The business model relied solely on an app which had no fixed...

The business model relied solely on an app which had no fixed contract period. Trials or not, the reason it failed was because its "partners" didn't have a fixed term contract and just had to delete the app to stop using the service - this was in addition to a rubbish application service to begin with. GSW didn't disclose to its holders that partners had stopped using the app and that revenue was never coming in. Syntonic on the other hand, have converted all "trial" users into revenue bearing fixed contracts.

GSW does not believe the POC period to be a material condition to the contracts, as it will typically have no bearing on the commercial relationship in terms of any ability of the client to cease using the GSW platform. Regardless of any POC period, because the contracts are pay as you go, clients that wish to no longer use the platform simply cease using it and this is then reflected in our periodic reporting of delivery transactions and revenue.

When a company demonstrates that it considers terms like commercial deployment and P.O.C trials as either interchangeable or an irrelevant change you have issues ...

Can you please highlight where this was done? I have read back through the Vietnam, Turkey, Ooredoo AND SMART announcements and not one statement is made to how you describe. The company made several announcements stating that they expect commercial deployment to occur in "x" quarter. In fact, take note of the first paragraph. It states "Anticipated by a number of these carriers" - It doesn't state "all".



It is also referring to the Ghana expansion as per the update yesterday below.

If you are referring to the comment in the most recent update regarding a POC for Vietell - it states that integration and testing is complete with a POC launch. They have never stated previously in any other deals that there was a "commercial launch" to then come back and state "it is actually a proof of concept". They claimed that they are WORKING TOWARDS A COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT. This means that they expect it to roll out - but delays have occurred. Do you want them to announce every time there is a delay with the rollout strategy of the business? Some things aren't reliant on Syntonic, but on the parties they have partnered with.


In addition, the company stating they are using their first party application as a proof of concept, however, still maintaining the first party solution as an operational business venture is hardly anything to nit pick JJ. Do i really need to put the below explanation in JJ? The application is still operational and is still generating revenue. Are you just upset that they didn't use the term "Proof of Concept" to begin with back in 2016? The application has been developed and running since 2014. POC and pilot testing would have been completed pre listing with their own commercial launch when they listed. The fact they still use the term proof of concept (reference case) now, would be based on the fact, originally, it was and they still can use it as such for new potential partners.



Some other facts:

- Syntonic have made comment about trial periods. I recall when the topic first arose on HC in 2016 there was confusion from HC holders because no one actually fully comprehended the announcement which stated trial periods on services in Malaysia etc. As per below from the 2016 quarterly review. Holders should understand that trials would take place (in general and,) off the back of this comment and if they didn't join the dots, that is their poor due diligence. Do people honestly believe that companies just sign stuff willy nilly without testing the waters first?




- Syntonic have a direct integration direct into the carrier networks, have fixed licensing contracts and are generating revenue.

GSW also gave ridiculous revenue forecasting of millions of dollars. Syntonic do not and have not done this as it causes hysteria with the market.

Even bringing up GSW into this now is just fear mongering other holders and just shows that again, you and NH are just trying to troll and meddle with the SP on the back of HC investors. It is an irrelevant comparison and should really be moderated.