.

Nanonano, sure there will be a tear down but that won't go as far as confirming whether there are quantum dots or not, let alone whether they are Nanoco's. That will require a separate tear down from Nanoco.

Nay chance that STMicro will tell Nanoco that Apple are the end customer (assuming it actually is, which I think is far from certain). STMicro don't even disclose Apple as their main customer, so why would they tell suppliers?

That said, BT has said that Nanoco can legitimately investigate potential applications and disclose if their dots are used in them. That requires getting hold of a Vision Pro, however, which seems like it won't be easy.

Go back to the last Investor Meets presentation. BT said it's acceptable in the market to publicly identify products using your products.

On the question of the data sheet, the problem is that theoretically another company's dots could be used. Which is why a Nanoco teardown seems necessary to confirm that it is their dots being used.

But if the company is going to disclose to the market that our dots are in the Vision Pro they couldn't do that based on some third party tear down.

Also that third party would have no clue whether a particular sensor has quantum dots or not!

Practical question - how would the company actually get their hands on a Vision Pro device? Aren't they only be sold in Apple stores to registered owners and they're not expected to hit UK stores until later in 2024?

Just to follow up, I've done a bit of research and I was wrong that tender offers can't be priced at a substantial premium, although I don't think a premium of over 100% would be justifiable.

Personally I don't like the idea of big premiums for a buyback. Rightly or wrongly the market values the company at a certain price. If you want to distribute capital, distribute it to everyone pro rata. Offering a premium turns the question of whether you want to hold or not hold a share into a question of whether the price offered is excessive, which imho I don't think is right.

TwoGood2Die, you've now suggested multiple times that the company should buy back shares at a massive premium to the current share price. As far as I'm aware, that simply does not happen with tender offers - instead the purchase price is at a recent share price close or sometimes a slight e.g. 5% premium. If you have any examples of tender offers being priced at a massive premium then I'd be interested to read about them.

By the way, that's not to say that in a fair world the price would be 40p. I think such a tender offer price would expose the directors to a MAR risk.