Replies to post #50877 on e.Digital Corporation (fka EDIG)

[rstring]

Sentinel-It never makes any sense, none of it.

[drhunt]

LOL! No...it doesn't make any sense...never does.

Look, edig has all the pieces in place to deliver said product. Fred wasn't just taking in the sights on his visits to the far East...neither was Collier. If a company wants to have any type of player produced for them, all they need to do is specify what feature set and form factor is desired and edig designs and engineers the unit, while Digitalway manufacturers the device. It's called outsourcing...something that edig has been involved in developing for the last 5 years, (the exception being the Collier term).

It's back to the future, part II...

[Cassandra]

Since you asked, my opinion is that EDIG approached Gateway (a local company) with an offer to brand the Ody 1000 and that Gateway was interested in the smaller form factor.

Because it would give e.Digital such significant top-line revenue, I believe that e.Digital would have attempted to be paid for the whole thing and outsource the manufacturing.

However, given e.Digital's abysmal credit (where it has had to pay bills with shelf stock and is in default on its one outstanding loan) as well as the "going concern" warning from its auditor, I think Gateway would have been reluctant to rely on e.Digital for one of its new products. In fact, I think that GTW shareholders would have been aghast had Gateway done that - it would be irresponsible to GTW shareholders to rely on an insolvent company for a product.

Therefore, IMO, Gateway decided to go directly to an OEM that would pay EDIG a royalty for licensing the platform.

IMO, royalties are likely to be in the $1-$2/unit range and while MUCH more significant than the B&O and Musical deals, will not cover the burn rate.

Lastly, you may ask why it would be irresponsible for Gateway to rely on an insolvent company when Softeq, APS and Eclipse have done so. The answer is that none of those entities is publicly traded and does not owe a fiduciary duty to shareholders, whereas Gateway is responsible to its shareholders.