Member Info for NGR1616

Nanonano are cheap CMOS SWIR sensors available in the $1 range before now for mass production? My point is Nanoco Gen1 material has enabled their availability.

Feeks I agree there is little reason for optimism in the RNS but there’s also an overreaction and invention in some cases by some on here or misleading interpretation or commentary by others.

It’s literally not the case that Gen1 is not going to deliver future revenue, only that it’s been delayed. Had a supply agreement been cancelled I can assure you the company would have to tell us. They haven’t.

Gen 1 despite being Pb based is an early enabler for SWIR sensing and I expect once the sensors have been evaluated by OEM’s for device development that demand will grow hence the financial guidance for growth before Gen2.

They expected demand to be higher and faster than what has eventuated. Doesn’t mean there won’t be more orders and growth to come though. It’s a delay. Not the end of the world.

*here

Sock puppets does make me laugh though as every time he says it I just picture his sex life

Do you work for Proactive? Would make sense.

TG2D you are one of the main protagonists here. You write eloquently at times save for the odd misstep on grammar, but most of what you write is biased from your prejudice and worse, without fact.

there's plenty of made up ****....

I am firmly of the view that this is a mountain made from a mole hill. Gen 1 is not dead as if it were then we'd have to be advised as such. Gen1 was only being considered for modest revenue and all that's happened is the guidance has been modestly adjusted. Personally I think some of the analysts as I said at the time have overblown the RNS and added information that the company hasn't released via RNS. I don't subscribe to the notion there was a call with Peel Hunt that allows them to provide a different interpretation.

Proactives piece is flawed and whilst they do write some good articles they don't always get it right. It does not stipulate that "this year" ends on the 31st of July giving the impression it's CY24 hence nothing for 6 months at least and they conveniently missed out the part about an October update. Thats sloppy and likely an oversight but it's misleading none the less.

Peel Hunt are also not expressing what I believe the RNS was saying accurately. They have extrapolated that this means effectively there will be no Gen 1 material sold again as we wait for Gen 2, which again I think is misleading wilfully or otherwise. If lead is the problem, I very much doubt that ST would have gone this far and development work would have ended sometime ago. The timelines don't support the theory Gen 1 is not a suitable product and given it had to undergo a thorough validation process, why would ST reach that conclusion now just as it launches a new family of sensors that if they don't already contain Nanoco QD's -I believe they will do so soon. Would Apple use Pb? Maybe not. Would a robot vacuum manufacturer or some other machine vision camera system manufacturer have the same concerns? I doubt it. Gen 2 can do some things Gen 1 can't but that doesn't mean Gen 1 is substandard and indeed Gen 1 may be sold along side Gen 2 in future for all we know if it's cheaper than Gen 2.

The report show growing revenue in FY25 and 26 that can't be coming from Gen 2.....so where is it coming from if not Gen 1? Paid for research?

Yes of course you could take that view Kooba and I'd be surprised if you didn't but for me they are not able to fly yet and only adoption of this still new technology (despite patent age) leading to stable and repeating revenues and profit will change my opinion that they are still a fledgling company.

TG2D yeah cos that makes sense doesn’t it? Grow up.

these reports really can only be viewed as follows:

1. nanoco are taking the **** and they are wilfully misleading investors for as long as possible and the next update will be equally disappointing

2. the delay has subsequent sharp drop is completely overblown as the value of the following order was expected to be low value

problem is nanoco on balance has had more false dawns than anyone would want, but that’s the risk with what i still consider a fledgling company.

Https://www.edisongroup.com/research/visibility-pushed-back/33783/

The first thing I’m going to do is not listen to the musings of a fantasist.

Although……there could have been an order today….

I’ll go with that.

Kooba PH stated no further orders this year without and mention of it being FY or CY. Are you suggesting PH have been told by Nanoco that it’s CY but we’re being told differently in the RNS?

There is evidence in presentation materials around the sensors, die sizes, performance, common image examples, use of QD film for enabling small form factor and correlation in launch dates of VD55G1 and evaluation kits. Is it conclusive? No. But it is evidence none the less.

I’d confidently rate the chance of QD films being included as 10/10 for 940Nm performance.

However it remains possible that the QD film has been removed from the photodiode hence the deletion of the 940Nm from data sheets and VD511G is not carrying Nanoco materials.

I’m as certain as all the other stuff being written. Good enough for you not to challenge or correct anyone else right?