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.
Is RF to be sued under RICO for $46,000,000?
First strike? Toxic financing debt conversion stock structure, now with RS.
Second strike? Portray mobile robots as hardware only issue, with little, no discussion of software?
Third strike? Soon?
OMVS is not a complete scam, yet. They can still hire AI software folks to solve mobility issues! Small hope, but-
OMVS could still have potential. Presently "Steve" believes AI robots are a hardware problem. Hardware is easy and even easier to brag about exploiting investor ignorance that "perfect" hardware means the AI software will be "easy." Software is the HARD part, not hardware, so when OMVS brags about "name brand" hardware, that means NOTHING- So until OMVS CEO has this "awakening" and licenses, buys, or hires software tech and/or folks, bail! Or ask him why no software smarts in OMVS?
Very true, except none of them made the mistake of hiring a hardware centric CTO to solve AI software centric challenges. Poor management is poor management, despite hype of "oh how wonderful we are." Unless management is appropriate for known challenges, no growth probable?
Wonder how far into 6 figures was realized by the pumpers? Their tech portrayal had big holes in it. Nonetheless, too many believed their tech sufficient and used personal attacks on those pointing such out? Lots of hype from robot companies only 1-2 years old for sure!
The introduction of the Stupid SCOT convinced me because a very "contrived" surveillance system with NO mobility.
Another BIG RED FLAG No doubt the RS was planned months and months ago. Probably before they hired a hardware centric CTO with no AI software experience.
Yup, OMVS inability BIG RED FLAG to provide a third party video of their "alleged" human quick sense and avoid of moving and/or unmapped obstacles clearly indicated they can't "walk the talk." Linchpin failure to give substantive "reason to believe" by OMVS management. And their CTO is hardware centric, not AI software- Even the SCOT is a joke...
Fantastic!
But only if OMVS is able to get a third party to confirm that their RADbot can self-navigate --very safely-- in loose crowds of moving people. Otherwise, imho, not ready for deployment!
Why is OMVS RADbot AI navigation software UNnamed? What language is it written in? Basic? What OS used on Nvidia? None? Huh?
If this is really true, "– Advanced obstacle avoidance system," why are there no independent third party videos confirming that OMVS RADbots can human quick sense and avoid moving and/or unmapped obstacles? This lengthy description fails to reveal the Worst Case Execution Time (WCET), why not disclosing? Unless the WCET is drunk driver slow and UNsafe to patrol around people? Not talking FUD here, discussing Laws of Physics and whether the RADbot really is more than an RC toy.
One more time, since OMVS seems to ignore robot safety and 50% blind, of course those that are 100% blind are suckered, imho- Why no third party videos confirming OMVS's RADbot level of autonomy? No one will do? Why is that?
This video proves nothing conclusively since OMVS could easily stage off camera folks joystick radio controlling their RADbots?
Very interesting! Verizon, which is no doubt 100% blind as to what a safe mobile robot is, is told by OMVS (who are 50% blind to mobile robot safety requirements, imho), proves that in the Valley of the Blind, the one-eyed is King! So Verizon knows as much as Uber and OMVS regarding mobile robot safety? Probably not!
Yes, mobile robot safety is a very Big Deal. OMVS should pay attention to how dumb Uber was to put lethal, unsafe self driving cars on public roads. So, imho, unless OMVS can prove their RADbot is safe moving around people, anyone that buys one is ignorant?
How can OMVS be great when no independent third party can, or is willing, to provide a video of one of their RADbots confirming that their presently nameless(?)AI mobile robot self navigation software and Nvidia hardware is human quick sensing and avoiding moving and/or unmapped obstacles?
Why is putting a wifi camera on a RADbot a big deal? One could place the same camera on a child's RC tank and get the same "big deal?"
Hard to know if OMVS has a great product since no third party video independently confirms that OMVS AI mobile robot software can human quick sense and avoid of moving and/or unmapped obstacles.
What version is it?
No one seems to know.
What is the AI self navigation software even named?
No one seems to know.
What is the top speed?
No one seems to know.
All very important questions and no one seems to know!
So not prudent, imho, to call a "great product."
Again, hardware means not so much in mobile robot self navigation. It's the AI software that OMVS can't demo, or even name? Why is that?
Sure, Knightscope has tweeted them several times, so why not OMVS?
Okay, how can others demonstrate their level of mobile robot autonomy and not OMVS? OMVS RADbot is blind and stupid with no AI self navigation software capable of human quick sense and avoid of moving and/or unmapped obstacles? If OMVS can do this, and Uber can't, then OMVS is $1 pps. Otherwise, tripzip 1, imho.
If I may respectfully suggest this metaphor?
If jet fighter pilots have the eye/hand coordination and reflex time to dog fight in 3 space, aren't those same capabilities appropriate for race cars, motorcycles, bicycles, and even running? So the same skill level needed for driving a car in a dynamic environment is not important in riding a bicycle --safely-- through a moving crowd of people? OMVS AI mobile robot tech could be worth billions, if they have the AI tech they "say" they do. A third party can independently verify OMVS mobile robot self navigation claims, put up on youtube, give us the link, and voila!
Actually, when it comes to Field of View specification requirements and WCET, ALL mobile robots (like OMVS RADbot?) MUST be human quick when sensing and avoiding moving and/or unmapped obstacles. So any mobile robot to move around people, safely, still has to have reflex time human quick (<120ms) and yet not be sorta blind sometimes and run over a toddler in a park?
Indeed, if it is better than Uber!
If not, and can't prove their AI mobile robot self-navigation tech is real with a third party video demonstrating human quick sense and avoid of moving and/or unmapped obstacles, how can it patrol safely? Only where no people ever around?
Unless OMVS AI mobile robot tech can human quick sense and avoid moving and/or unmapped obstacles, and if the RADbot is heavy and fast enough, it can kill people just like Uber? BTW, what is the "name" of OMVS AI software? OMVS Nav 1.0 or 2.1 or ?
Why would I waste my time to even schedule a demo, when no one can provide a third party demo video of OMVS RADbot human quick sensing and avoiding moving and/or unmapped obstacles? If better tech than Uber, why not PR that and support with video? A $1 pps could happen?
Haven't discussed OMVS preferred at all, other than to say if not included in stock structure analysis, the OMVS analysis would be incomplete, imho-
My concern is that if OMVS has tech that Uber doesn't, why don't they have a third party video demonstrating such? If OMVS has more advanced AI mobile robot tech than Uber, FANTASTIC. If not....
To determine whether a RADbot is capable of lethality, one needs to know its top speed and weight. A light weight moped may be the same weight as a OMBSbot, and they can kill pedestrians for sure! That's why we deserve to know how safe the RADbot really is?
Not spooked per se, but OMVS should be able to provide an independent, third party verification in a video showing how their AI self navigation software is better than Uber's? If OMVS could do that, why would they not do so? Demonstrate better tech than Uber? Bigly opp, imho.
Perfect, or perceived perfect, hardware in any mobile robot can be 100% meaningless without proof from an independent third party that OMVS mobile robots can human quick sense and avoid moving and/or unmapped obstacles. If OMVS has tech that has escaped, stymied Uber, fantastic. But if OMVS is stumped like Uber, OMVS tech is not what most believe it to be here?
Definitely begs the question as to why OMVS continues to be unable to secure independent, third party verification, in the form of a video. of their AI mobile robot tech successfully, human quick avoiding of moving and/or unmapped obstacles. Uber's sorta sometimes self driving tech recently killed a pedestrian, so OMVS is more advanced than Uber? Where's the proof?
Yes, unless that is factored in, math not 100% factual. Good catch on OMVS!
Wonderful, but unsupported, unsubstantiated by independent third party video of human quick sense and avoid of moving and/or unmapped obstacles? No verifyable third party? Bummer! If OMVS can't do this, then AI tech must be vaporware?
This is for OMVS moving robots, not stationary PC's? Bigly diff to me!
Don't know that I disagree, in any way, with your astute and coherent business analysis! My heartburn is OMVS can't prove that they have the AI mobile robot tech, they "say" they do.
Fantastic! How long to recharge? How long to swap batteries? In any given day of autonomous(?) patrolling how much time actually patrolling? Need this to do ROI.
But where is the 3rd party video verifying OMVS mobile robots can run patrols, while avoiding moving and/or unmapped obstacles?
No problem! The "proof" is OMVS total lack of any third party verified video that their AI mobile security robots actually work! If they can do what they say, why no 3rd party videos showing such? Hardware and name dropping do not make a mobile robot real, deployable, or have sufficient value proposition to really sell any. So the proof they don't have sufficient AI software is that there is no 3rd party video demonstrating they have high level mobile autonomy capable of reactive, proactive and contemplative avoids of moving and/or unmapped obstacles. Much less patrolling, etc.
Photos are static and worthless to evaluate any mobile robot, eg. OMVS.
Mobile robot video demo are easily staged with off camera RC tele-operation. Therefore company prepared pictures worthless and videos "inconclusive." Why all the deflection from this reality? Simplest answer is that OMVS refuses to discuss that which they don't have and/or can't do. So either OMVS "walks the talk," or we know --with certainly-- that their "AI mobile robot navigation tech" is vaporware and TBD?