Member Info for Nanonano

You've been punting this line about samples many times now, it's worthless unless backed by company guidance.

This is all just speculation on your part NGR. There is zero guidance to support this, and that's why the share price is where it is.

Perhaps you can point out where in the guidance or in the presentations they said that a commercial sale would be for sampling?

I do recall them saying a low-volume order would likely be for something like a VR/AR headset. If they also thought it might be for sampling, then why not state that- I guess it doesn't sound so sexy.

My main issue is that the company has not named the sensor chips that its QD's are being used in.

Strikes me as inconceivable they would be kept out of the loop in this as they work so closely with their customers. When asked about it, either by error or intent they choose to interpret the question as inquiries about the final product such chips might be used in, which naturally is much higher up the supply chain.

Naturally if information about products higher up in the supply chain is forthcoming , all the better, but at present we have nothing to go on.

So far the settlement and commercial sales have not been positively transformational for shareholder value, not even a little bit.

I'd agree that volume is more important than the exotic nature of any device, although for low volume, some affiliation to a highly regarded item and or brand would have been beneficial.

Reports on iPhone 16 spec seem to indicate no likelihood of under display Face ID, so next year at the earliest.

Of course Nanoco has been linked with big names in the past, Dow being an enormous company, but it didn't realise its potential. Some might reply that was Samsung's fault, but LG also didn't proceed with Nanoco QD's neither did any other display OEM.

I thought the Asian chemicals company might be Shin-etsu, which seemed a good fit to me.

At the end of the day only inked contracts mean cash in the coffers. AMS Osram recently has had to write off hundreds of millions of dollars, having invested heavilt in a manufacturing facility for Apple's Microled which Apple have now reportedly abandoned. I expect they'll claw back some of their losses, but still a huge blow, and the share price has taken a real belting as a result

However they haven't slunk into a corner, and seem to be coming out swinging, and I wonder if this story may have some connection with QD's in time, especially with the background of one our new Non-exec's.

https://www.ledsmagazine.com/leds-ssl-design/article/55040024/ams-ag-bitten-but-not-shy-ams-osram-again-eyes-an-expensive-new-factory

Commercial order for sampling is conjecture. The company has not guided this in anyway, but has stated (at the last interims IIRC) sampling has been ongoing well before the commercial order was placed.

Sampling for millions of devices (the guidance has said low volume equals millions) strikes me as excessive.

Regardless of past performance it’s doubtful the present information is going to be enough to inspire confidence.

We have single order of low volume, where the volume and income is unspecified and the application shrouded in secrecy, and as far as we know it has yet to be repeated/recurring.

Years of positive forward looking statements of a company at the tipping point of large scale commercialisation, they still look like a long way off, assuming they ever arrive.

“ however they must know which sensors these dots are going into for STm.”

I agree, so what is Nanoco’s justification for not informing investors about this? The company seem to interpret this as investors asking about the products the chips will be installed in, which is false, investors simply want to know that what chips ten dots are being used in, because there is nothing to go on from STMicros website. None of the articles, data sheets etc. give any mention to the use of QD technology.

TM58 please tell me where the guidance indicates these are for samples?

Company already stated they and the customer have already been sampling for a long time.

I recall you recommending the same about Saietta?

It's possible they may just got for a hole punch sensor using the polarID sensor from Metalenz, which should work very well and at a fraction of the cost of the structured light sensors they were using in past models. Certainly that's what Android platform are using going forward. If this proves to be the case, it's unlikely to be material to Nanoco, as the Polar ID sensor is using a Samsung sensor with NIR and to the best of my knowledge, no QD's.

For a true under display, that would necessitate a SWIR sensor, and that means a QD sensor.

Lifestyle company for the c-suite. More dilution round the corner, or a sell-off and delisting.

I was linking this more with last years potential for a link up with a display partner this year, which wasn’t expanded upon in this years interims. Does suggest perhaps that partner may have been AMS-Osram, bearing in mind the contract was with Apple and the designs based on QD colour correction.

More here on Apple’s microled cancellation.

https://www.yolegroup.com/strategy-insights/did-apple-just-kill-the-microled-industry/

Well analysts have said that Apple have been one of the key drivers of microled development. They offer higher energy efficiency, higher brightness, no burn in and also permit easier integration of pixels that can operate in non visible spectra like infrared.

Some good information here-

https://youtu.be/Yt9RWT_DnzI?si=bv6wehiVqQ4MDYh8

With regards to the recent cancellation of Apple's microled program and blowback for AMSOSram who were going to be Apple's manufacturing partner, I wonder how this might affect Nanoco's medium term display prospects.

Could just be coincidence that one of the non exec directors was ex-Osram, but I tend to think there was a likely link in there, bearing in mind the Apple tech was looking towards QD colour conversion and they wouldn't want to be using cadmium, so who else were AMS Osram likely to be working with for cad free QD's?

Perhaps Apple will now turn to Samsung for MicroLED, as through their acquisition of Emagin last year they now have a strong foothold in the micro-OLED space, which Apple are reportedly sniffing around.

All this talk of a takeover reads like wishful thinking. On what justification? Things would have to go badly awry to gain acceptance, especially if it was a low ball offer. Plenty of cash to fund the company for years yet, no debt and patents still relevant. Not complacent at all, and the lack of information surrounding the materials order is frustrating.