This was the release:
It is a very plausible possibility that the major spring capex deal was made with IRIS/Oku. Optomedâs camera would be a natural addition to desktop camera penetration and fully integrable into the platform. These will likely never generate SaaS revenue at any point, as Oku/Topcon uses its own algorithms. For now, that growth will have to come from smaller streams.
Doesnât this InspirePro device compete with Revenioâs device? Small, lightweight, portable, mobile⊠sounds familiar ![]()
MitÀ InspirePRO:lla tehdÀÀn?
â
1. Mitataan nÀkökenttÀ
Laite selvittÀÀ, havaitseeko potilas valopisteitÀ nÀkökentÀn eri kohdissa. NÀin voidaan löytÀÀ nÀkökentÀn puutoksia.
2.Tutkitaan ja seurataan glaukoomaa
Mittauksilla voidaan havaita sairauteen liittyviÀ muutoksia ja seurata, eteneekö nÀkövaurio ajan myötÀ.
Laite ei siis ota silmÀstÀ kuvaa vaan tutkii nÀköÀ yllÀ mainitulla tavalla.
Ei Topcon voi kÀyttÀÀ omaa algorytmiÀ kÀdessÀ pidettÀvÀssÀ kamerassa, kun ei ole FDA-lupaa. Aurora aeye + AEYE-DS on ainoa vaihtoehto.
Onko InspirePRO:lla FDA-lupaa?
Kuvataan Opton kameralla ja arvioidaan muulla alustalla.
Rahapeliyhtiöiden into yllĂ€tti â âHakemusten tulva on massiivinenâ | Kauppalehti Onkohan kenellĂ€kÀÀn valistunutta arviota, paljon Optomedin tytĂ€ryhtiö Ubetec, voisi saada compliance markkinasta liikevaihtoa? Veikkauksen sopimushan oli 0,9 mil.e seuraavalle kahdelle vuodelle.
Eikö tuo nyt kannattaisi divestoida, ei liity ydinliiketoimintaan mitenkÀÀn ja nyt tĂ€stĂ€ varmaan saisi jotain sentÀÀn. EihĂ€n nĂ€istĂ€ âei omaa tuotettaâ koodareista/konsulteista tietysti kultaa tyypillisesti makseta, mutta nyt varmasti saisi paremman hinnan kun on hyvĂ€t ajat tĂ€llĂ€ uhkapelisektorilla.
Up until now, Himberg has answered in interviews that it generates good cash flow. I think thatâs foolish thinking, given we know that conglomerate-style general stores are poison for valuations, not to mention that they divert managementâs and the boardâs focus and time away from the most critical growth business. And valuation matters massively to owners in a growth business that needs to be financed through share issues.
In my view, itâs a major failure by the board not having divested it long ago.
Revenio is a great example: get rid of the rubber dinghies and gas station pylons, and take off!
This is usually the weakness with these homegrown companies: they run the business just to fund their own living, meaning salaries for the employees. External owners are kept minimally satisfied, reporting is sparse and unclear at that, just enough to secure funding going forward. Exaggerating a bit, but itâs high time they showed some real proof that thereâs also something left on the bottom line. Whether that means streamlining or trimming the excess. At the very least, they should break down in detail what each segment consumes, what the cost structure consists of, and what they generate. Somehow, I thought this would be a given for listed companies, but apparently not.