Quiltman
Regular
Drove to work with my son (25) this morning.
We are both BRN shareholders, his holding while small(ish), is significant to him.
What's going on with BrainChip he asked, is their tech any good ?
My answer, big picture view ... the conversation went something like this.
If you have truly disruptive, innovative tech ... who do you think would show interest, and in what order.
Pre anything - Evangelists, blue sky thinkers, and evangelist shareholders ( include myself in this group ).
First,
- Universities, research institutes ... a whole bunch of professors, PHD's and boffins running comparative studies, and publishing papers, demonstrating clear advantages of the tech.
Second,
- Something like space research and applications. Looking for highly disruptive technologies, high value, high intellect applying the tech - not consumer products ( far to risky )
Two big ticks there.
Next ... and Third,
- most likely a company/companies that have been working with the tech for several years, and have developed a high level of knowledge, trust and comfort. The tech is disruptive, but almost by definition also dangerous ( what happens if we get it wrong ! ). Start with one or two categories that this company has identified as large opportunities where the tech delivers a distinct advantage.
- for me , this sounds like TATA ( medical applications/ industrial ), and possibly Merc.
Fourth,
The company above ( TATA ? ) having successfully delivered proof of concept to mass market, encourages those companies that have been developing similar tech & applications with the confidence to follow.
Fifth,
The floodgates open.
....
So, I actually think we are on track.
The timelines have not met the expectations of many, but I believe the path to commercialisation is a predictable one - and we are on it.
Hopefully, before the end of the year, TATA has shown their hand and commitment.
So, I said to my son, tech is fine, let the process do it's thing.
We are both BRN shareholders, his holding while small(ish), is significant to him.
What's going on with BrainChip he asked, is their tech any good ?
My answer, big picture view ... the conversation went something like this.
If you have truly disruptive, innovative tech ... who do you think would show interest, and in what order.
Pre anything - Evangelists, blue sky thinkers, and evangelist shareholders ( include myself in this group ).
First,
- Universities, research institutes ... a whole bunch of professors, PHD's and boffins running comparative studies, and publishing papers, demonstrating clear advantages of the tech.
Second,
- Something like space research and applications. Looking for highly disruptive technologies, high value, high intellect applying the tech - not consumer products ( far to risky )
Two big ticks there.
Next ... and Third,
- most likely a company/companies that have been working with the tech for several years, and have developed a high level of knowledge, trust and comfort. The tech is disruptive, but almost by definition also dangerous ( what happens if we get it wrong ! ). Start with one or two categories that this company has identified as large opportunities where the tech delivers a distinct advantage.
- for me , this sounds like TATA ( medical applications/ industrial ), and possibly Merc.
Fourth,
The company above ( TATA ? ) having successfully delivered proof of concept to mass market, encourages those companies that have been developing similar tech & applications with the confidence to follow.
Fifth,
The floodgates open.
....
So, I actually think we are on track.
The timelines have not met the expectations of many, but I believe the path to commercialisation is a predictable one - and we are on it.
Hopefully, before the end of the year, TATA has shown their hand and commitment.
So, I said to my son, tech is fine, let the process do it's thing.
Last edited: