RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Now it's my turn@Plisken also no disrespect from my side, but I do not agree with any of your statements. From what I know of sucessful start-ups, one of the keys to success is to focus on being the absolutely best solution for a specific type of market/customer (e.g. look at PayPal's startup story). If you focus too broad you often run out of capital - you become a mediocre solution that no one absolutely "must have", which makes customer acquisition very expensive. PE's focus on Arenas/Stadiums is likely what resulted in the OVG partnership and MSG investment - this gave Xtract both additional investments/cash and likely also a lot of useful feedback/co-development. By this approach they have maintained and grown in the market against an unscrupulous, aggressive and much better funded competitor.
Peter has to my knowledge never rejected customers from those adjacent markets, if responding to demand "pull". Trying to "push" into markets that are not fully ready can be very costly - and as we all know Xtract does not really have a lot of cash to burn. Had he chased a similar strategy to Evolv's, Xtract would likely have run out of cash much sooner, with much less to show for it and with no MSG to invest. So I agree wholeheartedly with his approach, and I fail to see that he has been proven wrong.
For the record, I have also been here for years - not on this board, but I have been following the company since the Cronin days. Though fortunately for me, I invested only after PE joined.