Look, I'm not going to debate delivery. My view is that start-up's are always rough around the edges and make mistakes - you need to look through them in terms of progress and that's a genuine point of view thing. I also don't fault management for yelling as loud as they can because all start-up's do that and I feel like almost need to. So let's park the history for arguments sake and I will concede what you're saying is more than reasonable and trust is an issue for investors... However, in return and as someone who clearly cares, I would propose you try low bandwith calling now that they've shifted to AWS. Zero lag. Just a little more 'pixilated' with the voice is all I can tell. But don't take my word for it.....
That said, what I will debate is your argument about the "premise shift". "Low bandwdith is what they specialise in, yet people won't even use that on non-satellite services.." You realise your argument is cyclical right? Hypothetically, lets pretend I live in a 4G environment with a lazy 5Gig data cap and want to call overseas. What's value to me? 1. Cheap calls. I don't care what you say, calling an hour every few days adds up, and 2. High-quality voice. Given I have more data than I need, obviously given the choice I would choose a higher quality offering. So.... Why shut out a potential market simply so you can say you're a low bandwidth specialist? Low bandwidth doesn't suit every market - why force the shoe to fit?
To your second point about routing traffic, yes - that would have to be more reliable. And more expensive.... This is not a product pitched to the business market however. This is pitched to dudes who have come off shift and want to call home and see how the kids are. It doesn't need to be business grade. I does need to work (which I believe it now reliably does). With no material lag. I'm standing by for lots of $$$$.
ZIP Price at posting:
14.5¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)