Some interesting things I just picked up in this podcast linked to the annual report.
Two lots of imported shipments have been sold out since the policy shift in Australia, which led the company to begin meeting demand. A third 'rather substantial' shipment should now last them through until Christmas.
Cancer marker tests are one of the 40 or so future applications being considered. First I have heard of it. I think this is fantastic.
Licensing and tech transfer deals in America are being considered with several large American listed players. These won't cost Atomo much to scale, they would potentially be making licencing and IP fees where they generate values from other people's efforts.
Looking very positive. But a question remains on competition.
John talks again about how competition exists as "bits in a box" that do not have Atomo's level of usability. I am uncertain of this.
The Atomo2 usability index was 97.6%. Each of the 200(100%) participants read and used the information sheet and only one (0.5%) had difficulty removing the device from the package.
For INSTI,( competition ) the overall usability index was 97.4%. All (200) participants read and used the information sheet and 10(5.0%) had difficulty removing the device from the packaging.
Chembio ( Competition ) .The usability index for Chembio was 93.7%. Almost all participants (198/200;99.0%) read and used the information sheet, while six (3.0%) had difficulty removing the device from the foil package.
Is John is slightly overstating Atomo's usability differential in self-testing lines? Perhaps, perhaps not. It maybe feels like the biggest economic moat comes from Atomo's years of experience in this field, implementation and his own / team's combined experience in medical devices ( 20 plus years ). The device itself, as per the study, does not SEEM to contain a hugely significant advantage, at least that is what I can conclude. But what do I know? Just trying to remove my own confirmation bias.
