Well said. Ditto for WBT. Tech is a hard thing. Getting a working prototype of anything is one thing, taking it to market as a perfected product is an entirely different thing. One thing is clear however: taking a revolutionary tech product to market depends entirely on the idea actually being practicable and worthwhile to start with.
There is a curve, whose name I cannot recall, showing the effort vs time (and cost) to take a great idea to market. If the company can throw money at problems they can get through that curve quickly. But without unlimited funds and a huge tech dept, it is very much a hockey stick curve, inasmuch as it it takes a lot longer and requires a lot more effort and cost to get over the final impediments than all the rest of the development took. This has been where AP has been for the past 5 years IMO. As we saw from the recent staff options issue, they only have 8 rank and file staff to work on these things. There is your answer. Danny lamented the lack of resources at the AGM. Fred responded that no amount of money could have speeded up the rubbish shipping problems. Both are right. There result? Slow.
It takes lots of tolerant patience as all those obstacles get met, and all that necessary development gets done and all of those little wins slowly lead to the final marketable product. For the lovers of instant wealth without effort this makes for an intolerable investment path. There is no shortcut to this other than to only buy in just as the product is launched - which is what most investors mistakenly think every good idea starts out as, including investors in AP. In AP's case the CV had been up there for a long time reflecting the expectation of a product that was imminently close to release, but it was not, and it hit the wall of inevitable complications and slowed down, and investors rapidly tired of what all understood should have been its 'imminent' completion and launch. Following the delays and unfulfilled imminent promises the CV is now down by ~80%.
But that can mean two possible outcomes: one is that it is dead in the water and will never get launched, the other is that all the effort is expended, and all the obstacles get overcome one by one, and all the boxes get ticked off along the way. The appearance of EM and all the announcements pertaining to the state of play suggest (to me at least) that the former is not likely, and the latter increasingly is. GLTAH.
To say this is not dreaming or pumping on my behalf, it is familiarity with tech development in general, but it is also the acceptance of the statements of the company that provide the information. If investors refuse to accept the statements of the company they have invested in, then without doubt they are not comfortable with that company's integrity or intent, and should jump ship and move their funds elsewhere ASAP.
Those are the only rational courses of action.
Expand
(20min delay)