Well, anyone can be mistaken.
My post of March 10 included the following. “Jack Rayfield. … thank you for your relatively balanced input, and your patience. … I've decided to join in, to take a bit of the heat off Mike Jacobs, who pays my salary (more than his!) and who needs a hand responding to you guys from time to time. … I'll also do my best to keep some of you folks realistic.”
Bad decision. Since that time, I have contributed 20 postings to the thread, and Michael Jacobs has contributed 17.
This morning, Jack Rayfield stated “I am not sure why anyone would believe anything that Pyng has to say right now and obviously they do not. They have exhausted all credibility and continue to avoid updating previous erroneous statements.”
I have reread the thread over the last six months. The above statement seems fairly typical of a small hardcore of posters who are unfortunately not dealing appropriately or realistically with the information we have been quite open in providing. Such postings do the company no good at all, and therefore do the investor no good at all.
We have been free, perhaps too free, with providing some insight into our estimates of market size, penetration, production timelines, factors affecting and determining the anticipated market, etc. Numbers we have provided as estimates or best guesses have been treated as hard facts, compared with other estimates made in earlier times, and discrepancies pointed to as evidence of lack of management skills and lack of credibility. This kind of thing is nonsense.
Most people with executive or senior management experience in a high tech startup company (and lots of other kinds of company too) will agree that 1) many decisions have to be made based on inadequate or incomplete information, estimates and best quesses, or they will not get made, and 2) estimates change and have to be revisited.
Further, if that company is a medical startup and a public company, the exigencies of health regulatory and securities regulatory bodies have to be observed and complied with, all of which leads to longer timelines than those for developing a new computer game. For those of you who would like some detailed information on the process and timelines for commercializing new medical devices, I recommend a small book entitled "What to Do with your Idea for a New Medical Device", Science Council of British Columbia, (http://www.scbc.org/), published Vancouver, 1992. Authors C.Hanna, I.Isbister, David L. Johnson, F.Lasser.
With apologies to those of you who ARE taking a realistic view of our progress, I have decided on the following:
1) Since as an insider I am not allowed to post information on a thread which is not available publicly, and since the fairly free provision of information over the last few months has not proven effective, I am withdrawing my offer to communicate fairly freely on SI. Look at it this way … I'll have more time and energy available to get the product out.
2) Our web site will be the primary source of public information on our progress. |
