Didn't think the z10 was quite there yet, but a nice first step, so I kept using my Biold. The z30 is a huge step forward, and the Passport intrigues the heck out of me. The BB OS is making huge strides as well. I love their practical business focus, very purposeful, and has the makings of bigger things to come. IMHO
Apparently, the voice control, or Assistant, on the Passport is much improved. I've never used voice control, but I could see a scenario where I would a great deal if it worked well. Just have to get into the habit once I get my new phone.
Any idea if the Passport has a power saving mode, perhaps similar to the Galaxy S5? I think I read somewhere a week or two back reference to it having some capability for that but am not sure.
A non-contributory comment, at least on substance, but I must admit that it gave me a chuckle.
I prefer yelling YABADABADOOOOOOOOOOOO when one of my stock picks does well. Not yet clear on BBRY for the long or near term, but I've followed it a long time, and am intrigued by the turnaround story and possible potential. As you can tell, I am also intrigued by the Passport.
I appreciate the input. I've looked into the Z30, and it does interest me, a great deal in fact, but the specs and other things about the Passport have now gotten my attention even more. I did read somewhere today, not sure if today's article but definitely recent, that BB may not continue making the Z30 since it was not on the list for upcoming devices. Don't know if true, but I would prefer a model that is not being stopped. The Z30 does apparently have the same, great speaker system as the Passport. It's battery is good, but not as big as the Passport's however.
I've had my original BB Bold since months after the first Bold came out, and that age may be why for the last couple years the battery has been becoming increasingly worthless. It now last only a fraction of a day on standby, and only an hour or two max if talking, and sometimes it just turns off completely saying the battery is dead even though the battery meter had showed half full. I'm now on my second, $8 replacement battery, and those only improve it a bit, and only temporarily, before the same thing begins to happen. I clearly need a new phone, but it has been nice being able to swap out batteries. How does one deal with such, or is it even a risk, with a non-removable battery?
I have wondered if the new square form factor of the Passport does in fact go over well in the market, if BB might offer a Passport but with an onscreen keyboard like the Z30 instead of the hard, physical qwerty keyboard the Passport has now. Could be interesting.
Thanks for the input. I've thought about the upcoming larger iphone 6, but have never used apple computers or smart phones. I use a windows based computer, and have wondered how well an iphone 6 will sync with it. I've also worried that the iphone won't do some key things as well. What kind of computer/laptop do you use, and any other input about the iphone experience? do you by any chance know of the Voice Notes recorder capabilities of the iphone? I assume it has such, but don't know how easily accessible, how long the recordings can be, if a recording goes over the max time limit if a second recording automatically starts (My BB Bold does this and along with up to a 1 hour recording max per, it is very convenient and useful). Thanks again for your constructive input, and I welcome more if you care to share.
Read my entire post for part of the answer to your question, though I suspect you cared more about putting out a negative comment about the phone rather than sincerely seeking input. Imagine that. If you don't care for it, don't get it. I am personally intrigued by its capabilities, and potential!
1) I was disappointed to learn the battery will not be removable. I always thought that was a negative, at least in part because sometimes when a phone has little hiccups, removing the battery and putting it back in fixes them. Does anyone have any input about the pro's and con's of a non-removable battery, especially in the Passport specifically?
2) I have used AT&T for years, with my original BB Bold, which is on its last legs by the way (the battery barely lasts at all anymore). I plan to buy a new phone shortly, and am excited about all I read and see about the Passport. I have been considering switching to Cricket, to save money, but still have access to AT&T's network, since AT&T purchased Cricket. I have been less interested in considering Verizon, since it is CDMA not GSM. I have been considering getting a non-locked phone and taking my pick of the compatible phone services. Does anyone have any idea which phone services will be offering the Passport, and which might allow the Passport to be purchased elsewhere unlocked and used with them?
Comments: I love the large, square screen, and that it apparently still fits both in pants front pockets and in a dress shirt pocket. I love the large batter and associated battery life. I love what appears to be a greatly improved and streamlined qwerty keyboard, with the scroll capability for the screen. I hope it still has the great BB Voice Notes recorder and its many capabilities that outshine such recorders on the competition (I use this more than anything on the phone, very handy for studying, reviewing meeting or presentation prep, quick and easy notes coming out of a client or prospect meeting, and so on). And I love what by all accounts is a stupendous sound quality and strength, whether talking normally on the phone, using ear buds or using speaker phone. I'm all about business and practical uses, though the occasional tv show or video clip or recording might be nice. Other input anyone?
The Walgreens reference is found on the company's Facebook page today, with a comment that more news is coming. GLTA
I wonder how long it will be till Larry The Cable Guy's Walmart connections might begin to pay off. If I'm not mistaken, Larry and his Git-R-Done label already have products in Walmart stores, which means HJOE thru its relationship with Larry The Cable Guy, may have a better shot than most, effectively already have its foot in the door for when the time is right. One step at a time, so far, but every one of them looking better and better. Git-R-Done HJOE!
I think this little spec play has REAL POTENTIAL!!!!!
Here's the pull quote from the company's post on their Facebook page: "Git-R-Done-Energy will be going into around 100 7-11 stores on the east coast in Maryland, DC, and Virginia areas in next few weeks testing counter sales! Lets Git R Done! Look for it folks. Healthy Energy Shots are Fuel For Working Folks!"
Buzzy, I had to give your input in the above reply some thought, for it is well reasoned, but I don't believe I agree. NWBO originally designed the trial, and planned for the interim analysis points, with the approval of the FDA, knowing in advance, not the quality of the data of course, but absolutely knowing the quantity collected up to that point, for that was the threshold requirements that were laid out. The DMC was provided the correct quantity of data that had been planned for at that first interim point.
The concern for a type 1 error is absolutely valid, but that concern would have been addressed when they selected the required criteria for the first interim threshold. I don't have all the answers, and am just trying to figure it all out as others are, but there is an inconsistency with the precise wording the DMC chair used, unless, of course, he was referring to no analysis report or conclusions or recommendations on efficacy having not been provided to NWBO, which is true. With his word choice, however, that is not precisely what he said, so I am left unclear. His use of the word "conducted" in its proper use refers to analysis work being done, not a report or conclusions provided due to that work.
And remember, ph3 trials are more about efficacy to begin with. Ph1 and ph2 emphasize safety more, ph1 especially (though safety is always a part). It still makes the most sense to me that the DMC reviewed/analyzed all the data given, and simply chose not to comment on any efficacy assessments made at that time, simply choosing to recommend continuing the trial and say as little as possible otherwise. Unfortunately, on its face, this appears to disagree with the quote from the DMC Chairman, so I am once again left with more questions than answers. I just don't see how the DMC will recommend continuing a ph3 trial without having done any review/assessment of efficacy up to that point. I do understand why no comments or report generated on efficacy
I stand by all I said, including my most recent reply to bioduedil above. That said, thank you for supplying the quote. If that quote is accurate, and is from the DMC chairman, then something is strange, and my assumption is that the chairman still refers to the full report that would have been generated, and simply wanted to shut down the debate over the issue. They did, after all, never generate a report, and as he says, never provided the company with access to any of the data. The chair's wording do surprise me, however.
I'll stop discussing this issue, at least in regards to the efficacy analysis issue, since I've said all I can on the matter, what I said is rational and should be factual, and since there is no way for me to dispute or follow up on what the Chair apparently said.
My larger point about vagueness and such being of concern so often, still applies. I hope the company takes more care in their PR's. My point about the great potential here still applies as well.
Now, if the DMC chairman did not use the word "conducted", rather simply said that no efficacy analysis was done, then he could easily be referring to the report, not the work. In other words, he is saying no report was done, while the company with its use of the word "conducted" clearly was saying no analysis work was done. Two different things.
I was told what he said, but have not seen it. If you can provide a link, or copy and paste it here, I would appreciate the precise quote, ideally with context. That said, I don't know what question was asked of him specifically, or the context of the question or his response, how rushed he was or whatever. I do know that the DMC was tasked with and did look at the efficacy data, enough to draw a decision about what to recommend and what to say. Even the company itself stated this in various ways way back when. That look, or analysis, was done, and had to have been more than just cursory. Again, this is a FACT. Now, the word "analysis" is used in a variety of ways; sometimes it refers to the actual work of doing the analysis, other times it refers to the report generated to describe the results of said work. When NWBO specifically referenced the word "conducted" , saying an analysis was never "conducted", at least using correct English, that can only refer to the work of doing the analysis, not writing the report or the report itself. One never says a report or a recommendation was conducted. One says a report was written or prepared, or a recommendation given. If the DMC chairman did refer to this, if he also said that no efficacy analysis was "conducted", then that would conflict with everything I know about these trials and DMC/DSMB activities generally, and with what we know for a fact per the trial design they were tasked with doing at the first interim analysis. I suspect he either did not use the word "conducted" precisely, or was rushed and simply responded in the context of the way the question was asked him. that is my guess. but I stand by my stated concern(s).
The full quote may be enough to clarify this, it may not, but I would appreciate seeing that quote in its entirety.
Had the company more carefully addressed this issue taking into account what they had said before, so as to clarify better, we might not even be having this discussion.
It frustrates me to no end, and concerns me, that the people responsible for PR's at NWBO don't take more care in their wording. My above statement is correct. The company made an error in their PR about an efficacy analysis not having been "conducted". It was conducted, just not reported, as I state above.
NWBO walks right into these attacks by the likes of AF when they don't take more care. It doesn't help when they so often are vague, rather than specific, often leave so many relevant questions unanswered, and at times even seem to raise more questions than they answer.
Come on, NWBO, do a better job with your PR's. And frankly, stop getting into a tit for tat with AF. Ignore such garbage, as most industry professionals do, it's all over the place, all the time. Focus on your own purposes, and on reporting to shareholders, not necessarily more frequently, but certainly more carefully and thoroughly. I, and many others, especially industry professionals and the Big Money, Institutional investors, will respect and appreciate you more for it. We want specificity, not vagueness. For example, most recently, don't use words like "a number of" and "several", in this case in regards to the number of sites in Europe; instead use the specific numbers, and if those numbers may change shortly, say so. Give us more facts and less spin, more clarity and less uncertainty and concern. This issue has been a concern of mine for over a year now, ever since I began researching and investing in your stock.
NWBO, you seem to have something very promising in the works, but at times it seems like you are your own worst enemy, something I suspect is contributing to keeping your share price down.
Kruck, Like you, I don't know all the particulars about the case you reference, but on its face it could be an example. That said, it could also be that if falls under the rare exception scenario I referenced. Either way, I have never heard of an example before, so I suspect it is very rare, and does not necessarily mean that the DMC can do such "whenever it wants", just that it apparently can do such under certain circumstances. In any case, I appreciate the input. It is something to consider.
I continue to be amazed at how readily people dismiss or even attack just because someone references input that might be construed as a threat to what they want to happen. William O'Neil, the publisher of Investor's Business Daily, references in his books that emotions, and primarily the two emotions of hope and fear, are the two biggest threats to someone being able to invest successfully. I try to keep this in mind, and be open minded and realistic. Good luck to you.
This post of mine that you reply to was given in specific response to a question. It was not intended to discuss the larger issues you mention. As for the time frame I gave, actually, it was the company's time frame. All I did was put the specifics of what they said in context, and, for instance, point out concerns, valid ones, about how the company may again be wrong in the time frames they give.
I also hope the results will be great, and will confirm the hope we all have held due to the earlier favorable pre-clinical and ph1/2 results.
I am glad you said 1 or 2 years, rather than just 1 year, for barring something unexpected, a final approval could possibly occur within 2 years, maybe, but not within 1 year. Personally, I believe 2 years is optimistic. Everything would have to go perfectly, with no more delays, the primary endpoint results would have to be exceptional, and the early data from the secondary input very promising, even for the 2 year till approval time frame.
I don't waste my time on this stock because I think it's garbage. I love the potential here, which is why I continue to follow and invest. I just like dealing in facts rather than conjecture as much as possible. I have valid concerns, some small, a few larger, and do not want to disregard them. Many a highly promising clinical trial has come to naught over the years. We all hope NWBO is not one of them.
We're all entitled to opinions. I always appreciate good arguments in support of such. I have many concerns and many issues that I am factoring into my decisions, pro and con. We all should. I already write message board novels sometimes. I suspect you would prefer I not address every single issue and concern. We'd be here all day, and then some.
As for your first point, that my first quote that you referenced up top is incorrect. WRONG!
What I said is absolutely correct. There are reasons for both primary and secondary endpoints, and even more endpoints, but the primary and secondary are the main ones. The company has decisions to make at various stages in a trial. If the results are powerful enough by the time the primary endpoint is reached, absolutely they COULD and MAY decided to end the trial there. But they are not required to, and companies often do not.
The trial protocol simply lays out the desired thresholds, and the company is to consider such to make their decisions. It is possible, and is often done, that a company chooses not to end a trial at the primary endpoint, and if the secondary endpoint has not yet been reached, chooses to continue the trial until they get those results at the secondary endpoint as well. And then consider ending the trial at that time. There have even been times where companies did that but then chose not to apply for approval yet, and instead pursued another ph3 trial. I'm not saying that is likely to happen here. I am saying that you are wrong when you said "Actually --IT IS." at the beginning of your reply to me, just after my quote. It all depends on the results at the various thresholds, and a company's assessment as to likely final approval or risk of disapproval.
I stand by my post, as is! I for one do not care to stick my head in the sand and not consider valid input just because it might not agree with my most optimistic hopes.
It was on good volume, but not great volume, and nowhere near longer term average daily volume, so not as good as it might have been, especially since it only got back up near but not to or beyond the 50dma. The 50dma is still acting like very strong resistance, and the stock continues to fail to clearly break above and follow thru. At this point, it is unclear to me if that will happen at some point soon, or if the attempt at the 50dma that has been going on for a while now will fail, sending the stock lower again to retest roughly the 200dma. Time will tell. Today's technical reversal was nice to see, but nowhere near enough, and that it is taking so long to deal with the 50dma resistance is of concern... near term anyway.
NWBO needs to strongly break above the 50dma, on big volume, and then sometime soon thereafter, follow-thru further to the upside, again on big volume. Technically, there is very real risk right now, at least near term. As always, watching. GLTA
I am fairly certain this in not true, and I've been investing in clinical stage trial companies for a long time.
Your use of the phrase "whenever it wants" is the problem I have with it.
The trial, it's design, its targets, under what circumstances interim analyses will be done, all of its structure, is designed for up front and is submitted for approval before it even begins. Changes can later be applied for and approved or denied, as we've seen on this trial expansion issue, but in this case, even that possibility was allowed for in the original trial design. The company is in the driver's seat here; it is the company's trial; the company's goals; the company's decisions. As a general rule, the DMC/DSMC can only do reviews upon receipt of the data provided them at the scheduled interim or final thresholds. They don't even do the data collection itself. At those times they make an appropriate recommendation, and can add whatever additional comments they choose, though the preference is to say as little as possible, at least for a closed trial such as this one, where their recommendation is for the trial to continue, as in this case. The DMC/DSMB is then not given any more data until the next interim threshold or the final threshold is met.
Now, there are some very rare circumstances where the DMC/DSMB, in concert with the FDA, and possibly a separated out individual from the company, can coordinate efforts to get more info and consider alternative ideas to advance a different recommendation, before the next threshold, but such is very rare, we've seen nothing but conjecture on the various boards about that going on here, and in my opinion, the facts that we do know do not support it here. Time will tell all, of course, but the DMC/DSMB cannot do things "whenever it wants", not by a long shot.