Member Info for Nanonano

Unless Apple have another screen supplier ready for large volume, then a second AR/VR device is very unlikely for at least a year or two, because they've maxed out the supply of OLED on silicone for Vision Pro, and cannot meet their original production targets for that model, let alone introduce a second trimmed down version.

If Apple can develop a reliable blood glucose monitor integrated into their watch, every diabetic will want one, especially if they’re type 1.

Https://www.zdnet.com/article/10-ways-apple-plans-to-revolutionize-health-tracking-according-to-a-report/

Samsung were originally pitching for an early 2024 launch, but went back to the drawing board when they saw the Vision Pro.

I understand much of the redesign is around the displays and processor. Pundits reckon initial volume may be as low as 30k sets, which makes the 400k sets from Apple look almost profligate.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/samsung-and-google-reboot-vr-headset-plans-to-challenge-vision-pro-now-targeting-end-of-2024-report/

December 2024, 13 months away.

Absolutely (although AR/VR is a growth sector). Phones, smartwatches, IOT, automotive are where the big volumes are. Think they'll need those second generation materials for those areas though.

I think we need to see whether the sensors will be used in the Vision Pro before speculating about further market share.

it seems the best fit for me, but we won't know for sure until we get to see a teardown of one of the Apple sets, and that's months away. The Vision Pro has already resulted in a return to the lab for Samsung and Google to reengineer their own devices, so if it turns out that it uses QD sensors for it's interface, then the market may scale quite quickly.

In the meantime we just need to wait for that first contract to be inked, about 7.5 weeks until end of 2023.

Then, regardless of application, the company at least has commercial sales.

We know that STMicro have working sensors with QD's in them, we've seen them being displayed at videos of shows.

Whether they're on a PCB board at a show, or in a pre-production product, it's still in R&D phase until they go fully commercial.

I don't know how many Apple Vision Pro headset are out there, but I'd be surprised if it was more than a few dozen- that wouldn't require a lot of material, and the spec of the sensor could be tweaked before production.

I do recall seeing articles about the Vision Pro saying that the external 'Eyesight' feature wasn't working at the demo in June. This suggests that Apple had to publicly display the product before they wished to, as release was already very late and too many details were leaking.

Likely speculative, but first time I've seen someone assign a month to it. Nudging over the first quarter a bit. Might explain late contract for STMicro?

https://tinyurl.com/4mwwcf6k

The company themselves have said that automotive applications are not applicable to 1st generation materials as they’re not resistant enough to elevated temperatures. I had read about this before elsewhere, but it was helpful for the company to confirm as such.

How do you suppose Apple are achieving iris recognition, that needs both high resolution, has to be fast and eye safe for all different types of iris

Nanoco have stated more than once they’ve been shown the production schedules for whatever device the dots are supposed to be going in.

A more interesting post than most on here regarding supply schedules.

I simply don’t know what the supply window is, however if the potential supply agreement isn’t for Apple Vision Pro, it poses more questions than answers.

1. Why has the timetable constantly slipped inline with the delayed release of the device?

2. How have Apple or its sensor suppliers managed to achieve iris scanning and highly sensitive IR sensing without use of QD sensors?

3. What other application may be using these sensors for a low volume (millions) order?

"A fortnights work - OMG, some people have been waiting patiently for such astounding news !"

With years of R&D work behind it.

"When are Apple going to make these devices? Surely they need some sensors. Invoice? Payment?"

Just in time, which is the system they operate on. I'm going to assume they're going to get a certain number built to stock Apple stores in the US, then continue production through the year. Bearing in mind predicted production numbers, even if every single infra-red sensor in the headset used QD's, which seems unlikely, but not impossible, I believe you'd be looking at around enough dots for 4m sensors, which is probably about a fortnights work for Nanoco if they're suggesting a contract for dots in say a handset at 100m devices per annum would be a weeks full shift for the present set-up.

"There is virtually no reason to believe that it will happen by December."

IMO there is, and it's simple. Apple have formally shown the Vision Pro and publicly stated it's slated for release early 2024. A specific date for release would have been helpful, and of course we don't know for sure that this device will incorporate nanoco technology, but I'm cautiously optimistic.

Prior to June this year the Vision Pro was just vapour wear.

If the first application is the Vision Pro, which looks mostly likely to me, indications are the first year is limited to 400k headsets, which is half the volume Apple were originally expecting to produce.

The issue appears to be the OLED on silicone screens- Sony just can't make more than about a million screens a year, and you need two per headset, and Sony want to keep some back for themselves, so that means 80% of their facility is given over to Visio Pro screen production.

I believe Apple are trying to get more capacity, but Sony seem to be resistant to invest in increased capacity to support such a new device, although I suspect they're angling for more money from Apple. BOE have some screens of a similar spec, perhaps they'll use those.

Clearly this will have an impact on sensor volumes too, and perhaps negotiations over price are part of the holdup. Who knows, well someone does but they're not letting on.

Going concern at the time, based on expected contracts in FY23, lots of risk.

Since then what has happened, delayed sensor materials contract, lowered expectations of sales volume, at least initially plus inflationary pressures. Pretty sure they wouldn't have been able to sign off as a going concern for FY25.

Looking at the accounts from July 2022 they had around £6.8m, with a cash burn of around £2.3m per year, that may have taken them through to middle of 2025, but it assumed the current cash burn remained the same (inflation running high) and the development contracts remained in place.

We've already seen a rise in costs since then, and with a delay in Sensor materials, I think there was a real possibility that the company would have had to raise cash next year, if not this year, if they hadn't done a deal.

"The net to the company is a small percentage of the figures you present."

I said they settled for about 23% of $660m which is close enough to $150m. That left them with $90m once the funders and legal costs were covered, with the load notes paid off should leave the company with about half the amount e.g. $75m or about £60m once converted into coin of the realm, which is about where we're at, no?

Still arguing over the settlement, jeez.

Look personally I don't think the court papers would have made things clearer for investment, bearing in mind that the lowest damages award was $6.60 per set. We know from Samsung's figures they sold around 42m sets to I believe 2021 or 22, and are presently pushing out around 10-12m sets per year, so for the lifetimes of the patents to say 2028. So you're looking at around 100m sets, or $660m if you use the low-end damages model presented in the court papers.

Not sure what the Samsung figure was for damages, was that ever disclosed? It was apparently much lower than $6.60 per set.

They settled for about 23% of $660m, including the sale of some ip and pocketed about 50% once they'd paid off all the legal costs, loans etc.

That was disappointing BUT, it's a done deal that has at least secured the future of the company for the foreseeable future, and given it the headroom it needs to execute a medium-term strategy to profitability. I think after 2019 the company was basically rebooted. If you're going to remain invested you need accept it or move on. Management aren't going anywhere, and it's just a waste of life complaining about a legally signed deal.