Member Info for NGR1616

A quote from a mediocre fantasy romantic novelist no less……are you she? Your posting history would certainly back up the theory.

It’s 2 days after the date they expected the second tranche.

Patience is a virtue.

You are so crass TG2D. Have some respect.

I looked here and saw 12 posts and was hopeful of something interesting……..

Instead this mostly Troublesome)

Meanwhile the shares have been flying off the shelves like out of date prawns……

I was thinking along somewhat similar lines - this will sound a little Rumsfeld; but I believe that they believe they are not the only company who can provide the technology but I also believe that they believe they are at a stage where they are the only ones who can provide what's needed now, to enable the launch of devices that are SWIR CMOS enabled and most likely to be found in devices should they do a tear down. Whilst the other co's are a few steps behind and may catch up and overtake Nanoco ultimately, I doubt the OEM's will wait if they think they can get a new market share launching devices now and Nanoco seems to be the best placed to satisfy the supply requirements because of the STM JDA. But let's not forget the Asian Customer is considered to be one of the two leading optical sensor companies along with STM so we could have two bites at the Apple.....

What're the view about STM's mass production of the VG55G1 versus the likelihood of it being in AVP that is apparently already in production?

Is it possible there's another STM global shutter image sensor already launched that's in AVP that might contain Nanoco materials

or

is the March launch date a red herring? Perhaps "mass production" of the sensor is on scale that far exceeds what has been produced and provided already to enable Apple to launch AVP in the 200,00 unit scale?

Or are we simply barking up the wrong tree?

I listened to the Q&A thanks for the link. Definitely worth listening to. Thanks.

Some pretty big revenue numbers being bandied about but if they have confidence that our dots are the only ones that can enable the wider adoption of SWIR sensors in a timeframe before other companies come up with competing technologies then why wouldn’t we be in most new smartphones and wearables in the next 2-5 years ?

Display is still something I have confidence in with the forecast growth in CFQD enabled TV’s outside of Samsung.

Perhaps the company is staying cash flow negative for good reason……

There are already snide comments from the usual crew

Perhaps they want a NED onboard to ratify the return to avoid the inevitable accusations that are already being made….

Whatever the mechanism I hope the company gives guidance with it so the less knowledgeable amongst us (I include myself in this) can make informed decisions that are best for the individuals situation to ensure we actually benefit from the return and not have it syphoned off somehow….

Was looking at that earlier Kooba. It throws up more questions than it answers especially in relation to timescales and customers and materials and applications.

Daz apologies I thought you meant the Humanes AI Pin.... but you meant the sensors themselves.

So yes I agree the market is far larger than AVP.

Daz it's new to me. I'm not sure I'd want that in addition to Siri for example which is due an AI upgrade on iOS18

You muppets got anything constructive to add. All you seem to do is post utter nonsense.

ST’s new VD55G1 is sampling now, with volume production slated for March 2024 as described previously

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2023/12/07/2792565/0/en/STMicroelectronics-reveals-a-new-global-shutter-image-sensor-that-offers-high-resolution-in-a-compact-form-factor-and-low-power-consumption.html

AVP launched 19th Jan with first deliveries 2nd Feb and most of the 200,000 will be delivered by the end of Feb/early March according to at least one source.

Something doesn't add up.

Makes sense. ST unlikely to be in the production line, rather a component supplier

"The funders may have been contractually bound to see any legal action through, but funding the operations of Nanoco is not their concern."

Good point. TH wanted to make the company an IP shell and this would have been at the cost of the organic business and focused only in my view in extracting the maximum outcome in court....a risky strategy.

BeContrarian I agree I was thinking about this driving home last night.....BT should have kept the whole thing confidential until the details of the settlement were published. Question is though, would he be able to do that if for example there is another identified IP infringement from a regulatory perspective....court proceedings should be private affairs so no need to discuss it publicly as there's no information in the public domain.....except there was in the case of Samsung.

But was it price sensitve?