Member Info for Nanonano

All companies must be well aware of Nanoco and its products by now, and plenty have come and kicked the tyres.

The company would do well to update its website and associated social media. Linkedin still lists Merck as a customer, FB hasn't been updated since 2018.

"Collaboration between Aledia, QustomDot and XTPL has led to significant improvements in the color conversion module, including the successful printing of InP-based quantum dot inks in the BamBam cavities. "

Cad-free quantum dots, so either an infringer or a partner.

It's good to see something on their Twitter feed that's relevant to the business for a change, instead of fluff about mountain walks etc.

Really though we need to see some news on sales, and there seems to be silence. Display materials have been ready and waiting for years now with no sign of commercial revenue, and sensor materials look to be going the same direction.

Will see what they have to say in few weeks, but I am not expecting much beyond the usual "expectations and potential market opportunities" spiel.

I see Nanoco updated its Twitter feed yestereday with something about World Suicide prevention day. Is this timely for their long suffering investor base I wonder?

One potential alternative to a takeover would be to seek a strategic partner in display or sensing that was willing to invest in the company, perhaps purchase a percentage, all assuming an OEM is interested enough in Nanoco's technology.

Posting more fiction again TG2D. Gen 1 and Gen 2 is in relation to infrared QD's- different chemistry to those used in display.

I think if there's a deal to be done, it may be more likely they'd look to take out a license, either the OEM or the supplier of QD's.

Naturally there is the risk they may seek to infringe like Samsung.

Well Samsung don't make LCD screens anymore, they buy them in from companies like TCL, then add their own stuff to the screen.

I understand that apart from a small amount of production in Taiwan, all LCD manufacture is now in China.

You can't sell the staff, they're not for sale. The staff can choose to remain with a change of ownership.

The IP will be worth what someone is prepared to pay for it, really I think you need more than one bidder to push the value up. I think the recent scandal regarding TCL could possibly provide an opportunity in display if their use of cadmium QD's has to be so low as to be non-existent, they may want to switch to a cad-free alternative, or they may simply improve their quality control.

Just repeating the same stuff over and over again TG2D, change the record.

I think we're all well aware the company faces challenges, we're down but not out.

If Milkwood are looking to push to 5% or more, they may get busy if they're known for being activist investors.

The main tech that QS Ltd seem to have that perhaps Nanoco don't is the ability to apply the dots in a single action. Whether that would move the needle much with OEMS or Nanoco can or already have developed their own version, who can say?

LG Nanocell never claimed to have QD's in them. They used a KSF Narrowband phosphor, I believe a lot of the cheaper QD TV's also use this phosphor to reduce the amount of QDs required.

LG's QNED TV's are supposed to have QD's in them. From what I've seen of them in the shops, the picture does not look as punchy as Samsung QLED TV's.

Some are now suggesting a standard needs putting in place for manufacturers to use the QLED or QD label on sets. This could prove interesting, especially if companies would have to increase the amount of dots in the films to comply with such standards. Sadly such bureaucracy takes time, e.g. RoHs, but a company like TCl which is aggressively targeting Worldwide markets might want to act with speed if its product image takes a bashing.

Interesting. I wonder if this too is the TV brand Nanoco said had no QD's in?

https://displaydaily.com/qd-controversy-doesnt-look-good-for-tcl-tvs/

Beyond the time/cash available to the company, the biggest issue I see to R&D for in-house development lies with how much IP is exclusive to STMicro and how much Nanoco will be able to use of their own without infringing there work.

With an in-house lab they ought to be able o have products ready within a few months, and without additional custom they’ll need to.

Why use SWIR instead of NIR. SWIR at a certain frequency has a much higher attenuation in the atmosphere than NIR, which means that any artificial illumination - lasers, LED’s etc works more effectively. SWIR can also more effectively punch through things like smoke, sunglasses etc.

Isocell sensors are using special techniques to prevent pixel crosstalk and to really wring out maximum sensitivity in the 940nm NIR area.

A QD based IR sensor should enable the sensor to be mounted invisibly behind the screen, increase sensitivity,range and/or reduce power consumption and also permit use in bright sunlight where current face ID tends can be problematic.

"When did Brian disclose this"

Did he not say that they expected adoption of SWIR sensors in handsets in 2026. Looks a bit tenuous now after they canned Gen 2. Asian customer development won't be ready by then will they?

STM are not distressed. The whole semiconductor industry is in a bit of a reset at present, but STMicro are hardly on their uppers.

"What do you know about these other 7-8 customers?"

They were of small or insignificant levels of business, but only informed of this after they'd been given the elbow, and then only when prompted by questioning.

I don't see any circumstance where STMicro would buy sensors from Samsung- they make their own. I think it more likely they're just taking a different approach and focusing on other market areas.

Where Samsung come in is with their collaboration with Metalenz and the Polar ID system, which offers a serious level of competition to Apple's Face ID for a much lower cost. It uses a Samsung ISOCELL Vizion 931 sensor operating in NIR (which doesn't need QD's, although they can increase efficiency),

https://metalenz.com/polareyes-polarization-imaging-system/polar-id/

It seems Polar ID is earmarked for Android platform mobiles, but it may have diverted interest away from sensors that StMicro were punting- assuming they were aiming at the handset market.

It also won't have gone unnoticed at Apple HQ, although I never really saw them as a contender for the use of Gen 1 tech in handsets. With the cancellation of Gen 2 with STMicro, it would appear they're not interested in that either.