RE:RE:RE:RE:Question for the impatient Totally agree, we don't want an exclusivity with 1 client, when there could be so many more interested. I was just commenting on the idea that B and C might be waiting on A's results, and If I was A, I would like something in return. And you are right, pricing may be it, first in line for what is available might be it ??
dougkimbrough wrote: PYR sold it to them for peanuts. Client A is already getting the benifits from LOW COST. We're kind of PAYING for their numbers, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY RAN, by selling cheap. Do you think Peter and PYR didn't test their machines abilities? Sure we may find slight differences but come on we already cut them a deal why let them suck us dry. The ball is in our hands NOT client A's... If A doesn't like it so what they will get over it and besides we have B AND C and more than likely others that are interested. So unless they want a butt load (more than we can make in 10yrs) then no exclusive deal.
StairwayTo wrote: If I'm client A and doing all the testing that other companies are waiting to see the results,
I would like some kind of exclusivity to the product
canyousayiii wrote: KJS, absolutely they would cover all of their basis and they do rigorous analysis for all capital expenditures and then picking the winning candidates according to whatever their criteria are. Once torches are tested in real operating environment then it will be a different kind of analysis, and I expect a quicker one. Right now it seems there is only one torch in play as far as the real operating environment is concerned, and the question is how many nearer term clients will want to test the torches in the real environment before there is enough of them out there to say "good enough, others have tested them sufficiently so we don't have to worry about that element."