Member Info for Nanonano

More on the Apple AR. Timeline tally with revised NAnoco timeline for sensor commercialisation.

"With the Reality headset — which I detailed in-depth here — Apple is preparing for a future beyond the iPhone and iPad. I’m told the device will come with a clear story for developers — in terms of how they’ll want to use it — and much of the weeklong conference will showcase the headset’s on-board App Store and accompanying tools.

Many executives at the company believe the device will have a slow start but eventually has the opportunity to replace the iPhone. In any case, the headset is unlikely to go on sale for several months after its unveiling, giving developers time to create mixed-reality apps and services.

Apple has apparently planned to launch their Apple AR/VR Headset headset around September time, this was when the device was due to be unveiled at a press event in March, but this event was delayed. Now it looks like the new Apple AR and VR device will go on sale just in time for the holidays so probably sometime in November or early December. As soon as we get some more information about the device we will let you know."

https://www.geeky-gadgets.com/more-details-on-the-apple-ar-vr-headset-17-04-2023/

A multiple would be at the very least twice.

The CEO was content to allow communications that painted a sexed-up opinion of the value of the litigation out there in the public domain. I think that was poor.

On the other hand if he'd poured cold water on it, then investors would have been outraged that he'd tanked the share price, as most would have ditched the share and moved on.

I believe investor confidence in the company is at its lowest point since 2019 following the Apple contract cancellation, but the company is in a very different position to back then when there was real risk the company would collapse, or be reduced to an IP shell.

Obviously you haven’t got a clue where the tech is likely to be used in the VR device, not the displays but the sensors.

Potentially incorporating QD's.

https://www.phonearena.com/ar-vr/news/apple-metalense-ipad-iphone-ar-glasses_id146880

If the company cannot secure commercial orders, I’d agree that it even present prices would over value the company, after all those who have been invested in the past know what value the market places on Nanoco’s patents, albeit at the time untested against the PTAB.

I disagree that the executive team are purely out for themselves. I believe they’re playing a long game, which is undoubtedly not without risk. We’re back to that cake and cherry analogy again.

June is the pundits forecast for a public show of the device Apple, production may come some months later though, but I would expect devices to be available within six months of it being shown off. Nanoco said they expected a sign off for the material(s) in July, so production could occur anytime after that.

It will be important for the company to retain some funds for R&D and possible expansion, although the latter can be more easily funded through debt than the former if it’s linked to a contract and income.

That would greatly depend on the state of play with other business. Also any distribution of cash may be lower, delayed or come in the form of a buyback.

Nanoco stated in the interims they expect a commercial contract in place by the end of this year.

I believe it will coincide with the Apple AR device, so although ‘by December 2023’ was the timeline, I would expect late Summer or early Autumn, unless further delays occur, which I think is less likely with the amount of media speculation about an unveiling at Apple’s WWDC in June.

How many sensors such a device is likely to require with QD’s is open to debate. I would say at least two, with a possibility of four or more per device, operating both in SWIR and NIR.

I’m just looking at it from a market perspective. Clearly the share price rallied on the outcome of the Samsung case, and fell on the result of the settlement. I expect most investors are oblivious to the prospects for other markets.

From a personal perspective I remain confident, I do not believe that the CEO would have agreed to the Samsung settlement amount if they thought that was the only card in the pack, and I think there are better things to come.

Any reservations centre on how much of the future market Nanoco can secure, and whether it can remain ahead of competitors with relevant technology that finds commercial traction.

I believe the company value will be stuck in the doldrums until they can deliver some cast iron evidence of a commercial contract. Even then it may not really take off until investors see some solid recurring business, confidence has been badly affected by the amount agreed in the Samsung case aligned with past disappointments.

As a very senior board member and company founder, I would expect the CTO would have been very much involved in the decision to settle or not.

I look more at the CTO, who has maintained his +11m: share holding. He’s certainly seen quite a fall in his holding, much higher than is likely to be realised from his company salary.

Nanosys are like a puffer fish, they make themselves look larger than they really are. They lay claim to Samsung QLED without being specific about the source of dots, and because Samsung license some of their patents, they can rightfully claim that the screens use their IP, but it’s probably worth very little to them beyond kudos amongst those ignorant of Hansol and Nanoco.

Nanosys have needed several rounds of funding in order to grow and remain viable, is that what you’d expect to see if they’d been responsible for the volume of screens they’d have you believe they’ve supplied dots for?

They’re probably counting the full weight of the Qd’s plus the medium used to preserve them until they’re encapsulated in a resin or film.

Do they give you a special little pointed cap with your letter on?

Perhaps able to see right through them with the SWIR.

http://image-sensors-world.blogspot.com/2023/04/quantum-dot-based-image-sensors-ieee.html?m=1

I think one of the factors holding back wider adoption of SWIR at this stage might be the efficiency of the illumination sources. LED’s in the SWIR band are much less efficient, up to a fifth of the efficiency of those operating in NIR band, and that”s got to be a major issue for mobile devices even if the efficiency is improved tenfold. With QD enhancement of NIR sensors that could make that band about sixty times more efficient than SWIR at present, so the application really has to be required to make it worthwhile, rather than a ‘nice to have’.

Is this another nigwit nom de plume?

Material b is in development for ir sensors. There’s also a material c in development, which I also believes is highly relevant to the cfqd patents. These are both improved materials from material A, which I believe is lead sulphide, which Nanoco have stated is far from exclusive, but that they have some trade secrets and confidential IP specific to application of the material and producing it to consistent results required for mass production.