Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
And, on that note... Liquidmetal needs to invest in a decently-designed website. The current site reeks of Wordpress template with canned animations. The way the text animates on screen is so cheap looking. A company's website is its "business card" and this one needs an upgrade.
Still chuckling about that "Now You Can" video... which resembles a small town locally-produced television commercial starring the car salesman owner of the business feeding his ego with camera time. TERRIBLE.
I hope this quote from the LD Micro Conference indicates Steipp has knowledge that we WILL be shipping lots more "out the back door" SOON:
It looks like Apple will being using OLED ("true black" or "real black" power-sipping) screen technology in Fall 2018 for the iPhone 8. This will present a substantial change to the form factor, reducing the depth of the display component, as well as eliminating the need for a bezel surrounding the screen. I've long believed that the timing of the switch to OLED from LCD displays would coincide with the switch to Liquidmetal from aluminum. I HOPE I'm wrong and that the iPhone 7 will be the first fully (or nearly fully) Liquidmetal iPhone.
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/12/07/japan-display-oled-mass-production-2018/
I agree entirely. Good luck!
I'm so eager to find out why!!! I've been in LQMT since 2010 when shares were around $1.00. I've added to my position consistently over time. I've decided I will let them go to zero and lose the entire investment rather than sell and regret it later. I've never invested in another penny stock and I never will. But I just really deeply believe there's something truly amazing under the LQMT ticker. The technology is amazing and could be world-changing. Here's hoping we are the happiest people in the stock market within another two years time.
Good luck to you as well!
Siri was originally developed by Siri Inc, not Nuance. But it does probably use Nuance technology.
Check out this list of Apple acquisitions dating back to 1988 and notice that Beats and Siri are the only brand names Apple has maintained:
http://aaplinvestors.net/stats/acquisitions/
I keep trying to imagine future Apple product design videos narrated by the voice of Jony Ive saying "Liquidmetal alloys" vs "an entirely new type of alloy that blends the best qualities of metals, glasses, and plastics into an atomic arrangement that is stronger, sleeker, etc." and I think he'd go the 2nd route.
Name a time that Apple has bought or used a type of material and used that material's brand name. I don't believe Apple has EVER done it. Materials don't create lasting brand value. It's what you do with the materials that creates brand value. Just like Apple doesn't quantify processing speed and quantity of RAM and other internal specs to avoid "competing on specs" which is a losing battle.
Can you imagine Apple ever using the "Intel Inside" stamp? NO!!!!!! They would NEVER use that!!! Which is exactly equivalent to using a Liquidmetal logo on Apple branding. Apple just doesn't use other company's logos in its branding, period.
Thanks for the response. I'm baffled by the fact that Apple hasn't bought Liquidmetal yet... if only to keep everything co-developed entirely secret. But with all patent applications made public, Apple can't keep those private either way.
I can think of only 3 reasons AAPL hasn't yet gobbled up LQMT:
1) Apple isn't certain that the technology will ever be ready for large-scale worldwide use and is waiting to be sure before buying Liquidmetal. But with all the patents co-developed, I can't imagine why Apple would want to wait longer to ultimately pay more for the company.
2) Assuming Apple wants to buy Liquidmetal, perhaps Liquidmetal believes the net present value of its future non-CE revenues are greater than Apple's buyout offer and doesn't want to sell.
3) Apple is truly altruistic and wants to give Liquidmetal the opportunity to earn vast non-CE revenues in other industries following so many years of endless R&D to get the technology to market.
I don't understand it though. Apple routinely buys companies seemingly on a whim because they have technology that Apple wants. Clearly Apple wants this technology, and I just don't understand why they haven't sealed the deal yet. All opinions welcome!
PS - I believe that LQMT share price will rise either way EVEN THOUGH LIQUIDMETAL WILL NOT BE PAID A PENNY BY APPLE TO USE LIQUIDMETAL FORMULATION IN ITS CE PRODUCTS, but I don't believe Apple will ever tout the brand "Liquidmetal" as a way to sell its products. It will say, "stronger, more elegant, scratch-proof, waterproof, jewelry-quality, etc... but it will not use the word "Liquidmetal" as a selling feature.
Some posters have been discussing the idea that Apple will market its products as the only ones out their with "Liquidmetal". I'm trying to think of a case in the past where Apple has discussed anything similar. There's not a single mention of Corning Gorilla Glass on Apple's website and it's in many of their products. Granted, other companies use CGG in their products, so it's not exclusive to Apple. But even if it were, I don't think Apple would tout it specifically in its marketing efforts. When it comes to hardware, Apple tends not to mention brands other than its own homespun brands. If they buy a company, they assimilate the technology and brand it as their own. They talk about elemental composition (Aluminium and Sapphire, etc) but they don't generally brand materials. The only exception I can think of is with software. Apple bought a company called Siri and we now have Siri on lots of Apple devices. Apple also bought Beats and, at least for now, we have Beats on lots of Apple devices. I suspect the Beats brand will eventually die, but only time will tell. Can anyone out there think of a time when Apple bought a hardware company and continued marketing its original brand name other than Beats (which, to be clear, is far more than a materials brand... it's an entire line of electronics)?
Does anyone with a materials science/engineering background know the virtues of zirconium-based BMGs compared to non-zirconium alloys? What would make Apple prefer zirconium-based BMGs for their purposes? Thanks!
What are they waiting for in your opinion?
I think you meant patent #20150277559, right?
Here's a link: Patent #20150277559
I think "real black" refers more to OLED technology which has no backlight so that individual pixels can be completely black. Removing the backlight and incorporating OLED instead of LCD would allow the phones to slim down.
Yes, sharp knives scratch mine too... sadly... BUT keys do not! Keys DO scratch stainless steel. I'll hold onto my hope that the logos ARE liquidmetal, that Takeshi Egami WAS stating truth, and that liquidmetal IS ready for mass production. Good luck to all!
The LOGO, or the non-logo part of the case? Can you scratch the LOGO?
Right, but it also means there is already LiquidMetal in hundreds of millions of people's pockets around the globe. And THAT is exciting for future revenue prospects!!!
If you clean it like glasses, does the indentation disappear? My guess is no one has any permanent scratches on their 6 or 6S logos!
Does anyone on the board have a single scratch on the Apple logo on the back of their iPhone 6 or 6S? And, does anyone on the board have the ability to test the elemental composition?
Serious question: How long could it be kept secret from shareholders if Apple did buy Liquidmetal?
There were lots of rumors with the release of the iPhone 6 that the Apple logo was made from Liquidmetal (one of them is viewable here: http://macdailynews.com/2014/08/08/liquidmetal-iphone-6-said-to-feature-very-extraordinary-scratch-resistant-apple-logo/).
After reading yesterday's article quoting Takeshi Egami (and before reading the subsequent backtracking posted by those who had the follow-through to e-mail him directly), I stared at the logo on my 6S for a minute or two smiling from ear to ear. THEN I read the refutes. THEN I took my keys to the very shiny reflective logo and was unable to scratch it. At all. Try it yourself. And it feels so incredibly smooth under the key, not at all like stainless steel.
It's possible that he somehow discovered that the logo was made with Liquidmetal, and forgot it was a secret, and nonchalantly said so in the article. I'm sure that he was immediately contacted by very powerful lawyers and will never admit his source and pretend that he was confused.
Thoughts?
I felt authentic optimism which sounded like it was grounded in reality. On past calls, Steipp has sounded almost annoyed to have to go through with the whole rigamarole. Today, he actually sounded excited to me. I think he would have failed a polygraph testing for optimism in the past... but today, I think he really does believe success is right around the corner. That's my interpretation based on tone of voice.
Also, Paul Hauck added lots of credibility. He sounded very bullish, and from what I gather about his reputation and character, he's not one for lip service.
I think you're onto a plausible scenario, and agree 100% that the surprise factor justifies the secrecy and not outright purchase preceding the unveiling of the first Liquidmetal product casings. Good luck Liquidwater!
Theoretically, could Apple have a constellation of shell companies each buying less than 5% of the company to avoid reporting to the SEC? And could the consolidated statements show a vaguely described expense not traceable to purchase of LQMT shares?
I'm asking, not stating. Thoughts?
Agreed, and Apple is very careful when scaling up new manufacturing technologies. It seems they would release this first in a lower volume, smaller size item before extending across all product lines.
I tend to agree with you CIMA, but playing devil's advocate: there is a lot of potential competition that has had lots of time to catch up with Liquidmetal and develop non-zirconium alloys. That's one reason it might not be worth what it was at IPO LONG ago... but I hope (famous last word) it's worth more than a billion.
The video really is a terrible, unprofessional joke. Not that I want the company to spend more dollars on marketing at this point, but I sure wish they would hire a 22-year-old video editor with talent and a low hourly rate! And hire some actors!!! It looks like a small-town local television commercial.
It is quite a difference, but medical devices can be very high margin items. Quantity is only one half of the equation.
Non Disclosure Agreements are the most likely reason, right?
Thanks for the clarification Watts.
Well, my post holds for non-CE. And, unlike many posters on this board, I believe the patents are worth far more than $0.20/share in the non-CE universe.
Additionally, I strongly hope Liquidmetal engineers have learned a boat load of science through their collaborations with Apple that will help them develop new uses and patents in a hypothetical post-Apple future. Meaning, if Apple never buys out Liquidmetal and stops renewing its exclusivity contract, any future CE patents developed by a post-Apple Liquidmetal or purchaser of Liquidmetal would be exclusive to that company and not Apple.
Apple wrote a contract in which is has right of first refusal to buy Liquidmetal. Liquidmetal and Apple co-own the patents developed together. If Liquidmetal is purchased by a non-Apple company, that company co-owns those same patents. Apple will exert right of first refusal to prevent that scenario.
It's not just a substitution of Liquidmetal for material X, Y, or Z that is exciting. The exciting part that consumers will embrace is that Liquidmetal enables Designs that are otherwise impossible to manufacture. Product Design is the single greatest driver of sustainable consumer demand.
There's a critical nuance that's missed here: The patent portfolio is worth far more than the [lack of] revenue stream to date. If a consumer electronics company bought Liquidmetal, they would gain access to the patent portfolio. Apple has contractual right of first refusal in that instance, so the value of the buyout is then raised to whatever Apple is willing to pay to keep another consumer electronics company from buying rights to those patents. That is – I suspect – a LOT more than $0.20/share.
Yes, Apple has exclusive rights in the CE space, UNLESS a competitor buys Liquidmetal. I suspect Apple will do whatever it has to do to keep that scenario from playing out.
We can wish, hope, and pray that Papa Cook extends a loan if LQMT needs it, but the GTAT debacle definitely quells that likelihood...
I'd buy a copy for everyone I've recommended buy LQMT!!!
So hopefully, LQMT SURPRISES Wall Street and DOES break even this year. That's the only way the share price will go up this year. It would be wonderful if Steipp was being intentionally pessimistic when he said we wouldn't break even until next year...
Expanding further on that thought... most of us have been investing in the future promise of a broad patent portfolio, not current revenue stream. For Steipp to basically steal the egg we've been incubating with stock purchases would be entirely unethical and grounds for a lawsuit. Right?!?
To do so would be grounds for a valid class action lawsuit from all shareholders, right? What a nightmare scenario...
Great article! The last 5 words are the best: