Thanks for the comments
@Kfann. Does this quarterly irk you less than the last when put in the context of the three quarterlies for the FY which may still indicate a turnaround from the previous FY?
You highlight a lot of good points. The most serious of which is the apparent lack of ARR. Being heavily dependent on projects is not a sustainable business model and indicates that perhaps on completion of projects potential customers are not transitioning into a SAAS like contract? That said, the customers who are most likely ARR types are the smaller boutique surveying and mapping types. They can likely derive enough seats out of a standard enterprise license:
We are going to need many small customers to guarantee a floor for receipts. 133 small to medium companies using 25 seats and 5TB data would see $665,000 per month, $2m per quarter, $8m per year and an ARR number that IO could take to market and assuage some fears. This is only a simple example.
I really would like to understand the business model a little better. Does Pointerra sell licenses and then leave it to customers to squeeze as much value from the seats and data limits as possible (meaning Pointerra can set and forget)? Or are we held hostage by platform utilisation. I.e if no Lidar is scanned or uploaded by third parties the invoice will read "zero interactions with the platform/ zero data ingested: $nil owed". Perhaps it varies customer to customer?
IO needs to front the investors this quarterly. Whether that be on RaaS or Coffee Microcaps. That's also not say investors need to heap shit on him and attack, attack, attack. We (most) really do care about the success of Pointerra. I want to see an Aussie company wrestle with the overly inflated incumbents and become a recognised GIS leader.
My question to Ian: "what is the current ARR number versus project split for FY25? How will Pointerra shift towards smoothing Q to Q receipts particulary after the DOE project is completed and moving into FY26?"
