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.
Miners tanked the last time gold did. If gold tanks in/within the next two weeks, and miners follow, it would seem like a prior bottom could be taken out (defies experts that called a bottom).
The highest open interest on nugt sept call options is at strike prices of 90 and 100. ( expire in 10 days). What will it be.
How low can nugt go when the big drop in gold is still coming?
You do good chart work. Thx.
phones initially sell based on how they look and broad features (video, ease of use, etc., better camera, more memory, longer battery, etc.). The more subtle features aren't as apparent until some reviews come out and dependent on how often they are used in general, etc. Meaning, if an e-payment gets screwed up and inconveniences enough people, results in complaints, etc., then it's heard about. The timing on the new speculated feature regarding proximity communications (for payments, etc.) is about right.
If gold took a bigger drop thru 9/26 - 10/3 with a pause in the middle, maybe nugt would circle twice?
Looks like a good day ahead for the inverses (and maybe into 9/26+).
You are right, Motorola made the first flip phone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorola_StarTAC
But as for cdma, I don't know if they were first since they initially had issues with their rake receiver implementation (and soft handoff). [Nextel (your other point) wasn't cdma based]
Anyway, I loved that first Samsung/cdma flip phone. It was different than most flip phones seen before and since; was silver with a medallion look (no second screen then) and kind of thick and round with a comfortable palm fit, etc. (not flat or square). I can't even find a photo of it now.
I think a later retrofit and some other Sanyo phones (later) came with LM hinges because they didn't match the plastic silver body and were ultra shiny and strong.
Those were the days!
I agree with the comments that Samsung could probably do more with, and more aggressively, LQMT.
But it wouldn't surprise me if they come out with something as good or better.
As a consumer, we hope that they do.
We're against exclusivity for a market if it ends up hindering it.
And in the US, Qualcomm put out a standard in one year whereas it took GSM in Europe 8, and Nokia can hardly breath today. They might come around in 2014 with Microsoft, etc.
The point about Samsung is that they were a first mover with innovation, and with clamshells, elegant design, etc., way before any western manufacturer.
We have personal bias for aggressive innovators. We had thought that LQMT was one......
I know this area well. I started a cdma program for a major, etc. early/mid 90s, that resulted in several multi-billion dollar contracts, etc.
Samsung was hugely successful with cdma before aapl ever got involved, for years. It's a reason aapl can't get rid of them.
On cdma handsets (90s), Samsung was ahead of/before Motorola. Apparently LQMT supported several wireless handset mfgrs before they agreed to give AAPL exclusivity.
What's the catalyst you are expecting?
According to Steipp (in the past), LQMT will derive no further revenue from AAPL (sounds like the SIM ejector pin, etc. is capped).
They gave their proven market away to AAPL for upfront licensing fees (and nothing else in the future according to them, e.g. LQMT). How sad!....to agree to cut off our revenue streams like that !
If it did, LQMT still wouldn't necessarily receive any revenue (when they may have years ago). How sad, to give a way a market like that. If you look back at LQMT financials in 2005, I think they made around 8 million in revenue one quarter. What happened?
Also, are there any peer/swap patent arrangements between AAPL and Samsung based on some court ruling or something? Would/could that potentially cover CIP extended rights as well?
What about the core patents that recently expired? Aren't those open grabs for anyone that wants to use them?
Samsung was also first (of all handsets in US, period) with cdma and more than a decade earlier than AAPL. Plus Samsung used LM (I think, needs to be verified) with LQMT way back, e.g. Earlier 2000s.
I agree. Samsung has always been more aggressive (vs. aapl/lqmt) and is even entering into an arrangement with Tesla (as an example) regarding batteries, etc.
He also said they have enough cash to get through 1Q2014 and would need to get financing for operating beyond that (even if they generate new revenues before that, meaning they won't be sufficient)).
I agree. They seem more motivated and have more resources.
You could consider contacting the company directly with our questions, or ask during the next conference call.
They can unless VMatter license precludes it.
Maybe they work together.
It's interesting that the LQMT url/link that you provided has "phoenix" in it. Do you know if that corresponds to a particular "project" ?
This may not be related (since injection molding isn't referenced) but it's kind of interesting from an overall mfg perspective and where it could be headed:
The AAPL dump doesn't seem to be doing very much for LQMT; at least not yet.
LQMT could point to Vmatter ( and they are ) at just ow easy it is to get going with a LM based consumer product for infomercials. If all it takes is $100k to finish out their project, maybe it would only take about $300K for molds and material for hunter/sport knives. Not bad. It seems like the right company with the right product could get going with LQMT fairly quickly based on how VMatter appears. It would be interesting to know just how long it takes to get from concept to delivery for products the scale of Vmatter.
Getting close to a 70s target for nugt. Will/can it go lower!
Maybe these guys aren't so bad at marketing after all! ...good at marketing schemes that line ..... pockets. Ouch (we didn't really say that).
Why not to contribute to the $100k fund raising activity of Vmatter (LM) evangelism:
* they should have well over $100k from their stock/shorting, etc. of LQMT, to finish their project
* it's an interesting marketing technique to "engage" customers who have been "hanging on" along time waiting for this special moment (love for LM to materialize)
How about a "free" set for donating $100 to an organization with NPO status, lol (need to read about their full campaign, maybe it's in there, lol).
Just kidding, but find it kind of interesting that it would only take $100,000 to finish the project according to them, whereas LQMT finds it difficult to secure new business using a seasoned sales/business development group, lol.
When LQMT/CC says that the competition in the medical space is titanium, it sounds like it might be easier to get to market with useful products using it (titanium). In other words, some of the superior qualities of LM might not be offsetting other conveniences in that area.
Sorry for so many msgs....based on your comment and LQMT's earlier comment (Steipp) that it wouldn't be until 2015 that AAPL could have a Mac scale LM product, it adds up (or is consistent with our view).
Maybe a larger defense contract where LQMT could scale would be in the works within a similar timeframe.
With these estimates, and the need for more financing, the likely hood of future dilution seems pretty high.
(Re: LQMT)
Apparently AAPL (I suppose) has an experimental machine in house that supported/verified the LM sheet patent claims (without VPC doing the prototyping/proof of concept).
Does it seem that way to you also?
Thx. I suppose that AAPL could gear up for that without the "comprehensive" license for 2H2014 that Steipp was referring to in the last CC.
... Sorry meant "what do you "SEE AS"....timeframe...."
What do you as a timeframe for production grade glass-like metal sheets using LM, re: LQMT/AAPL?
It seems that LQMT is (slowly) targeting bigger accounts long term and that shareholders will have to wait for it.