Replies to post #75713 on Quantum Materials Corp. (fka QTMM)

[Kurt_Banoffee]

I agree 100%, a logical discussion and debate has to include the fact that Nanoco convinced Dow that they could scale up their process and produce a commercially viable product. This is EXACTLY where QMC/AMTRON are today. Dow was wrong in their assessment. It's yet to be see how this will turn out for AMTRON. What's illogical is to claim that it's a foregone conclusion that it will end up differently from Nanoco/Dow.

Thanks for pointing out to the people denying this simple fact that they are wrong.

How is Nanoco not relevant as a comparable?
Wouldn't logical discussion and debate include analyzing and comparing another public company trying to bring similar product to market?

[BigE1960]

It is all about context. If you want to start threads everyday presenting your opinions and conjecture regarding Nanoco's capabilities, you should feel free to do so.* I've always maintained that competitive analysis is proper here. However, it is not right to inject random, extraneous negative viewpoints. The discussion was based on the suggestion that Steve needs "to market his product better if it’s more superior than the competition." Like I said earlier, if you want to present data to support or dispute the idea about better marketing or the superior characterization, jump right in. But what does your opinion about failed partnerships or their CEO's stock ownership have to do with this? Don't you see how that was totally unrelated to the conversation?




* Though one should expect misinformation and unsupportable assumptions to be challenged.