To, BobFand your adlatus, BobLoblaw - now I'll write an annoying...

To, BobFand your adlatus, BobLoblaw - now I'll write an annoying long comment as oneusually only know it from you.

misterPaul- This is the perfect analysis. Chapeau!

It doesn'tmatter when and where this sound clip was created or what stage of developmentof HW and SW it is based on. Does anyone here believe that competitors haven’tnot already dealt with the file - naive. Even if you can no longer take AKPseriously, you are still interested in what is going on in the market.

The twoBobs in this forum and a few others within the AKP league of religion have beeninsinuating for years that I have no idea about DSR because I find Usound muchmore attractive from an investor's point of view.

Yep - to be honest I never cared for this arrogant attitude. It's not my money that's being burned here.

The only reason I'm on this forum at all is due to the fact that AKP, with very large exceptions, was a possible competitor to Usound 6-7 years ago, with the emphasis on "was". I will get into why in a moment.

Meanwhile,AKP is more of a cautionary tale of how to drive a startup to the wall. Ihaven't seen this many red flags in years. AKP is absolutely leading the way.Even here in Europe, people know that ASX supervision is a laugh. Well payed bureaucratswho don't move their asses. The SEC on the other hand, would have liquidatedthe company long ago or AKP would have been covered by "real"investors with lawsuits because of misleading announcements until it collapsed.Down-Under is different. I know this from painful experience. The"real" had to be because daily volume point exclusively to retailersand small coin gamblers. How many professional deep-tech investors are on boardhere. Did I hear "none"?

WhatmisterPaul has presented is exactly the reason why AKP will not come to marketin x-years.

The reasonis that their concept is simply not producible on an industrial scale at thecurrent state of production technology. Maybe a 4x4 matrix or 6x6 at best, butnothing more. That would be comparable to an arcade level - think of SpaceInvaders.

Industrialmeans high yield at almost zero defects. Yield after 100% end of line test(after pack and sealing) is the measure of everything and the onlyjustification to even think about a market entry. The Taiwanese might comeclose to the rquired level but even there it would be a challange and notfinancially feasible.

I don'teven start with the peak-shift that misterPaul has worked out excellently. Itis the absolute hammer.

The noiseis due to the different quality in the nano range of the individual matrixcells. I cannot imagine with the best will in the world that this can becompensated by SW. Never. A little better smoothing, perhaps. Then you arestill miles away from the expected quality level for the so demonized singlemembrane. No OE in the world would get involved with something like that. Evenif, and that's a 1% if, even if chips from EM will make it to end of line thenthe yield is never at a level you could price-wise accommodate in the market.Probably a chip would cost well over 100 USD or even multiples of that.

To EM I canonly laughe. Complete newby.

I had to smile when I read about the Mega Sequoiainvestment a few months ago.

How much specifically did they invest. I had provocatively askedabout it when this "window dressing argument" came up, but asexpected, one is here quickly evaded that one does not deal with something likethat. Sequoia as a name-drop should be enough.

Businessdevelopment does not necessarily always start with the product, but with thecustomer needs and the associated market. Technology-loving approaches alonehave rarely been successful on the market.

Honestly,who are the ACP players?

A dubiousgambler with a reputation close to Trump. Every OE does its DD beforeapproaching a potential target. The communication behavior alone over the lastx-years speaks volumes. An absolute no-go for a customer.

What DDshould be done here if after what feels like two decades, there is still noworking prototype presented?

I guess I'mnot going to make the believers here think. Perhaps self-reflection of one'sinvestment decision would be in order at some point.

The criticshere have been pointing this out for years, if I can't quite understand theirintention as a non-investor. A short trade is impossible anyway and an entry atlower prices, as the believers after each decline reflexively post, are what itis, storytelling.

My intention has been clearly stated here. Never has been and never will this bulls.... be an investment case.

The fundamental problem with all the believers here: you think that technology decides. But it is first and foremost ALWAYS the quality and secondly the customer that you convince with a stress-free partnership. And out.

One more conciliatory word to the two Bobs, since I attacked them directly above. I'll continue to keep my fingers crossed for you and hope you don't have to gloss over the de-listing in the near future.

But what you both and some of your followers are already reproaching is the partially manipulative communication (perhaps also well intended), which has certainly driven one or the other, inexperienced first-time investor in here and who is now licking his wounds.

But I think he is in good company with you, even if you would never admit it. Ego is still a pig.

Even though I don't speak posh English, I hope the gist of what I'm saying is clearly understood.

To say it right away: a childish threat of "ignore" would still be expected from me, but would not bother me, since I mostly just read anyway.

Kirschblau