Hello,
since I mostly can't follow technical analysis I focus on interviews/videos for my DD.
The reason is that while you are talking and thinking at the same time, you can't do both 100% perfectly. This leads to revealing information that would not have been revealed in a written statement.
Example:
Valeo Q&A after the latest presentation (LIDAR).
Q: Is Brainchip part of the product?
A: We are not talking about the source of the IP.
It's like the interrogation in a murder case:
Q: Did you kill the man?
A: No, I couldn't not be on the golf course at the time.
Q: We never mentioned that he was killed on the golf course.
I would like to comment on one point that I personally find striking. Our CEO has been asked questions in the last two investor events (Q&A) that were answered with the same statement (wording from my memory):
1.) Is Brainchip working with the Department of Defense?
2.) Does Brainchip work with smartphone vendors?
Answer from our CEO: Not our focus.
Smart answer. However, it would have been easy to say: No - but he did not. Why? Because it would be a lie. Not our focus sounds like a no, so no further questions are asked, however Sean was just very well prepared with this answer, so that no mistake like Valeo happens to him.
Now in my opinion we have connections to Defense - the clearest one with ISL.
So we also have connections to smartphone vendors. Why is this not being voiced? In my opinion: Because of the huge impact/competitive advantage it creates for the customer to use Akida.
View attachment 3211
So what we can see are NDAs that don't reveal customer names but products are talked about: Drones, vibration analysis for rails, self-driving cars, etc.
And then there seem to be NDAs (or other agreements with customers) that are meant to keep topics a complete black box --> defense, smartphones, ...
But now to my point. In the Robohub podcast with Rob (Mimicking the Five Senses, on a Chip | Ep 348) Rob makes an interesting statement starting at minute 10:30 approx. Here he first talks about "vehicles to go over a thousend miles on a charge" (okay okay, Merc - got it). And then he makes the statement: "
phones that would be able to last 3 to 5 days on a charge. Those are the type of things you're gonna see new technologies such as what we've designed with Akida start to change the way devices are architectured and which will allow us to have a lot more freedom and flexibility from wearables all the way through to new devices that will be introduced."
Okay okay stop.
Why is he mentioning smart phones? --> Wearables are a market.
Okay got it.
But why is he saying that these will last 3-5 days on one battery charge? Not 2-4 or 4-6 or twice as long as before or significantly longer than today.... No, he says 3-5 days, right after saying earlier that the savings in the car are a factor of 5-10 copared to their current solution. To me the statement seems like results from a customer working with Akida. The statement came directly and without raising doubts. It does not sound like an idea but a fact that he is talking about.
I know my reasoning is on shaky ground, maybe because I am not a native speaker, but this sentence from Rob + the statement from Sean convince me.
View attachment 3210
All the best
FKE
www.forbes.com
)..
..
