I see no future where infra red sensing doesn’t explode, and silicon has to be the platform. Place your bets on the winners and losers. Nano couldn’t be placed better to exploit. There are no guarantees, and the biggest threat for me is the current management team. Proven track record on research, yet to be convinced they can scale.
NGR, you’re clearly not in a consumer electronics high volume consumer business. We’re not talking capital, we’re talking about process dev on a BOM to ramp for what most manufacturers would deem eye watering daily production volumes (albeit lower on this one, but the process is the same). It takes months to dial in such a process, honestly, and there’s just no way what you describe even vaguely fits this business, sorry.
Frustrating website and user I/f! Not wasting time trying to repeat that longwinded reply to you Nanonano regarding ‘just in time’ manufacturing methods you mentioned, just for the website to crash on me again!
In summary, there is a very big difference between stable running high volume production and component sourcing strategies, and the early process development phase which is very messy and is when a new production for scale is being dialled in. Honestly, all BOM for the initial stock requirement for release would have been purchased a while ago, or at least is being dropped as per a schedule during these months, and a lot of it will have been consumed already. Stock requirements will be hit by end of year and then process improvements start ready for full release.
If we haven’t received orders for components for this product months ago then we aren’t in it. Not this version at least. And perhaps we have delivered for this phase already, and volumes are so small for us that they are just covered by these development contracts we supply to. But we aren’t expecting an imminent order for initial release volumes for this product, that date passed ages ago.
The ramp for Vision pro started months ago, and sizeable volumes already being put on the shelf (not stores yet), so I was surprised people still holding out hope for that product for us. Good news you’ve found another contender. Thanks Nanonano
“ Revenue increased by 128% to £5.6 million (2022: £2.5 million), driven by the licence income from the Samsung licencing contract.”
Can someone explain this please.
Which bit about confidential supply agreements post patent settlement is baffling to you Lord? The specifics of this case or the general concept?
That’s the thing about confidential supply agreements, they tend to not be disclosed.
Supply agreement not royalties,
But as I say I don’t hold out much hope.
If you say so
NGR- Please explain why you expect something to appear magically in the results that hasn’t already been disclosed
kind of obvious really isn’t it? Financials cannot be hidden in accounts, but customers are rarely revealed and not if it is explicitly forbidden by terms in another legal agreement.
BC - a confidential ongoing supply agreement as part of the settlement is about the only thing that makes the deal make sense to me as a shareholder, and the accounts would be the first time this would be revealed, assuming supply had ramped by now. I wouldn’t go down to Ladbrookes on the chances personally though as I prefer the logic fit that longer term stability of the company, and its employees, was put ahead of any medium term shareholder value considerations. So if no evidence in the accounts, the chairman and CEO positions are untenable imo
.
IT- you still not worked out that invalidity is very different to the lack of validation? Really?
Well if there were any remaining hopes that any form of ongoing supply arrangement exists with Samsung as part of an undisclosed deal in the settlement then now it would have to show up in the results. If nothing appears in these results then it truly was the worst settlement you could have imagined from the position we were in pre-trial.
As expected
Another valuable insight.
And another easy post to report.
Intrusive. “ The technology (particularly 2D, which has effectively been validated also)”.
False, and has been pointed out many times.
Let’s stick to the facts.
Unless you can give a logical explanation as to why you believe that, which would be if nothing else an entertaining read.
Final assembly is already ramping
Qdnano, you’ve clearly never worked in Apple’s supply chain and what you say makes no sense. Ddubya is on the money, Apple drive just about the hardest bargains there are in manufacturing due to their size and hence ‘buying power’. You may have heard of this term?
Some supply contracts with Apple cause suppliers to ultimately fold as they chase the ultimate prize and then pay the ultimate price.
Personally I think if news were to leak that we were supplying into an end user Apple product the share price would rally significantly due to future potential and strong ongoing supply contract, but the details of the deal would be mirky at best, and in all likelihood we would never hear directly that we were supplying to this end customer- that info is guarded strongly.
65m
Best make it swift then
Disagree Bonzoful, Vendor assurance rarely goes into that detail, a replacement of some board members shouldn’t have any impact on sales activities in my experience. More in agreement if it were the whole board due to the internal disarray it would cause.
NGR
And when do you foresee the organic business potential giving rise to a share price higher than 55p?
I’m confused why you didn’t sell your entire holding at 55p NGR with that foresight