(Total Views: 349)
Posted On: 02/04/2017 3:42:03 PM
Post# of 96892
In light of our now more formal relationship with SWIG, and in light of the fact that 1/2 of our revenues for the last year are not UF sales of movie viewings...
We have to reconsider a few things:
1. The income came from somewhere for doing something
2. I, and several of us posters, thought the income was from Panorama for moving forward with 4K/UHD reformatting of movies in expectation of a one time massive upload...but apparently that is not correct from the way David presented his statements about 30 movies in the pipeline
3. We see that SWIG has been using their renamed version of UFLX to entertain 300,000 customers that I think are separate from the >150,000 customers that NTEK is entertaining.
4. I can understand that NTEK should separately disclose it's UFLX earnings
5. I believe that the NTEK Entertainment earnings are a bit of a catchall.
Paul
We have to reconsider a few things:
1. The income came from somewhere for doing something
2. I, and several of us posters, thought the income was from Panorama for moving forward with 4K/UHD reformatting of movies in expectation of a one time massive upload...but apparently that is not correct from the way David presented his statements about 30 movies in the pipeline
3. We see that SWIG has been using their renamed version of UFLX to entertain 300,000 customers that I think are separate from the >150,000 customers that NTEK is entertaining.
4. I can understand that NTEK should separately disclose it's UFLX earnings
5. I believe that the NTEK Entertainment earnings are a bit of a catchall.
Paul
(2)
(0)
