Member Info for Nanonano

If it transpires that at this relatively early stage for QD enhanced CMOS STMicro will be supplying sensors not only for VR but also handsets, I'll be delighted, as it'll be totally transformational for Nanoco.

It would fly totally in the face of all independent evidence I've seen to date though. We'll see I guess.

Could also make things a heck of a lot worse. Comes across as a coup to me, someone got sniff of something big in the offing and looking to take advantage of disappointed investors post-Samsung settlement.

I want to wait and see what transpires with STMicro, before looking at any change of guard.

The Kaist vs Samsung seems to have got bogged down in some real murky business.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=941d8656-0eb6-455a-9101-56459d0ad8a2

Reports in online media are suggesting Apple’s AR headset is slated for production in October for a December release.

https://www.macrumors.com/2023/06/02/apple-headset-october-production-report/

I'm quietly confident it won't come to that.

Agree. However there may still be some holders who purchased when the company was at its lowest point or three or four years ago and can still dial in a reasonable profit even at these levels, and fancy their chances with another company. There's a lot of value in the market right now.

They have to deliver some real evidence of recurring revenue enough to sustain the business and beyond to convince me. Anything short of that is unacceptable, because the present board has had years now to execute strategy, and the Samsung settlement is a one hit wonder, which isn't evidence of a viable business going forward.

I posted a link regarding this last week. Not sure if there is any relevance to Nanoco, beyond perhaps an additional competitor in display, which they need like a hole in the head.

Don’t think there should be any debate that the settlement fell far short of any expectations be they from Edison, TPI or court documents. Declaring the court dockets a reliable indicator of potential award, when it only accounted for historic US sales to 2021 rather than worldwide sales past, present and future was specious at best. I’d have thought more of the management team if they’d had the guts to admit they were far out with their estimates rather than come out with such a crock of sh*te.

What happens next is critical, and if this team cannot drum up some decent trade within this calendar year, I find it difficult to justify their positions, as they’re not being paid in chocolate buttons.

Seeing as Nanoco have yet to ink a contract, I’m not sure how any prices can be seen as anything beyond arbitrary to be honest. After all not as if past figures either in court documents or estimated by paid for analysts have been even close to accurate.

I'd suggest that much of the pricing is arbitrary, and it's very much a case of having to wait and see. I think they'll have to drum up a shedload of business to max out Runcorn.

That is assuming present products get to commercialisation.

It does seem more likely this time, but I've been disappointed before.

E.g. https://youtu.be/BDWwHZFFWFY?t=3201

Incorrect, it has come from the company in their Q and A's. They said that a handset would fill a full shift of Runcorn equal to £15m-20m.

I personally thought the £15-20m a year for a handset contract gave some idea of potential revenue for high volume. If we are to assume they're talking about Apple, then they sell about 200m units a year, perhaps a bit more. So that would be around 8-10p per sensor. Perhaps less than the 30p quoted earlier, but no doubt the amount would vary depending on contract volume and application.

If they could net such a contract and with more in the pipeline, the share price could potentially rise well past a pound, which although well short of past Dow contract highs, would be much more satisfactory to the majority of shareholders.

Fair enough. Difficult to find BOMs for all the iphone models, although face ID debuted with iphone X IIRC. I'd be delighted if the first commercialisation is for a iphone handset, as the order book will be enormous and the share price will climb like a monkey IMO. However, I will temper my expectations until the contract is signed and we get some visibility of the order size.

Apple switch around suppliers all the time, I think they've moved between AMS, STMicro and Sony for face ID.

I'll be very happy if it turns out to be iphone, but based on what the pundits are speccing the next few of years of iphone designs, I wasn't expecting QD sensors until 2025.

I gave eight to twelve months for display, as in interims they said late 2023 or (probably more likely) early 2024 for expected Display revenue.

" ST Micro have been supplying Apple with Face ID NIR sensors since the iphone X (fact)"

AMS not STMicro.

The company has given a number of scenarios, from small to quite high ranges. It's from taking information elsewhere that I think it's most likely to be lower volume based on the first usage.

However if they can link this with some display revenue within the next say eight to twelve months, the balance sheet could be looking quite healthy, even if not exactly raking it in.

Here are my thoughts on the various materials, which is pure speculation on my part, and thus may be completely wrong but which to me makes some sense.

Material A is lead sulfide. Material B and C are likely to be heavy metal free, or at least contain less toxic materials that are not subject to Rohs restrictions, but they're not quite ready for commercialisation at this point in time.

The first application of the tech is very likely to be the forthcoming Apple AR headset. Some are speculating it's a handset, but I think it's far too early for that.

Apple doesn't like using any lead in their products, but for a platform that initially is most likely to be pitched at developers and sold in potentially hundreds of thousands rather than tens or hundreds of millions, they're willing to tolerate a small amount in the absence of something better, with a view to using something better on a more consumer focused unit in a year or two when those materials have reached a stage where they can be mass produced at scale.

So I expect initial sales to be modest. Will they be enough to reach break even financially? I'm not sure, and it's difficult for anyone outside of a small circle of those involved with the parties making this stuff to have any idea as we don't know what the price of each sensor will be, how many sensors will be used in each AR set and what percentage of each sensor sale will go to Nanoco.

Perhaps uncertainty in initial volumes for sensors was a factor in taking a lower settlement award and averting another potential cash raise?