Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Richard X Roe  

View Richard X Roe's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Five Lessons From Ohr Pharma [View article]
    goodybob: The former UniPixel employee testified as to UniPixel's status as of early 2013. The current UniPixel status can be seen in the contradictory yield charts presented at the Analyst Day and the Needham conference (and the yield chart in the March 2015 presentation is fake). Kodak knows absolutely nothing about the touchscreen market - Kodak's CEO thinks that 1) the touch sensor market is $30 billion (it is less than $5 billion, and the addressable market is probably $50 million, at best), 2) indium is a rare metal (it is no more rare than silver or cobalt), and 3) touch sensors are expensive because of indium (incell/oncell touch sensors are actually now essentially free, and the cost of indium content in an ITO touch sensor amounts to less than a cent). As of today, Kodak and its partners Kingsbury and UniPixel have been unable to manufacture even one commercially viable sensor, as proven by zero product sales, despite trying hard since 2012.
    Mar 27, 2015. 11:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Five Lessons From Ohr Pharma [View article]
    platonicbomb: UniPixel's management is not "new" and the company is as far from commercialization as it was in early 2013, based on the recent yield charts disclosed by management and the testimony of a former employee. Kodak is not helping at all - Kodak's management is absolutely ignorant about the touchsensor market, and Kodak has made no progress in manufacturing the damned things since August 2013, when commercial production was supposed to start in Rochester, NY.
    Mar 27, 2015. 03:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What's Up With Energous After First Development, Licensing Agreement Announcements? [View article]
    Brian: What exactly is Energous' technology? Do you have any technical paper detailing the antennas, modulation, effective radiated power, etc? The patent applications I have seen are too vague.

    The press release says Marty Cooper joined the Board of Advisors not the Board of Directors. He is probably too old to care.
    Mar 27, 2015. 09:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: More Reasons To Be Dubious [View article]
    Paulo: I thought it was supposed to be charging, unless the technology requires 1-inch location precision. URL: http://bit.ly/1HwCIWi
    Mar 26, 2015. 01:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: More Reasons To Be Dubious [View article]
    Jeb Walport: Don't know about Paulo, but actually I have a question about the video.

    At timestamp 00:17 in the video, the Samsung phone is 17% charged and the time is 00h:17m (17 must be Energous' lucky number), and then at timestamp 00:34 in the video, the same phone is showing just 11% charge level and the time is 01h:05m. The video demonstrates that instead of charging, the Wattup systems drains the phone battery (drained 6% of the battery in less than a hour).

    It sure looks to me "the demonstration" may have been faked. Comments?

    Disclosure: No position yet.
    Mar 26, 2015. 12:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: More Reasons To Be Dubious [View article]
    Using Powercast's calculator ( http://bit.ly/1FHbDT9 ), with 2400MHz as frequency and 4W EIRP, I get 800 microWatt at 1 meter and 200 microWatt at 2 meters. Note that the smallest usable charger for a smartphone is 500 milliWatt, or 1000x as powerful as this wireless crap. It seems Energous' product cannot be used to charge smartphones (but could conceivably power some ultra-low-power sensors and MCUs)
    Mar 25, 2015. 03:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    Paulo: Some stupid calculator ( http://bit.ly/1N8MwJT ) gives me about 45 dB free space loss at 1 meter, so we are talking about a few microwatts at best.
    Mar 25, 2015. 02:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    kcchris: UniPixel always could make sensors, even when it was printing them in 2010 with an inkjet printer. The problem is twofold. First, those sensors are unusable. Even UniPixel's latest 10K filing admits that the technology is incapable of making touchscreen sensors with 5-micron-wide lines (see http://1.usa.gov/1FGv12L , page 7) , meaning, the sensors are not transparent and ARE VERY VISIBLE. Second, those sensors cannot be manufactured reliably at commercial speeds.

    There will be no production in Q2 2015. The new CEO told investors on September 4, 2014 that commercial revenues will begin in Q4 2014. Now he is lying again when he says that in Q2 2015 UniPixel will begin commercial production of 23-inch touch sensors for AIO PCs. It is easy to verify that he is lying. If you contact the sales people at UniPixel's AIO development partner, they will confirm that there are no plans for any 23-inch AIOs in the foreseeable future.

    I have never made an argument that "they can print, then that they can't plate, then that all the sensors don't work." However, I did make an argument that all the 7-inch sensors shown as being packaged in July 2014 on the so called "production video" from the Analyst Day were defective, as they were opaque and did not comply with UniPixel's official datasheet specifications (their lines weren't 5-micron wide). That is why the prime area of focus for UniPixel and Kodak's workstreams since April 2014 turned out to be a complete failure when the "patient" development customer refused to order those sensors last year.

    The supply of ITO is huge and will not be exhausted in hundreds of years - ITO is used in large quantities in every phone, tablet, notebook, monitor, and (LCD or OLED) TV display sold today. Indium is not a rare metal (it is as rare as silver and cadmium) and the amount of actual indium in a touchscreen sensor costs less than a penny.

    Kodak and UniPixel cannot print even at 5-micron resolution, because the equipment UniPixel bought is designed to print bottle labels - it has 50-micron registration ( see http://1.usa.gov/1FGv12P page 15). The flexo printing technology simply does not allow printing anything below 10-micron with sufficient reliability (due to vibrations and mechanical tolerances). The proof is in the lack of any commercial revenues.
    Mar 25, 2015. 12:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    Paulo: UniPixel's does not have a fingerprint-resistant coat. UniPixel's fingerprint-resistant film was a regular film, but its surface was patterned in a special way, which reduced smudges but created nasty optical effects. That FPR film was even offered on Amazon, and was a complete commercial failure, and has been completely abandoned since 2011. Here is the facebook propaganda page: http://on.fb.me/1FFMsjR

    Mar 25, 2015. 10:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    Paulo and nicky: UniPixel's "hardcoat" is one of the softest materials on Earth and can be scratched by a pencil, a pen, a car key, sand, and, yeah, glass. That is why UniPixel has been unable to generate any production revenues from this stuff since 2012, when it first announced its commercial availability, shipments, and capacity to coat 100 million sq ft of film - the only revenues UniPixel has been able to generate so far are service revenues - a few thousand dollars a quarter in 2012 and 2013, intermittently (no revenues whatsoever in 2014). Such a hardcoat is actually a commodity and available from many suppliers, at the cost of approximately $100 a gallon. So, UniPixel must have generated a total of $10,000 in January for the "trial" shipment of two (!!!) barrels, at virtually zero gross margin (assuming it was a product sale, of course).
    Mar 25, 2015. 10:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    Paulo: You are correct. UniPixel's original (circa 2010) concept was to use embossing, but was quickly abandoned (circa 2012) for flexo. Ironically, both MNTech and O-film, the world market leaders in metal mesh touch sensors, use embossing (but they do not need electroless plating, an inherently low-yield process)
    Mar 24, 2015. 08:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    nicky: UniPixel had an investor presentation on September 4, 2014 when the CEO claimed that UniPixel would recognize both touch sensor and hard coat production revenues in Q4 2014. Turned out he lied. UniPixel's Q4 2014 revenues were exactly zero.

    That is why there is a new March presentation.
    Mar 24, 2015. 08:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • China XD Plastics: When The Numbers Don't Add Up, There's Over 80% Downside [View article]
    piggybanksdead: No doubt - money laundering is a profitable business.
    Mar 24, 2015. 06:52 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    nicky: Yes, the so-called engineering proof-of-concept milestone, the “touchless” system, was actually developed by CEMCO in 2008 ( http://bit.ly/YaSsvR ) and used by Atmel/CIT until they shut down their copper metal mesh touch experiment in February (due to copper metal mesh being unable to compete with regular touch sensors) . So Mr. Hawthorne just lifted the now abandoned "system." But, by all means, buy all of it!
    Mar 24, 2015. 06:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Energous: We Have Seen This Story Before [View article]
    Paulo: The chance for UniPixel is only an optical illusion. Once one understands the technology and the market, it is apparent that UniPixel has zero chance of success (unless an ITO-eating alien virus invades the Earth) . UniPixel can indeed create sensors, but they cannot sell for a price that will cover the cost of manufacturing. Based on what I have seen so far, the same goes for Energous.
    Mar 24, 2015. 01:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,100 Comments
354 Likes