A lurker's thoughts on recent events:
First, Greg, thank for your input from the show (and doing a wonderful job with this board, along with your assistants).
For the most part, bashing is non-existent & much appreciated. Paul & Bylo, you guys raise some valid questions and despite the heckling you take, I appreciate your objective comments.
Greg, I've some questions for you and I'm hoping that you might be able to answer them when you have more time:
1) Virtra was supposed to debut their 4G system at the show. I'm assuming it has a much larger footprint than their other IVR systems. Was the 4G the demo simulator?
2) How did it compare in size to the competitors?
3) What was the maximum degree of coverage for the competitors? (You said the L3 was a seamless multi-screen ... what 180 degrees? or more?)
4) You said the floor vibrated at Virta's demo. Was it on a raised floor?
5) How did Virtra's images compare? Seamless? Better definition?
6) Were there ANY features that the competitors had that were superior, in any way, to Virtra's offerings?
------
The debt restructuring is a GOOD thing. I look forward to seeing the numbers flow off the books, despite the resulting dilution. I think everyone agrees that this will help Virtra's financials. Good work Kelly & everyone. It also speaks volumes about Kelly's character, IMO.
------
Yes, FATS does seem to get the contracts and that is frustrating. However, in many industries, there are companies that leap-frog each other because of technological breakthroughs. I believe that Virta is on the rise. It will take some time before they can steal significant market share from FATS, because they've been in the game much longer & have the contacts and customer base. IF Virtra has new technology that is desired by the market, they should garner that market share, given time and as long as the following criteria are met:
- they can maintain a technology lead
- they do not develop 'growth pains' that impedes delivery or customer support
- they do not commit corporate hari-kari by making some unrecoverable business blunder
-------
Regarding "superior" technology:
Paul, I think that the answer to your question is this: A company has "superior technology" if its protected technology that they alone make or bring to the market AND it is deemed as a necessary & desirable technology by the majority of the market base.
It's no good to have something that no one else can do if no-one wants it, which, I believe, was one of the points you were trying to make.
---------
Virta's unique capabilities:
1) The immersa-dome. I do not believe that any competitor has a similar product. It remains to be seen what kind of market penetration this product will yield. It's been demonstrated that there is a limited advertising market for this product, but it's up to Virta to improve on the technology, lower the price point and expand the market for this unique product.
2) Rear-projection, live footage, high-definition, single screen through to 360 degree simulator. While competitors may bring SOME of these features to the table, I don't think that there is currently ANYONE who is marketing ANYTHING that wraps it all into this scalable package. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.
3) The threat-belt & blue-tooth cable-less weapons. I believe that the threat-belt will prove to be a valuable addition to the simulation line. Other competitors will (can?) offer wireless weapons. I see the threat-belt as something that will give Virta an advantage (for a while, until competitors engineer something similar, or better).
4) Self-authoring software. This COULD prove to be a big advantage, but I don't know enough about the nature of this software to really speak intelligently about its merits or shortcomings. I've got to believe that once these products are purchased, there is a real need to expand and customize the scenarios, to taylor them to the client. Anything that lessens this cost & shortens delivery time would be an asset. If this could be done BY the client, at minimal cost, I see this as being valuable (though I don't know exactly HOW it would work).
5) Non-tangible superiority: Some things jump out at me about Virtra that I think will HELP them gain market share.
First, as Greg observed, several competitors fell short of their intended or verbal committments regarding the I/ITSEC show: Cubic had a multi-screen presentation, but only single-screen capability. IES & AIS didn't have simulators, but simulations of simulators (a weak showing, IMO). And FATS (perhaps the acronym fits, as they are bloated with contracts & yet...) they put out a PR about having bluetooth-capable weapon(s), but there were NONE at the show. Virta? Delivered what they said they were going to have - A 4G system (I assume), blue-tooth weapon(s) & a threat-belt.
Second, customers with short deadlines & tight budgets continually praise Virtra for delivering what they say they will - on time and on budget. This is IMPORTANT if you are a potential customer.
Lastly, uptime. It's one thing to debut a brand new system at these trade shows, but it's another to hammer these units in front of parading potential customers for 3 or 4 long days. From what I've heard, Virtra has a track record of robust & bomb-proof demonstrations. This HELPS impress customers.
------
What do municipal clients want? I'm not in a position to determine. Virtra is in a much better position. Do cusomers want portability? I'm sure some do. Do they want a low price point? Again, I'm sure some do. Do they have room for a Virtra IVR system? Not everyone will. Customers will have to make compromises, dictated by budget, space & portability requirements. Because Virtra's IVR system is scalable, I think the space & price point issues can be addressed. Portability is out the window, unless Virtra can come up with a portable simulator solution in the future. (One thought here - rather than pitch to individual police forces, it might be advantageous to spread the cost of an IVR system across several municipal police districts - operating in close-geographical quarters - creating a 'simulation training centre' that can be cooperatively shared). This unique solution may address some of the price-point/space issues that owning an IVR system might present.
The military does not have similar requirements. They generally want 'the best' & for that reason, I think that Virtra's offerings may be an excellent match. These products, like the 4G, also come with a higher price tag. Perhaps Virtra can make a business working exclusively at this 'higher end spectrum', though, personally, I think they should attack on all fronts.
I like what is happening with the company. The debt restructuring. The technology advancements. The commitment of the CEO, engineering & sales staff. They're building a good foundation & believe that the rewards (contracts) will come.
Anyway ... you can see why I lurk! Good God ... it takes forever to type all this opinionated verbage.
I apologize for the long read, but I'm still expecting great things from Virtra - just not as soon as I was hoping.
I just wonder what FATS is working on in the background?
-stk42
