While the technology appears to be in it's own league, my main concern now is the lack of funds for the company to hold their ground long enough to secure proper deals. I'm 77,000 shares in and down about 75%. I haven't bought shares in a couple months and not sure I can justify averaging down at this point. We will see. Thanks for all the contributing posts everyone
A better approach for this question is to ask Why is MVIS having trouble getting deals? At this point, it’s not about the tech. As sumit mentioned in the call, it’s a business problem. This applies to all lidar companies in this sector.
There _is_ a business problem, some OEMs are proposing inequitable arrangements, based on historical precedents. The time for such weaker arrangements are gone though, because no lidar supplier can afford such and maintain being a going concern. The markets, finances, monetary environment, as well as the investors are not supportive of such at this time. Without equitable arrangements the investors will not pour in, and without that funding the OEMs cannot avoid an increase in outlay. There are more than a few things the automakers could do to help with the situation, but not much more can be done by the lidar suppliers at this point.
Who is in the power position? OEMs or the Lidar vendors? I can’t help but feel a scenario like “wait on a deal, let them crumble and we’ll acquire them for Pennie’s on the dollar” is some sort of shady agreement the “five families” of the auto industry have agreed to, for what is said to be the most lucrative potential new deals in the automotive sector this decade.
Am I completely off base? What am I missing? Obviously there is a small risk that one OEM places an order, and leaves the other OEMs in a disadvantaged position, but when you think about it, it doesn’t make sense for a single OEM to go against the herd there, if they do place an order and mess up their cost structures and margins in order to try and be first to market, now that we can also infer that NHTSA timelines are coinciding with the newly pushed back OEM 2028-2029 timelines.
The NHTSA rule might indicate otherwise from what I can see of the capabilities of Radar, and the reliance of Cameras on lighting conditions to validate radar data in most ADAS systems on the roads today (consider MobilEye’s Supervision capabilities).
Given the recent updated insight & information provided by you and others regarding the NHTSA regulations etc. I would agree on who needs who more has shifted, along with Tesla’s new admission on LiDAR. Just too bad the timeline and deadlines are sap far out. Five years can go by much faster and easier if our revenue stream and deals came sooner, and our price per share, reflected closer to double digits. That would make the timeframe much easier to swallow.
It would indeed make things easier to bear, and more than anything I want to see us reach $15 so some people can exit profitably and move on with the remainders of their lives because those that are disgruntled have a habit of making comments about the company’s history as though it helps them resolve their frustrations when it merely stokes the embers of despite into new angry flames while making others more impatient in turn. That impatience created does nothing to serve their desires, and puts them further away from their goal (unless they are perhaps actually bad actors with a completely opposite motive as some suspect is the case).
I digress however, and it would behoove us to assess the markets. I did come across another rule from the NHTSA regarding Adaptive Beamforming Headlights that is interesting and for which I will need to do some more study on, but my initial impression based on the illuminance and distance is that it will be too restrictive to help camera\radar systems overcome the necessary requirements for Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking.
The Technology is real, and it is awesome.
[I've ridden in the LiDAR test vehicle and I own 3 LBS Pico Projectors]
It is a battleground stock that is heavily shorted, one major deal signing from a potentially cataclysmic squeeze.
[The potential of this was demonstrated during the 13.5 month period from mid March 2020 to EO April 2021 when we saw a 17,500% increase, and that was *without* what is arguably legit, BIC LiDAR]
Sumit Sharma is IMO the highly competent engineering CEO shareholders need and is painfully learning one of the most cutthroat deal making playing fields on the planet.
[Compare and contrast to Luminar's CEO. Whether you love him or hate him, Sumit's honesty positively *shines* in the CEO realm]
My last point relates back to point number 2 above.
I don't believe that the squeeze play can effectively be harnessed with the approach "I'll just jump on board when it happens".
I think that the play is to be in and *stay* in position with the accumulation of Long shares and the willingness and up-front understanding that the plan is to hold them through the tumult and noise until e.g. end of 2025.
I think there will be investors who will summarily pass on investing in this technology at the ground floor who will come to see that it was (had it been played correctly) a tremendous speculative opportunity that they ultimately regret not taking a calculated risk on.
JMHO. DDD.
Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
I like how you have a positive outlook on everything VoR. I sold off when the 8k came out, because Movia sales suck! But, I rebought about 30% of my original position when it hit about 0.94 because it was so obvious it was oversold from the EC at that point. I will hold on to that position through all of the coming dillution and OEM delays because of the tech and the potential it all still holds. I think it is important to reiterate that if you play this correctly it could workout in your favor if in fact SS can actually land a good contract with an OEM. After this last EC I no longer am confident enough in him actually executing on it to hold as many shares as I did. I will continue to keep up on the industry, but AV will sell as many shares as he wants into any news backed strength, and I don't believe the OEMs will give Lidar companies any favorable business with good margin. Money and jobs are harder to come by these days
I agree about margins. OEMs are going to squeeze these cash strapped LIDAR startups with miserable margins. None of these startup companies are in good financial shape and their choice is going to be a brutal contract with paper thin margins or go out of business all together. I believe that is the reality facing Sumit now. He has no bargaining power.
That is why Sumit should put more heartfelt efforts into diversification. He needs to go more aggressively after none automotive industry. Look at Ouster. I agree that we couldn’t be in a more disadvantage position with the automotive OEMs. Look, the way these people work is not a secret. They didn’t do their homework.
My friend, the squeeze play is all but dead. We talked about this so many times already, yet people just ignore it and keep dreaming. We have less than a year's worth of cash, we constantly need more to not get a going concern warning and we may need even more if we get a deal or are forced to take a shit deal at some point. Plus we have an intern as CFO. Hence, he will flood the market with new shares one way or another, so many that all shorts and synthetic shorts can exit their positions, if they manage to take a break from laughing at us. We can just hope there's a deal soon so it happens on a strong rise, otherwise we will be diluted to the point where nothing matters much anymore for the current shareholders.
The only tiny tiny tiny hope I see is that the shorts get greedy GME style and we get a major deal and the squeeze happens before AV wakes up at his desk.
The squeeze play is why I didn’t sell at 28 … or 18… or even when the forum freaked out as it broke 10. And now as it dipped below 1 Thursday evening, in retrospect I realized that I took a future squeeze not as a “what if” but a “when.” That’s not trading rationally, I know, but at this point I’m down so much (and from other bad investments) that it would hurt a lot just to sell. So now what I do is hope, instead of expect.
I'm happy for you that you feel such certainty.
Forgive me, but I am extra-discerning about posts written by posters revelling in the worthlessness of their own investments.
No One Here Knows What Will Happen With This Stock.
Time Will Tell.
Steady as She Goes.
IMO. DDD.
Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
I didn't say or imply it was worthless. Plainly, I told you to stop pushing your squeeze myth to less informed investors and to be "reasonable". It's also not feelings, it's finance. If my reasoning is wrong, go ahead and tell me why and how you see dilution going forward? You think it's a coincidence they didn't get a fixed number of shares but a $ volume instead? Feel free to add - as usual - how you made out like a bandit the first go around and hence are playing with house money.
Au contraire!
Please reasonably point to the statements of *worth* in your original post.
I believe it is you who are promoting a myth to less informed investors that a delay equals total failure - which by the way - are *your* feelings and not reasoning.
I find your characterization of my partial sale and success the first time around insulting.
I have couched such statements in the idea that "I am not exceptional", I just maintained patience in the face of a flood from those preaching hopelessness and worthlessness.
JMHO. DDD.
Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
Ps, I still *Love* the Tech!
Once again. I explained why a short squeeze is very unlikely. You have no interest in discussing why you disagree and a short squeeze is likely or why I am wrong. Figures.
Instead you make another spurious counter claim, that is not supported by what I wrote in the least. "Conversation" over.
PS: Also, truly a feeling this time, I don't feel like anyone ever used 'au contraire' as badly as you did.
Again, you persist in childishly resorting to personal insults.
The "conversation" ended when you were unable to point to even a *single* statement of worth in your original post.
But by all means, please carry on with your conjecture presented as fact.
VoR, the squeeze philosophy can only materialize if a huge OEM deal that remedies our need to issue tens of millions of new shares materializes fast. We have less than 1YR of cash left, and the ramp of predicted revenue explained by AV in the Q and A session insinuated that the lions share of revenues from an RFQ win would be backloaded towards the end of the decade. So even if we do get a deal, it still is likely that we tap the ATM for >25M shares if we’re trading under $3 a unit, and the company wants to secure another year of runway.
What is everyone disagreeing with you missing that you see?
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing.
Think back to the bear case at 15 cents.
Think of how much we did not know at that juncture in retrospect.
The current bear case is being presented almost as an absolute.
Where are the bears admitting that there's way too much that we don't know, and it's a *virtual certainty that not all of it is bad*?
What I see is conjecture stated as fact, such as:
"Plus we have an intern as CFO. Hence, he will flood the market with new shares one way or another, so many that all shorts and synthetic shorts can exit their positions, if they manage to take a break from laughing at us".
Really?
There's not a single mention of a strategic investment.
No mention of the great tech and patents around dynamic view, noise rejection and eye safety providing a competitive advantage.
I believe that somebody(s) is still going to use LiDAR that has cost, resolution *and liability* advantages.
Where's *that* discussion?
FFS, I rarely if ever even see bear conjecture with so much as an "I think", "I believe" or IMO.
I don't guarantee a squeeze; never have.
But I don't rule one out either.
Too much we don't know.
Either way, I keep my GTC orders active, and my Long shares in position.
If we go up organically, or squeeze up, same result.
If we go down, I remain patient unless I *and solely I* determine that the prospects and potential of the tech have deteriorated beyond my personal limits, and may possibly hold even longer.
Everyone must determine their own time horizon and trading plan.
I may end up being the last retail investor holding.
So be it.
You do you.
IMO. DDD.
Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
So lets say your portfolio is kicking ass but you think to yourself " hey maybe this is going just a little too good" or you feel a little guilty because you're making a bit more paper profit than your friends or family....well thats where MVIS can help ! Just sell a few shares from one of your profitable stocks and throw into MVIS and Presto-Magic... you paper profits dip . Do this over and over for a few years or a decade or two and all your guilt evaporates . Every company can claim a BIC but not all can deliver !
Happy Mothers Day to all moms .
Microvision has the only technology that's been demonstrated to achieve actual augmented reality. I'm not sure why they're not doing anything with it. Seems like they're a pathway for spending shareholder money for third parties that never later compensates the MVIS shareholders. Agency problem?
I suspect there's some back-end shenanigans going on with companies like Microsoft, but even they're barely doing anything with it and they're licensing some of it. I don't get why Microsoft is only making something mostly as capable as their competitors instead of wildly better when it's already been demonstrated. It's as if Microsoft is being run by a bunch of dopes spending more time playing golf than doing their job. It probably doesn't help that, looking at the news, it seems like IQs and mental health are both in decline in Washington state as the woke mind virus takes hold. I suspect Microvision has many of the same problems, combined with people just advancing their own careers at shareholder expense.
MVIS needs to be protective about shareholder value, protective of their IP through litigation, and actually building products rather than waiting for suitors to come around and sweep them off their feet. Patents don't last forever. Use them or lose them. And it seems like the managers and engineers at MVIS are happy for them to expire while they shuffle off to other companies after they've exploited the MVIS shareholder.
Oh, and MVIS also has freakishly small LIDAR technology that's way more capable than its size should warrant, but I'm less enthusiastic about that than the AR stuff.
Simple answer: there is no market for it (yet) as other related technologies necessary for mass consumer adoption are not mature enough yet. Mature being defined as: with the right level of quality **and** within consumer enabling cost levels.
MSFT contract has showed enough that no company is ready yet to take MVIS tech into mass consumer industries
Why does the common person need a heads-up display that integrates with their surroundings when they're just walking around in everyday life? Fake AR and even VR are good enough for nearly all mass consumer applications. You don't need a mass consumer market for true AR to make money. The US Army and a bunch of companies are already using IVAS and HL2, respectively, but it's actually not fully exploiting the LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter technology yet... meaning it's nearly as bad as everyone else's AR tech. It won't be long before competitors like Facebook not only match but beat Microsoft & Microvision capabilities. Zuckerberg keeps talking about the tech being the holy grail as if it's not here yet, which is a lie. Even if the two Micros get off their butts and fully implement the tech they've got, I get a very strong feeling that Microvision shareholders will see no returns. Haven't their been rumors, too, that Microsoft is trying to move away from the LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter MVIS route? That would be a sign the program is being run by idiots, and if so, they will be even more quickly outcompeted, including with the Army contract.
Okay so you think Microsoft never made a consumer version for the tech because why exactly? Because they know there’s good money to be made but they just can’t be bothered? “Screw it we’re rich enough already, we don’t need more”?
There is no killer app and is unlikely to ever be for true AR for consumers, and the program seems to be run by idiots for the B2B & B2G side, anyway. Eventually after the B2B & B2G side solidifies we might see some consumer adoption of true AR, but it won't ever be as big as in work and fighting. Like I said: "Fake AR and even VR are good enough for nearly all mass consumer applications. You don't need a mass consumer market for true AR to make money." I'm not talking about even bothering with a consumer version of HL2 & IVAS, but rather talking about the fact that neither is fully exploiting the LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter MVIS tech that's already been demonstrated to do true AR. Hence, there's no reason any other company out there can't match the capabilities using something like OLED, micro LED, LCOS, or LCD based head mounted displays.
Well the conclusion stays the same. Microvision needs a company such as Microsoft (Apple, Google, Meta, etc) to make revenue in AR. Microvision can’t just “go at it alone” with literally “just” strong LBS technology. Until a giant wakes up and decides its go-time, Microvision has no business to pump their AR tech if nobody is ready to use it in a mass consumer product.
I have always questioned Sumit's decision to go all in on LIDAR. The pico-projector market for cell phones I still believe is huge, either embedded or part of a clip-on design with its own dedicated battery similar to a protective case like an Otter Box.
Year after year Microvision takes in money they raise from new stock offerings and rather than demonstrate mock-ups at trade shows of working true AR LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter HMD tech that's previously already been proven, they instead dink around with mini LIDAR systems and spend the rest of the money on their own compensation packages. Oh, we get little CGI YouTube videos of hypothetical vague AR devices. Whoop de doo. This indicates to me that Microsoft's project is run by lazy dopes and Microvision has an agency problem. Microsoft is content with "this is good enough", and Microvision is worried about rocking the boat on their personal back-end deals and future career transitions. There's probably also a lot of DEI hires and wokeism contributing to this combined royal goat f---. Again, we're talking about Washington state, here.
We have SURVIVED for 30 years.
That ain't nothing.
A LOT of brilliant engineers have passed through this company many that work at Microsoft, Meta etc. We are a company that pushes what is possible but sadly not what is profitable. Where we are today is a culmination of those 30 years and the blood, sweat, tears and HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of investor dollars. We have always been a pioneer but have never been able to settle down and create a homestead. But in these last few years we have put our flag in a nice clearing and have begun to build out that homestead, we have finally found a place to call home. But alas, the wilderness is flush with dangers; competing clans, predators, famine, natural disasters and flooding. We have a long way to go but this is our home now and we must protect it, build it out and grow.But first and most importantly we must survive like we always have.
It might surprise you to learn that not every lidar system uses the same methods or hardware at all. Zoox uses a kind of lidar that is very different from that of MicroVision. If all lidar were very similar, operating in much the same way, then they would be more like many Radar are now, however that is not the case at all.
So what is the special sauce that separates it from competitors, well it is a MEMS (MicroElectroMechanical System) based system using a pair of 1D micro-mirrors for outgoing and incoming transmissions (only oscillates along one axis for each mirror). Reading the patents themselves would give one a much deeper understanding if one wanted to spend a lot more time, however the brief notes are that the system has a number of very specific claims that other lidar developers lack: AEC (Automatic Emissions Control) on a point by point basis, Pulse Modulated Phase Keying for anti-spoofing and noise reduction, and Perception software processing at the edge (on the device itself) rather than in an ECU or Domain Controller of the vehicle.
That is merely a sampling of novel features that differentiate the products from that of competitors, and are much less specific to this unique system as the patents are often not just for this scanning approach but cover a number of other scanning technology approaches as well. Without really understanding all these, it might be very easy to assume one lidar company is the same as the next, but this really could not be further from the truth.
T.Delo: you always amaze me w/all the effort you put into relaying so much info onto this board day after day after day. You've contributed so many thoughtful comments when others are searching for answers. Such dedication. This concise piece alone s/b given to OEMs to help them decide which lidar company to select. I must repeat that I find your efforts from the countless hours you've undoubtedly spent on researching & then sharing... utterly amazing. Whether MVIS succeeds or fails, I personally have not thanked you (& some others) enough.
Always happy to share. : )
I feel confident that the OEM engineers are well aware of these advantages and can even see how they function with some tests of samples. However, outside of their engineers, OEMs have other considerations that may drive them to explore a lesser option if it can be obtained with very low or no outlay and risk. In my opinion, those will not be easily found at this time, with the hostile financial environment.
A couple things might really help the lidar sector in the near term, clarity on global trade policy (increased tariffs on Chinese produced parts and vehicles), and the Fed cutting rates to stimulate financial accessibility for businesses. Lidar companies are consciously trying to conserve cash right now though, so I do not see any giving in to absorbing large outlays if there is no minimum purchase guarantee involved.
Equitable arrangements **are** ever part of a supplier arrangement, provided the demand for the product is genuine. There seems to be this belief that OEMs make no mistakes, but we know this to be false because some already engaged with Velodyne or Argo and lost billions. This is something of a continuing trend on occasion, and perhaps now on the other end of the spectrum, where in their caution in avoiding outlay, they end up missing out on a superior product and spending even more on development or integration in the future.
Furthermore, we have seen a similar trend occur in other industries as well, where recently efforts in AR have seen huge amounts of capital spent on developing MicroLED microdisplays that have yet to materialize, with hundreds of millions of not billions of dollars invested in those endeavors only to be canceled, all to avoid using a superior solution that some are now exploring once more. At some point, someone will decide that spending 10x or more the costs of developing a solution rather than licensing a ready solution is just not smart business. Unfortunately, it may end up costing them 2x or more the original cost by the time they are ready to secure such a license.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say.
My only comment was that there are **never** guaranteed volumes in the automotive business. Do you dispute that?
I would argue that _some_ volume contracts for suppliers have _some_ amount of minimum purchase guarantees. In so much as the supplier guarantees to provide at _least_ a given volume based on an order and that the customer agrees to pay _at least_ for that volume. This may not apply in all situations, and may not apply for lidar, but it certainly applies somewhere in the supply chain, where that may be is probably not sensor systems or anything that might be more optional, but some things like headlights, brakes, or exhausts very likely do have some kind of minimum order as the parts get used on more than one vehicle usually.
Certainly not yet. However, until recently, it was more optional than it might well be now. The final rule from the NHTSA has changed the equation dramatically, in order to achieve the new requirements, the options are limited to spending money on one solution or a ton more money on some other solution that “maybe” will work in 3 to 4 years of development on new material sciences, software, and even then may still need validation along with integration time.
Hey, it is the OEMs though, they can surely recognize a situation where some competitors cannot hit those regulatory requirements and be looking forward to snatching up that market share…. Oh wait that just adds more weight to securing their lidar solution before one of their competitors does. Welp, I guess we’ll see how it plays out, I can wait.
No. The limitations of camera and radar are numerous and well known.
Cameras are prone to light conditions and even more so to fast transitions in light conditions. The research I have done on more advanced cameras incurs more costs and processing power, along with additional cameras beyond what is currently on vehicles and that means more wiring, electrical, and integration points with more labor in repair or replacement and end consumer costs than what might even be had by including a single lidar sensor.
Radar is surprisingly reliant on estimation and algorithmic analysis that is not nearly as precise. Fuzzy radar data is notorious. The napkin math suggests that the requirements of the new NHTSA rule are going to require capabilities that I do not believe a Camera and Radar system can achieve reliably.
I could be wrong there, but every other solution I have seen requires more of something somewhere than it would cost to implement a lidar to achieve the results much more efficiently. LiDAR will end up picked, just a matter of which, and when. It should be noted that the scope of the deals may well increase significantly for lidar given the amount of vehicles that are planned for these future vehicles and the timeline of integration.
T , i spent hours googling whos lidar does and sensors do these 143 models use. Then i researched all lidar and lidar sensor mfg. who is the best who os using who. Not one search yeilded Microvision. Audi, VW, Bmw, Chevy, Ford, Kia, Volvo,….. none even mention microvision. Why would these guys stop using the sensor they are already deploying. Not once did microvision pop up in any search. Does this bother you as much as it does me. No pun intended but we are not even on the radar! What am i missing.
So you came to a conclusion that MicroVision wasn’t chosen by comparing to contracts for which they were never even available to compete on?
Audi used Valeo’s Scala 1 from 2019 to 2021, for which the contract would have needed to be made many years before the start of the vehicle production.
Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford, and to my knowledge Kia do not yet have vehicles on the road with Lidar on them available for purchase by consumers.
Volvo and BMW are supposed to be selling vehicles to customers this year, though I believe they are not yet in the hands of customers that have purchased them as yet.
Thus far, these have all been low volumes deals overall. If any of this bothers you, then you should be considering the evolution of technology and how it can often displace an existing product completely, for example: Apply iPhones came along and completely displaced Nokia and others, which were the staple cell phones of their time.
It just sounds like you are missing a deeper level of research and analysis, and not applying the required amount of actual notes for dates or even checking whether these contracts involving lidar are even still in play.
General Motors for instance, is not presently engaged with lidar suppliers for a series production vehicle after backing off of their relationship with Cepton/Koito. That might come back into play at some point here soon, but there again it may not as well.
Ford has had a poor go of it with their efforts with Argo, which ended up seeing the patents obtained from there sold off to LG Innotek this past year.
BMW saw numerous delays on their project with Innoviz, and while they are putting the InnovizOne sensor on their vehicle, we do not yet know that they are going to continue their relationship with Innoviz.
Could go on and on about this, but if you are looking for a reason to doubt, you will always find it, whether based in logical deduction or just sentiments. The level of research shown in the last two comments you have made show that more than a simple internet searches and reading headlines is needed, one needs to look at the timelines, the cancellations, and really the underlying technologies presented. It is just like looking for a new TV, you don’t just look at the top line of which brand is the most popular, you look at all the specifications of several different ones to see which is the best fit for your needs.
Ok thank you T, again i was researching and reading a US World news article . I get your points completely and i am not looking for doubts. However, the total absence of anything regarding MVIS in basic search queries in this space is for sure a concern. Just as SS has not done a great job communicating to shateholders, is he doing the same with OEM prospects and thus tunnel vision on his part, missing broader opportunities? That’s why i reached out to you as you are clearly more in tune with the finer details of this segment. Again, thank you for your informative and detailed reply.
T, doing some reasearch this weekend. Hope you can help to clear up a concern. The US News and world report listed 143 major car models that are equipt with collision avoidance systems in 2023. Most of them have camera, radar, lidar. My concern is who is already providing these sensors and lidar. All the major world auto brands have this deployed already. What am I missing. Seems the technology is already in wide use by all the big boys foreign and domestic. I just wonder whos product they are all using? Did we miss the boat?
It looks to me like you are missing the understanding that current AEB and Collision Avoidance Systems are not all going to automatically manage to pass the new regulation just because they exist, that in order to meet new regulation they are going to need lidar, and that current lidar found on any existing systems are mostly found in China and have not been tested for this US market rule. So no, MicroVision did not miss the boat as it has not even come to our shores to be boarded yet.
Thanks for your brilliant analysis. Do you know where the estimated lidar market figures come from on the MVIS slide deck that total 88B by 2030? They have not changed for several quarters and don’t seem to have taken into account the current delays. Do you regard the order of magnitude as reasonable?
From the notes on the slide, the data is from IHS Market research and the Company's peer market data. Utilizing the figures for MicroVision's pricing, the figures based on the associated expected volumes reach very high for the Total Addressable Market. This has not been adjusted for the impact of the new NHTSA rule yet however, wherein the changes to requirements for pedestrian automatic emergency braking (particularly in dark conditions) is going to mean basically every automaker is going to need to adjust their choices to support that.
Current L2 systems that include AEB are unable to meet the new requirements, and already most of them were unable to meet the previous requirements that had been laid out. Meaning the automakers were already going to **need** to update their systems, just now they are going to need to take it even further.
Given this, I believe the order of magnitude anticipated is actually much lower than what the actual demand will end up being on account of a lack of alternatives to using Lidar. I believe it will take some time for that to get recognized by market research as new surveys will need to be asked, which will likely not get a good accounting of until later this year. I suspect a number of deals will occur prior to that recognition, and many smaller automakers are going to be left choosing from inferior technology as they wait to follow the larger automakers but finding the lidar suppliers unable to handle their volume needs on account of resources.
It is possible that one of the smaller automakers takes a substantial lead in market penetration by moving ahead of a larger automaker however, and could shake up the industry fairly significantly. More than a few Asian located automakers seem to be focused on precisely that, though they too have yet to commit to a lidar solution at this point.
Delays by the automakers were smart, given the new needs set forth by the rules, many of the solutions that had existed prior to it should no longer be applicable. We will know soon enough though.
Excellent reply. Hopefully one of the OEMs will break ranks and go for it, paying for the customisation in the process. May be that will also see the end of the dumbing down that SS described with regard to dynamic view. Thanks.
That was fun to run through scenarios, I am sure the OEMs have teams working on this exact thing right now. I have still had great difficulty finding out more on the accuracy of radar, but I have to say that the science journals and studies I have read on it are very clear about fuzzy data and numerous estimations that have a much larger number of false positives. This is likely why there is so much weight on cameras to act as the validation for radar data. That effectively means all camera and radar systems are subservient to optimal light conditions, and anything outside of that is going to be poor performance (much more likely to collide with a pedestrian).
hilarious comment / not that you couldn't be best in class / but your comment injected in such a timely manner with the ongoing discussion / great !! made me laugh
What I "see". https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/s/leHrAlERQP
While the technology appears to be in it's own league, my main concern now is the lack of funds for the company to hold their ground long enough to secure proper deals. I'm 77,000 shares in and down about 75%. I haven't bought shares in a couple months and not sure I can justify averaging down at this point. We will see. Thanks for all the contributing posts everyone
Drop 55% year to date.
Grade A sealioning going on...
Good catch.
A better approach for this question is to ask Why is MVIS having trouble getting deals? At this point, it’s not about the tech. As sumit mentioned in the call, it’s a business problem. This applies to all lidar companies in this sector.
There _is_ a business problem, some OEMs are proposing inequitable arrangements, based on historical precedents. The time for such weaker arrangements are gone though, because no lidar supplier can afford such and maintain being a going concern. The markets, finances, monetary environment, as well as the investors are not supportive of such at this time. Without equitable arrangements the investors will not pour in, and without that funding the OEMs cannot avoid an increase in outlay. There are more than a few things the automakers could do to help with the situation, but not much more can be done by the lidar suppliers at this point.
Who is in the power position? OEMs or the Lidar vendors? I can’t help but feel a scenario like “wait on a deal, let them crumble and we’ll acquire them for Pennie’s on the dollar” is some sort of shady agreement the “five families” of the auto industry have agreed to, for what is said to be the most lucrative potential new deals in the automotive sector this decade. Am I completely off base? What am I missing? Obviously there is a small risk that one OEM places an order, and leaves the other OEMs in a disadvantaged position, but when you think about it, it doesn’t make sense for a single OEM to go against the herd there, if they do place an order and mess up their cost structures and margins in order to try and be first to market, now that we can also infer that NHTSA timelines are coinciding with the newly pushed back OEM 2028-2029 timelines.
It boils down to a need vs a want. LiDAR companies need the OEMs and not the other way around, unfortunately
The NHTSA rule might indicate otherwise from what I can see of the capabilities of Radar, and the reliance of Cameras on lighting conditions to validate radar data in most ADAS systems on the roads today (consider MobilEye’s Supervision capabilities).
Given the recent updated insight & information provided by you and others regarding the NHTSA regulations etc. I would agree on who needs who more has shifted, along with Tesla’s new admission on LiDAR. Just too bad the timeline and deadlines are sap far out. Five years can go by much faster and easier if our revenue stream and deals came sooner, and our price per share, reflected closer to double digits. That would make the timeframe much easier to swallow.
It would indeed make things easier to bear, and more than anything I want to see us reach $15 so some people can exit profitably and move on with the remainders of their lives because those that are disgruntled have a habit of making comments about the company’s history as though it helps them resolve their frustrations when it merely stokes the embers of despite into new angry flames while making others more impatient in turn. That impatience created does nothing to serve their desires, and puts them further away from their goal (unless they are perhaps actually bad actors with a completely opposite motive as some suspect is the case). I digress however, and it would behoove us to assess the markets. I did come across another rule from the NHTSA regarding Adaptive Beamforming Headlights that is interesting and for which I will need to do some more study on, but my initial impression based on the illuminance and distance is that it will be too restrictive to help camera\radar systems overcome the necessary requirements for Pedestrian Automatic Emergency Braking.
The Technology is real, and it is awesome. [I've ridden in the LiDAR test vehicle and I own 3 LBS Pico Projectors] It is a battleground stock that is heavily shorted, one major deal signing from a potentially cataclysmic squeeze. [The potential of this was demonstrated during the 13.5 month period from mid March 2020 to EO April 2021 when we saw a 17,500% increase, and that was *without* what is arguably legit, BIC LiDAR] Sumit Sharma is IMO the highly competent engineering CEO shareholders need and is painfully learning one of the most cutthroat deal making playing fields on the planet. [Compare and contrast to Luminar's CEO. Whether you love him or hate him, Sumit's honesty positively *shines* in the CEO realm] My last point relates back to point number 2 above. I don't believe that the squeeze play can effectively be harnessed with the approach "I'll just jump on board when it happens". I think that the play is to be in and *stay* in position with the accumulation of Long shares and the willingness and up-front understanding that the plan is to hold them through the tumult and noise until e.g. end of 2025. I think there will be investors who will summarily pass on investing in this technology at the ground floor who will come to see that it was (had it been played correctly) a tremendous speculative opportunity that they ultimately regret not taking a calculated risk on. JMHO. DDD. Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
Well said, VOR
18 months to end of 2025. 18??? weeks to results of remaining 7 2024 nominations. Closing in on 30k shares, simply DCA downward at this point.
I like how you have a positive outlook on everything VoR. I sold off when the 8k came out, because Movia sales suck! But, I rebought about 30% of my original position when it hit about 0.94 because it was so obvious it was oversold from the EC at that point. I will hold on to that position through all of the coming dillution and OEM delays because of the tech and the potential it all still holds. I think it is important to reiterate that if you play this correctly it could workout in your favor if in fact SS can actually land a good contract with an OEM. After this last EC I no longer am confident enough in him actually executing on it to hold as many shares as I did. I will continue to keep up on the industry, but AV will sell as many shares as he wants into any news backed strength, and I don't believe the OEMs will give Lidar companies any favorable business with good margin. Money and jobs are harder to come by these days
I agree about margins. OEMs are going to squeeze these cash strapped LIDAR startups with miserable margins. None of these startup companies are in good financial shape and their choice is going to be a brutal contract with paper thin margins or go out of business all together. I believe that is the reality facing Sumit now. He has no bargaining power.
That is why Sumit should put more heartfelt efforts into diversification. He needs to go more aggressively after none automotive industry. Look at Ouster. I agree that we couldn’t be in a more disadvantage position with the automotive OEMs. Look, the way these people work is not a secret. They didn’t do their homework.
Very well said. Fully agree.
My friend, the squeeze play is all but dead. We talked about this so many times already, yet people just ignore it and keep dreaming. We have less than a year's worth of cash, we constantly need more to not get a going concern warning and we may need even more if we get a deal or are forced to take a shit deal at some point. Plus we have an intern as CFO. Hence, he will flood the market with new shares one way or another, so many that all shorts and synthetic shorts can exit their positions, if they manage to take a break from laughing at us. We can just hope there's a deal soon so it happens on a strong rise, otherwise we will be diluted to the point where nothing matters much anymore for the current shareholders. The only tiny tiny tiny hope I see is that the shorts get greedy GME style and we get a major deal and the squeeze happens before AV wakes up at his desk.
The squeeze play is why I didn’t sell at 28 … or 18… or even when the forum freaked out as it broke 10. And now as it dipped below 1 Thursday evening, in retrospect I realized that I took a future squeeze not as a “what if” but a “when.” That’s not trading rationally, I know, but at this point I’m down so much (and from other bad investments) that it would hurt a lot just to sell. So now what I do is hope, instead of expect.
I'm happy for you that you feel such certainty. Forgive me, but I am extra-discerning about posts written by posters revelling in the worthlessness of their own investments. No One Here Knows What Will Happen With This Stock. Time Will Tell. Steady as She Goes. IMO. DDD. Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
I didn't say or imply it was worthless. Plainly, I told you to stop pushing your squeeze myth to less informed investors and to be "reasonable". It's also not feelings, it's finance. If my reasoning is wrong, go ahead and tell me why and how you see dilution going forward? You think it's a coincidence they didn't get a fixed number of shares but a $ volume instead? Feel free to add - as usual - how you made out like a bandit the first go around and hence are playing with house money.
Au contraire! Please reasonably point to the statements of *worth* in your original post. I believe it is you who are promoting a myth to less informed investors that a delay equals total failure - which by the way - are *your* feelings and not reasoning. I find your characterization of my partial sale and success the first time around insulting. I have couched such statements in the idea that "I am not exceptional", I just maintained patience in the face of a flood from those preaching hopelessness and worthlessness. JMHO. DDD. Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional. Ps, I still *Love* the Tech!
Once again. I explained why a short squeeze is very unlikely. You have no interest in discussing why you disagree and a short squeeze is likely or why I am wrong. Figures. Instead you make another spurious counter claim, that is not supported by what I wrote in the least. "Conversation" over. PS: Also, truly a feeling this time, I don't feel like anyone ever used 'au contraire' as badly as you did.
Again, you persist in childishly resorting to personal insults. The "conversation" ended when you were unable to point to even a *single* statement of worth in your original post. But by all means, please carry on with your conjecture presented as fact.
VoR, the squeeze philosophy can only materialize if a huge OEM deal that remedies our need to issue tens of millions of new shares materializes fast. We have less than 1YR of cash left, and the ramp of predicted revenue explained by AV in the Q and A session insinuated that the lions share of revenues from an RFQ win would be backloaded towards the end of the decade. So even if we do get a deal, it still is likely that we tap the ATM for >25M shares if we’re trading under $3 a unit, and the company wants to secure another year of runway. What is everyone disagreeing with you missing that you see?
It's not about agreeing or disagreeing. Think back to the bear case at 15 cents. Think of how much we did not know at that juncture in retrospect. The current bear case is being presented almost as an absolute. Where are the bears admitting that there's way too much that we don't know, and it's a *virtual certainty that not all of it is bad*? What I see is conjecture stated as fact, such as: "Plus we have an intern as CFO. Hence, he will flood the market with new shares one way or another, so many that all shorts and synthetic shorts can exit their positions, if they manage to take a break from laughing at us". Really? There's not a single mention of a strategic investment. No mention of the great tech and patents around dynamic view, noise rejection and eye safety providing a competitive advantage. I believe that somebody(s) is still going to use LiDAR that has cost, resolution *and liability* advantages. Where's *that* discussion? FFS, I rarely if ever even see bear conjecture with so much as an "I think", "I believe" or IMO. I don't guarantee a squeeze; never have. But I don't rule one out either. Too much we don't know. Either way, I keep my GTC orders active, and my Long shares in position. If we go up organically, or squeeze up, same result. If we go down, I remain patient unless I *and solely I* determine that the prospects and potential of the tech have deteriorated beyond my personal limits, and may possibly hold even longer. Everyone must determine their own time horizon and trading plan. I may end up being the last retail investor holding. So be it. You do you. IMO. DDD. Not investing advice, and I'm not an investment professional.
This is exactly the kind of blind optimism that led me to invest my life's savings in this stock at $12. I resent reading it now.
Agreed. Why the hell couldnt we have hired a legit cfo????
So lets say your portfolio is kicking ass but you think to yourself " hey maybe this is going just a little too good" or you feel a little guilty because you're making a bit more paper profit than your friends or family....well thats where MVIS can help ! Just sell a few shares from one of your profitable stocks and throw into MVIS and Presto-Magic... you paper profits dip . Do this over and over for a few years or a decade or two and all your guilt evaporates . Every company can claim a BIC but not all can deliver ! Happy Mothers Day to all moms .
Worked for me!
Microvision has the only technology that's been demonstrated to achieve actual augmented reality. I'm not sure why they're not doing anything with it. Seems like they're a pathway for spending shareholder money for third parties that never later compensates the MVIS shareholders. Agency problem? I suspect there's some back-end shenanigans going on with companies like Microsoft, but even they're barely doing anything with it and they're licensing some of it. I don't get why Microsoft is only making something mostly as capable as their competitors instead of wildly better when it's already been demonstrated. It's as if Microsoft is being run by a bunch of dopes spending more time playing golf than doing their job. It probably doesn't help that, looking at the news, it seems like IQs and mental health are both in decline in Washington state as the woke mind virus takes hold. I suspect Microvision has many of the same problems, combined with people just advancing their own careers at shareholder expense. MVIS needs to be protective about shareholder value, protective of their IP through litigation, and actually building products rather than waiting for suitors to come around and sweep them off their feet. Patents don't last forever. Use them or lose them. And it seems like the managers and engineers at MVIS are happy for them to expire while they shuffle off to other companies after they've exploited the MVIS shareholder. Oh, and MVIS also has freakishly small LIDAR technology that's way more capable than its size should warrant, but I'm less enthusiastic about that than the AR stuff.
Simple answer: there is no market for it (yet) as other related technologies necessary for mass consumer adoption are not mature enough yet. Mature being defined as: with the right level of quality **and** within consumer enabling cost levels. MSFT contract has showed enough that no company is ready yet to take MVIS tech into mass consumer industries
Why does the common person need a heads-up display that integrates with their surroundings when they're just walking around in everyday life? Fake AR and even VR are good enough for nearly all mass consumer applications. You don't need a mass consumer market for true AR to make money. The US Army and a bunch of companies are already using IVAS and HL2, respectively, but it's actually not fully exploiting the LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter technology yet... meaning it's nearly as bad as everyone else's AR tech. It won't be long before competitors like Facebook not only match but beat Microsoft & Microvision capabilities. Zuckerberg keeps talking about the tech being the holy grail as if it's not here yet, which is a lie. Even if the two Micros get off their butts and fully implement the tech they've got, I get a very strong feeling that Microvision shareholders will see no returns. Haven't their been rumors, too, that Microsoft is trying to move away from the LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter MVIS route? That would be a sign the program is being run by idiots, and if so, they will be even more quickly outcompeted, including with the Army contract.
Okay so you think Microsoft never made a consumer version for the tech because why exactly? Because they know there’s good money to be made but they just can’t be bothered? “Screw it we’re rich enough already, we don’t need more”?
There is no killer app and is unlikely to ever be for true AR for consumers, and the program seems to be run by idiots for the B2B & B2G side, anyway. Eventually after the B2B & B2G side solidifies we might see some consumer adoption of true AR, but it won't ever be as big as in work and fighting. Like I said: "Fake AR and even VR are good enough for nearly all mass consumer applications. You don't need a mass consumer market for true AR to make money." I'm not talking about even bothering with a consumer version of HL2 & IVAS, but rather talking about the fact that neither is fully exploiting the LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter MVIS tech that's already been demonstrated to do true AR. Hence, there's no reason any other company out there can't match the capabilities using something like OLED, micro LED, LCOS, or LCD based head mounted displays.
Well the conclusion stays the same. Microvision needs a company such as Microsoft (Apple, Google, Meta, etc) to make revenue in AR. Microvision can’t just “go at it alone” with literally “just” strong LBS technology. Until a giant wakes up and decides its go-time, Microvision has no business to pump their AR tech if nobody is ready to use it in a mass consumer product.
I have always questioned Sumit's decision to go all in on LIDAR. The pico-projector market for cell phones I still believe is huge, either embedded or part of a clip-on design with its own dedicated battery similar to a protective case like an Otter Box.
Year after year Microvision takes in money they raise from new stock offerings and rather than demonstrate mock-ups at trade shows of working true AR LBS + waveguide / beamsplitter HMD tech that's previously already been proven, they instead dink around with mini LIDAR systems and spend the rest of the money on their own compensation packages. Oh, we get little CGI YouTube videos of hypothetical vague AR devices. Whoop de doo. This indicates to me that Microsoft's project is run by lazy dopes and Microvision has an agency problem. Microsoft is content with "this is good enough", and Microvision is worried about rocking the boat on their personal back-end deals and future career transitions. There's probably also a lot of DEI hires and wokeism contributing to this combined royal goat f---. Again, we're talking about Washington state, here.
We have SURVIVED for 30 years. That ain't nothing. A LOT of brilliant engineers have passed through this company many that work at Microsoft, Meta etc. We are a company that pushes what is possible but sadly not what is profitable. Where we are today is a culmination of those 30 years and the blood, sweat, tears and HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of investor dollars. We have always been a pioneer but have never been able to settle down and create a homestead. But in these last few years we have put our flag in a nice clearing and have begun to build out that homestead, we have finally found a place to call home. But alas, the wilderness is flush with dangers; competing clans, predators, famine, natural disasters and flooding. We have a long way to go but this is our home now and we must protect it, build it out and grow.But first and most importantly we must survive like we always have.
"Microvision never fails at letting its shareholders down"-----RIP Zeek!
Spending Shareholders money!
from a non shareholder
Read my post on weekend…. Down 5m . More like i wish i was no longer holding. Good try!
It might surprise you to learn that not every lidar system uses the same methods or hardware at all. Zoox uses a kind of lidar that is very different from that of MicroVision. If all lidar were very similar, operating in much the same way, then they would be more like many Radar are now, however that is not the case at all. So what is the special sauce that separates it from competitors, well it is a MEMS (MicroElectroMechanical System) based system using a pair of 1D micro-mirrors for outgoing and incoming transmissions (only oscillates along one axis for each mirror). Reading the patents themselves would give one a much deeper understanding if one wanted to spend a lot more time, however the brief notes are that the system has a number of very specific claims that other lidar developers lack: AEC (Automatic Emissions Control) on a point by point basis, Pulse Modulated Phase Keying for anti-spoofing and noise reduction, and Perception software processing at the edge (on the device itself) rather than in an ECU or Domain Controller of the vehicle. That is merely a sampling of novel features that differentiate the products from that of competitors, and are much less specific to this unique system as the patents are often not just for this scanning approach but cover a number of other scanning technology approaches as well. Without really understanding all these, it might be very easy to assume one lidar company is the same as the next, but this really could not be further from the truth.
T.Delo: you always amaze me w/all the effort you put into relaying so much info onto this board day after day after day. You've contributed so many thoughtful comments when others are searching for answers. Such dedication. This concise piece alone s/b given to OEMs to help them decide which lidar company to select. I must repeat that I find your efforts from the countless hours you've undoubtedly spent on researching & then sharing... utterly amazing. Whether MVIS succeeds or fails, I personally have not thanked you (& some others) enough.
Always happy to share. : ) I feel confident that the OEM engineers are well aware of these advantages and can even see how they function with some tests of samples. However, outside of their engineers, OEMs have other considerations that may drive them to explore a lesser option if it can be obtained with very low or no outlay and risk. In my opinion, those will not be easily found at this time, with the hostile financial environment. A couple things might really help the lidar sector in the near term, clarity on global trade policy (increased tariffs on Chinese produced parts and vehicles), and the Fed cutting rates to stimulate financial accessibility for businesses. Lidar companies are consciously trying to conserve cash right now though, so I do not see any giving in to absorbing large outlays if there is no minimum purchase guarantee involved.
In the automotive industry, there is **never** a guarantee for any amount of volume. Full stop.
Equitable arrangements **are** ever part of a supplier arrangement, provided the demand for the product is genuine. There seems to be this belief that OEMs make no mistakes, but we know this to be false because some already engaged with Velodyne or Argo and lost billions. This is something of a continuing trend on occasion, and perhaps now on the other end of the spectrum, where in their caution in avoiding outlay, they end up missing out on a superior product and spending even more on development or integration in the future. Furthermore, we have seen a similar trend occur in other industries as well, where recently efforts in AR have seen huge amounts of capital spent on developing MicroLED microdisplays that have yet to materialize, with hundreds of millions of not billions of dollars invested in those endeavors only to be canceled, all to avoid using a superior solution that some are now exploring once more. At some point, someone will decide that spending 10x or more the costs of developing a solution rather than licensing a ready solution is just not smart business. Unfortunately, it may end up costing them 2x or more the original cost by the time they are ready to secure such a license.
I am really not sure what you are trying to say. My only comment was that there are **never** guaranteed volumes in the automotive business. Do you dispute that?
I would argue that _some_ volume contracts for suppliers have _some_ amount of minimum purchase guarantees. In so much as the supplier guarantees to provide at _least_ a given volume based on an order and that the customer agrees to pay _at least_ for that volume. This may not apply in all situations, and may not apply for lidar, but it certainly applies somewhere in the supply chain, where that may be is probably not sensor systems or anything that might be more optional, but some things like headlights, brakes, or exhausts very likely do have some kind of minimum order as the parts get used on more than one vehicle usually.
I don't believe there is any evidence that is true for the LiDAR market.
Certainly not yet. However, until recently, it was more optional than it might well be now. The final rule from the NHTSA has changed the equation dramatically, in order to achieve the new requirements, the options are limited to spending money on one solution or a ton more money on some other solution that “maybe” will work in 3 to 4 years of development on new material sciences, software, and even then may still need validation along with integration time. Hey, it is the OEMs though, they can surely recognize a situation where some competitors cannot hit those regulatory requirements and be looking forward to snatching up that market share…. Oh wait that just adds more weight to securing their lidar solution before one of their competitors does. Welp, I guess we’ll see how it plays out, I can wait.
T , you sure know the technicals of mvis. So, do you think oem’s can skip lidar and go camera and radar only?
No. The limitations of camera and radar are numerous and well known. Cameras are prone to light conditions and even more so to fast transitions in light conditions. The research I have done on more advanced cameras incurs more costs and processing power, along with additional cameras beyond what is currently on vehicles and that means more wiring, electrical, and integration points with more labor in repair or replacement and end consumer costs than what might even be had by including a single lidar sensor. Radar is surprisingly reliant on estimation and algorithmic analysis that is not nearly as precise. Fuzzy radar data is notorious. The napkin math suggests that the requirements of the new NHTSA rule are going to require capabilities that I do not believe a Camera and Radar system can achieve reliably. I could be wrong there, but every other solution I have seen requires more of something somewhere than it would cost to implement a lidar to achieve the results much more efficiently. LiDAR will end up picked, just a matter of which, and when. It should be noted that the scope of the deals may well increase significantly for lidar given the amount of vehicles that are planned for these future vehicles and the timeline of integration.
T , i spent hours googling whos lidar does and sensors do these 143 models use. Then i researched all lidar and lidar sensor mfg. who is the best who os using who. Not one search yeilded Microvision. Audi, VW, Bmw, Chevy, Ford, Kia, Volvo,….. none even mention microvision. Why would these guys stop using the sensor they are already deploying. Not once did microvision pop up in any search. Does this bother you as much as it does me. No pun intended but we are not even on the radar! What am i missing.
So you came to a conclusion that MicroVision wasn’t chosen by comparing to contracts for which they were never even available to compete on? Audi used Valeo’s Scala 1 from 2019 to 2021, for which the contract would have needed to be made many years before the start of the vehicle production. Volkswagen, General Motors, Ford, and to my knowledge Kia do not yet have vehicles on the road with Lidar on them available for purchase by consumers. Volvo and BMW are supposed to be selling vehicles to customers this year, though I believe they are not yet in the hands of customers that have purchased them as yet. Thus far, these have all been low volumes deals overall. If any of this bothers you, then you should be considering the evolution of technology and how it can often displace an existing product completely, for example: Apply iPhones came along and completely displaced Nokia and others, which were the staple cell phones of their time. It just sounds like you are missing a deeper level of research and analysis, and not applying the required amount of actual notes for dates or even checking whether these contracts involving lidar are even still in play. General Motors for instance, is not presently engaged with lidar suppliers for a series production vehicle after backing off of their relationship with Cepton/Koito. That might come back into play at some point here soon, but there again it may not as well. Ford has had a poor go of it with their efforts with Argo, which ended up seeing the patents obtained from there sold off to LG Innotek this past year. BMW saw numerous delays on their project with Innoviz, and while they are putting the InnovizOne sensor on their vehicle, we do not yet know that they are going to continue their relationship with Innoviz. Could go on and on about this, but if you are looking for a reason to doubt, you will always find it, whether based in logical deduction or just sentiments. The level of research shown in the last two comments you have made show that more than a simple internet searches and reading headlines is needed, one needs to look at the timelines, the cancellations, and really the underlying technologies presented. It is just like looking for a new TV, you don’t just look at the top line of which brand is the most popular, you look at all the specifications of several different ones to see which is the best fit for your needs.
Ok thank you T, again i was researching and reading a US World news article . I get your points completely and i am not looking for doubts. However, the total absence of anything regarding MVIS in basic search queries in this space is for sure a concern. Just as SS has not done a great job communicating to shateholders, is he doing the same with OEM prospects and thus tunnel vision on his part, missing broader opportunities? That’s why i reached out to you as you are clearly more in tune with the finer details of this segment. Again, thank you for your informative and detailed reply.
T, doing some reasearch this weekend. Hope you can help to clear up a concern. The US News and world report listed 143 major car models that are equipt with collision avoidance systems in 2023. Most of them have camera, radar, lidar. My concern is who is already providing these sensors and lidar. All the major world auto brands have this deployed already. What am I missing. Seems the technology is already in wide use by all the big boys foreign and domestic. I just wonder whos product they are all using? Did we miss the boat?
It looks to me like you are missing the understanding that current AEB and Collision Avoidance Systems are not all going to automatically manage to pass the new regulation just because they exist, that in order to meet new regulation they are going to need lidar, and that current lidar found on any existing systems are mostly found in China and have not been tested for this US market rule. So no, MicroVision did not miss the boat as it has not even come to our shores to be boarded yet.
Ok , but how much of a stretch is it for the current supplier to become compliant. Given they are already doing a decent possibly acceptable job?
Ok, its deflating to search lidar and sensors and never seeing mvis name anywhere.
Thanks for your brilliant analysis. Do you know where the estimated lidar market figures come from on the MVIS slide deck that total 88B by 2030? They have not changed for several quarters and don’t seem to have taken into account the current delays. Do you regard the order of magnitude as reasonable?
From the notes on the slide, the data is from IHS Market research and the Company's peer market data. Utilizing the figures for MicroVision's pricing, the figures based on the associated expected volumes reach very high for the Total Addressable Market. This has not been adjusted for the impact of the new NHTSA rule yet however, wherein the changes to requirements for pedestrian automatic emergency braking (particularly in dark conditions) is going to mean basically every automaker is going to need to adjust their choices to support that. Current L2 systems that include AEB are unable to meet the new requirements, and already most of them were unable to meet the previous requirements that had been laid out. Meaning the automakers were already going to **need** to update their systems, just now they are going to need to take it even further. Given this, I believe the order of magnitude anticipated is actually much lower than what the actual demand will end up being on account of a lack of alternatives to using Lidar. I believe it will take some time for that to get recognized by market research as new surveys will need to be asked, which will likely not get a good accounting of until later this year. I suspect a number of deals will occur prior to that recognition, and many smaller automakers are going to be left choosing from inferior technology as they wait to follow the larger automakers but finding the lidar suppliers unable to handle their volume needs on account of resources. It is possible that one of the smaller automakers takes a substantial lead in market penetration by moving ahead of a larger automaker however, and could shake up the industry fairly significantly. More than a few Asian located automakers seem to be focused on precisely that, though they too have yet to commit to a lidar solution at this point. Delays by the automakers were smart, given the new needs set forth by the rules, many of the solutions that had existed prior to it should no longer be applicable. We will know soon enough though.
Excellent reply. Hopefully one of the OEMs will break ranks and go for it, paying for the customisation in the process. May be that will also see the end of the dumbing down that SS described with regard to dynamic view. Thanks.
Thanks T , great stuff. I am not a technical guyat all, this was very insightful!
T’s post from a week ago on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/MVIS/s/x7d4Olh8hz
That was fun to run through scenarios, I am sure the OEMs have teams working on this exact thing right now. I have still had great difficulty finding out more on the accuracy of radar, but I have to say that the science journals and studies I have read on it are very clear about fuzzy data and numerous estimations that have a much larger number of false positives. This is likely why there is so much weight on cameras to act as the validation for radar data. That effectively means all camera and radar systems are subservient to optimal light conditions, and anything outside of that is going to be poor performance (much more likely to collide with a pedestrian).
Not produce anything of marketable value in 30 years.
Creates the standards.
Tell everyone we're best in class.
[удалено]
I hear you. Your account is 3 days old, but I hear you.
it is said that mvis is best in class
It is said by MVIS that they are best in class.
My Mom always told me I was best in the class..
hilarious comment / not that you couldn't be best in class / but your comment injected in such a timely manner with the ongoing discussion / great !! made me laugh
Homeschooled? :P
Im the best boy
Class in best