I agree with metabill here on both points. That slide is confusing and hopefully will get some good clarification in the presentations. Metabill, you are right these revenue numbers are tiny for a technology that was once supposed to be "disruptive" to the entire semiconductor industry. However, now they are only focusing on a very tiny part of that industry so the disruption is at a much smaller scale. Long term it could be different, but at the rate things move we are talking very long term.

Definitely over the years things have changed drastically and those huge numbers we all talked about 3 or 4 years back seem like a distant memory. Please don't tell me a technology is disruptive and then tell me these are the kind of numbers you can produce, even if they are conservative. I don't get what the excitement is all about still. I guess people are excited to just potentially get back to $1-2 these days which based on the revenue chart for 2017 and 2018 is still a ways away. The 2020 and 2021 numbers start to look interesting but seriously thats still 3-4 years out and when you've been waiting already 6 years with no appreciation on your investment, thats a bit discouraging, especially since there is no guarantees they can ever get there. As the years go by with no products in the market, the risks increase dramatically. We've seen it through vast amounts of dilution and of course there is severe competition risk the longer this takes.

To Mo who claims that $50 million in revenue will give you a $7 stock price, dream on. This isn't Snapchat. Different type of business and valuation models. I am sure how you reached those numbers are not confidential either. It doesn't really matter because realistically its closer to $2-3 using the current share structure (which could be different by then anyway).

Still looking to be dead wrong of course as a much higher stock price is better for everyone obviously.