Replies to post #49039 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[ucansee]

How about the official word from the company?

Automotive Infotainment System

When we announced our relationship with Eclipse by Fujitsu Ten in 2002, the project consisted of developing an automotive infotainment system based on MicroOS that would be integrated with one of their popular in-car CD/Stereo models. As the project progressed, Eclipse by Fujitsu Ten requested additional functionality to accommodate a greatly expanded range of product models. After several modifications to the original specifications at their request, and based on their updated schedule, we expect to deliver the automotive infotainment systems to Eclipse by Fujitsu Ten this quarter. Because Eclipse by Fujitsu Ten is a tier one supplier to major OEMs such as Toyota, if this product proves successful in the automotive aftermarket, we expect further business for this system and subsequent generations.

http://www.edig.com/news/releases/pr102103.html

[Cassandra]

Sentinel: My point is that it is
e.Digital that has continuously created false expectations for its shareholders as "expected" shipping dates of other company's products. These "expectations" did NOT come from public announcements by the other companies involved.

There have been no public announcements by Eclipse as to a date of availability of the HD1213 (not even at CES), yet EDIG keeps announcing expected shipping dates to its shareholders that repeatedly turn out to be false and have now been pushed to the "next quarter" 5 times.

If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't see a problem. However, since setting expectations that are not met is definitely an issue endemic to EDIG, I see a clear pattern of deliberately setting false expectations IMO.

Please take note of the following:

- It was e.Digital, not Maycom that announced the shipping to the MP2000.

- It was e.Digital, not EASTECH that announced that a player licensing MOS would be launched.

- It was e.Digital, not Remote Solution/Hango, that announced an EDIG-based player called Cleo would be produced and sold.

- It was e.Digital, not HyTek, that announced to EDIG shareholders when the Treo was expected to ship. HyTek's Treo web site was non-committal.

- It was e.Digital, not APS, that gave a shipping date of 1st calendar quarter of 2003 and kept pushing the date out until the 3rd quarter of 2003. Now we learn that it was pushed to the 4th quarter of calendar 2003.

All of these false "expected" shipping by dates were given to EDIG investors by e.Digital management and were never supported by public comments from the companies involved.

Did EDIG management have reliable facts upon which to base the expectations they set for their shareholders? The company and ardent longs seem to want to blame misinformation from the other companies involved. However, those companies never published any public information that supported what EDIG management was claiming.

So, what's the deal? Where 100% of the companies that EDIG was dealing with leading them on, or was EDIG management making statements to shareholders that were not backed up with facts?

I am convinced that EDIG was creating shareholder expectations based on wild hopes rather than facts backed up by the companies that EDIG was dealing with.

[owd3]

Question for you…..

Did you believe "Those who are actually there" and " intimately involved" the first four times they announced a shipping timeframe for the F-T unit?? When the "party intimately involved with the design roadmap" announced the MP2000 "is shipping", did you believe them then?

When they made all the other announcements that Cassie has pointed out, did you believe them then because they were "intimately involved" and "actually there"? When everyone one of those bogus announcements failed to deliver anything, did you ever wonder how anyone "intimately involved" and "actually there" could have been so wrong, so many times??

Since it has happened so many times before (just about EVERY time!), and you claim it is totally out of EDIG's hands, why do you suppose they still keep making timeline announcements when their supposed OEM's do not? Are they just slow to learn or can you think of another reason they keep doing it over and over and over?

[Cassandra]

Sentinel:

I haven't ever "contended" anything about who is at "fault" for the Eclipse unit now coming out in the time frames repeatedly announced and then extended by e.Digital.

My point is that e.Digital has a well-known, time-proven pattern of announcing expected shipping dates that are virtually never met. IMO, they make announcements and create expectations without factual back-up and then hide behind a disclaimer of having used forward-looking language.

This was a very small project that generated either $15,000 or $30,000 in NRE fees (the 10K and 10Q are inconsistent) yet has gone on for over a year and a half. Since e.Digital is going to oversee the manufacturing they would know when the product is going to be shipped, yet they consistently create the expectation of imminent shipping even though the units were not yet in production. IMO, they should not give out an expected shipping date until these items are in production.

They do this ALL the time and people like you defend them by saying it's out of their control. That may be the case, but then they should not be announcing expected shipping dates and leave it up to the company that is in control to make those announcements.

It would seem a lot more objective if people would at least admit the abysmal track record of giving guidance that turns out to be false on things like shipping dates, product launches, revenue, margins, etc. As long as shareholders defend them when their guidance is false, they will continue to do it.