End May Update, page-18

Thanks for your prompt and detailed response. I flicked through it hurriedly, and formed the opinion that it reflects a great deal of my own thinking, but I would like to spend more time considering aspects that you mentioned.

I believe that this business is inherently profitable and scalable in two directions, geographically and vertically, and therein lies the dilemma. What is the optimal growth balance, and the optimal geography-versus-verticals balance. There are no optimum points of balance, they would be different for different investors. That is why I have implied that I would like may suit me, but not other investors in different circumstances.

On Geographic expansion, the greater the moat that NEA has, the easier it should be to hold back on dominating the global market. Dominating Australasia and North America may be sufficient for now, but have the funding capability to occupy new ground to cut of competitors moving into virgin territory that NEA has earmarked for later entry. I am inclined to favour focusing on verticals in Australasia and North America that can use a common pool of captured imagery. If NEA has a fistful of good verticals, it would be relatively easy to enter a new geography when the time is ripe.