Member Info for sweepydog2

A few days ago when Apple launched a trio of iPhones and a highly affordable iPad, one simultaneous announcement went largely unreported. It was for Clips, an Apple-made app which aims to take advantage of the current fad for sharing quick, fun videos, whether on Instagram Stories, Snapchat or Facebook. The app is just about to go live on the App Store and I’ve been testing it out. It’s not unusual that Apple isn’t first to a party – it always prizes doing it right above doing it first. So you’d expect Clips to be super-easy to use and highly effective. Well, that’s what it is. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidphelan/2017/04/06/clips-the-most-fun-thing-apple-has-done-in-a-long-while-first-review/#34a484e5c545

can be used on iPhone5 and later models. It appears that this amounts to 681M phones able to down load it for free! But of course AAPL will make their money on Cloud storage charges. If it is based on FBT products the next RNS should be very interesting reading.

features are assessed independently: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/06/apples-clips-app-is-social-video-editing-thats-simple-to-a-fault/

http://www.forscene.com/blog/captivate-music-fans-with-social-media

The piece was written after the Edinburgh Fringe Festival 2015 but before the Festivals in 2016. So the POC developments with FBT would only just be in place if at all when it was put together. See the comment in the final paragraph: "BBC R&D is going back to Edinburgh Festivals in 2016 to trial several new technologies for near-live production"

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/3148508/apple-clips-new-app-film-edit-snapchat/

anything to do with this: http://www.apple.com/uk/clips/

of Imagination Technologies of over reliance on a single customer (AAPL) must be causing the BoD of FBT concern. They will need to tie up any agreement with major corporations very tightly to avoid a similar fate and make sure their key employees are similarly debarred from taking know how and expertise learned at FBT to competitors/customers.

The Preliminary Accounts did not carry an auditors report. My issue is why it was published when three days previously the CFO and the auditors had signed off on the audited accounts. Why publish an out of date document when you've had the definitive Accounts in your hands for 72 hours? And then it does get published on 30th March, 2017 which has no relevance as a date except that it ends the close period. I have never seen something like this in over 30 years of dealing with listed companies, perhaps I was just lucky!

Just to complete the picture the Annual Accounts which were signed off by the CFO and the Auditors on 10th March, 2017 were published on 30th March, 2017. Their publication brought to an end the close period. My original question still stands: why if the Accounts had been signed off did FBT publish unaudited Preliminary Accounts 3 days after the audited accounts were signed? Incompetence or what?

The form accompanying the RNS specifically refers to an initial grant of a new option. They didn't have a right to acquire shares before it was granted. No matter how you slice it they have got something which is potentially very valuable at a knockdown price. They alone at the moment know whether the BBC and others have indicated that they are content with the previously announced POC, have not indicated or have said they will not go ahead. That knowledge gives them a privileged position. The company is not in a close period as the audited financial statements for 2016 have been available on the website for some time.

The problem is where you draw the line in the duty of utmost good faith (stress on the "utmost" as it's a stringent requirement not do it if you feel like it) that directors owe to shareholders. What if the price of a share falls because the market is disappointed in the company's performance and the directors buy at the low level. Well that sounds admirable. But what if the directors knew of 5 possible new contracts that could mean the company's performance would be greatly enhanced and held back on issuing news until the deals were signed after they bought the shares? What if they knew that a deal was so certain that all of the legal paperwork was done and only their signature was required to put it into place but held back on releasing the news? The law doesn't say where the line is exactly but there is a line. It's like the catch all charge of "conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman" ...difficult to define but you know it when you see it.

I wonder whether the director of the largest II was consulted? If I was invested in his fund and knew that he had paid 66% more than the directors now just have a few months ago I would not be at all happy. It may all be legal but it doesn't come near the duty of "utmost good faith" that directors are supposed to observe more like "unjust enrichment". I look forward to the next RNS when all shareholders get a similar level of reward.

David Main Non-Executive Chairman 500,000 6.0p Andrew Bentley Non-Executive Director 200,000 6.0p James Irving Non-Executive Director 200,000 6.0p Stephen Streater Chief Technical Officer 250,000 6.0p Jonathan Lees Chief Financial Officer 250,000 6.0p Rewarding the 50% drop in the SP since October 2016 or preparing for a major shift upwards?

how on 13/03/2017 the Preliminary Results were published when the final fully audited accounts were signed off 3 days before? It's there in the full set published now on FBT's website - look at the date of Kingston Smith's report. Why on earth would they publish figures as Preliminary when they had the fully audited figures to hand?

look like good news but are they each new customers or one existing customer? Does 16 represent the best month ever? Is it part of a major upward trend? AND why oh why don't FBT publish this type of information for shareholders on the part of their site dedicated to shareholders. It's almost as if they want to bury it.... where do I look - on Blogs for Eva, Captevate, Forscene, on Twitter or wherever. I just don't have the time... so as far as I know unless somebody picks it up and publishes it here it hasn't happened: perception is Cloud reality.

Very interesting... as Ernst Stavro Blofeld might be tempted to say. A screen of red then the MM to the rescue and afterwards a screen of blue: not a single red until close of play. I suspect Smersh, the EU, Trump... no it must be May the Magnificent! Whoever it is I'm definitely not selling.

that the market doesn't believe the BBC et al will take on Forscene. But we know a lot of BBC staff are putting Forscene of their CVs. Avid seem to be losing market share and that must be going somewhere especially as the market for Cloud based products is growing quickly. Delatre were happy to renew for more and for longer only a few months ago. From a shareholders perspective the problem seems to be that FBT are obsessed with making videos of how Forscene can be used and how it performs. They don't say anything about new customers unless it rates an RNS. A lot of other AIM companies put out Trade PR knowing that there is a lot to be gained from showing that their products span the entire market and not just the major players. Perhaps FBT should try it?

there being no purchases yesterday or so far today the sell price shown by HL has risen to 6.7p which implies either a very narrow spread or a rise in the buy price to around 7.2p Its all very odd market behaviour presumably caused by the wait for news to be published

at British Bulls. https://www.britishbulls.com/SignalPage.aspx?lang=en&Ticker=FBT.L