jimmy, not likely it's google. Two reasons: The biggest being Google could afford to pay for exclusivity and would want it if whatever product it brought forward sold well. Second, unlike Apple, Google relishes transparency. A deal like this jas implications that would give its stock a bump up.
Either way, it doesn't matter. The key here in non-exclusivity. That means eMagin's IP could drive a host of different brands, distinguishable only by different form factors and content programming. It's like Android serving multiple smartphone makers.
Right away I rule out Apple. A non-exclusive license isn't Apple's style. It wants it all or none.
Unclear whether the fee is cyclical. In this case calling it "upfront" suggests that it is. But that is about as far as we can go in speculating on it.
Requiring the licensee to use EMAN's displays could be where the bigger money is down the line, but why specifically mention the 2000x2000 pixel displays? Anyone know?
So, the licensee already makes headsets and wants to install newer and better guts in it. Or, the release writer misused the present tense here.
A $1M fee suggests the licensee has its sight on a broader market than, say, supplying training operators with VR sets.
No royalty mentioned, although the licensee having to use our displays could be thought of as a royalty of sorts.
It seems to me this is happening on the coattails of mounting interest in VR thanks to FB's entry into the VR field. The nausea issue could be a damper. We'll see.
Boardwalk, that's an easy question to answer. It's not that EMAN's tech wouldn't be ideal for VR goggles; it is. The answer is that it's simply too expensive at present to use in a mass marketed headset.
As for AS executing goals, we can't really say he has failed, because innovating in a new and complicated technology involves many unknowns. Also, I see nothing glaringly wrong with EMAN's sales capabilities. They are tied to the ability of a narrow range of OEMs to develop marketable products. Military adoption is slow and painstaking and subject to constant changes in specs. Can EMAN's team do better? I don't know and I don't know how to make that judgement. Time will tell.
As far as I can tell Apple isn't likely to use OLED displays in the iPhone or iPad for the foreseeable future. The Apple Watch might be a candidate because of its small display. The key thing is that Apple shoots for the high end of the market in whatever product it produces. If it gets into VR gear, it should be able to command an ASP adequate to include high performance OLED displays.
Moving on, is EMAN part of this? Could be. Google it.
I think EMAN would be a good buy for Apple. VR is coming on, Apple will get into the game eventually, and when it does, it will deliver a high-end product aimed at people who can afford to pay top dollar as they do for iPhone, Apple Watches, etc. Using EMAN's relatively more expensive displays would not faze Apple customers.
Setbacks for EMAN are not unusual. Nor are recoveries and advancements. That's because it's displays really are the best. Line hiccups are not the main problem. The real problem is slow adoption by OEMs, which belies a relatively narrow customer base. The bigger part of EMAN's future will probably be tied up in VR. While developing its own VR headset makes sense in that regard, I believe EMAN should make itself more known in the industry by advertizing regularly in the trade media.
At this price an investor can't go far wrong socking away 1000 shares for the future.