RE:RE:RE:New presentation out ! The answer might be… Taking a safety belt this time…
“Merger or acquisition of a potential partner [might] creates unexpected delays” is the reason SBM initially (informally) invoked for the delays recorded with TFC-849 (initially supposed to be on the shelfs at the end of 2014, beginning of 2015)
In fact, for TFC-849, the problem was / is the 14 steps scaling up process (as compared to 3 steps for TFC-1067). To this, it should be added, the production costs of TFC-849 (1 USD production cost, as compared to TFC-1067 = 0.10 USD production cost) and the “Fiat” (TFC-849) compared to the “Ferrari” (TFC-1067)…
Hence, the “risk” mentioned about the “economic viability” of TFC-849 (as I recall, some comments were made in “The Interview” but I do not exactly remember them – someone to refresh my memory?). Anyhow, as already mentioned TFC-849, is a secondary target.
I presume the “merger and acquisition risk” regarding TFC-1067 is to be minimized, since this product is supposed to revolutionize the market (as sustained by SBM) and nobody will delay its market launch (15% of anticipated market share).