Eidos was founded in 1990 by Stephen Streater.
This was helped in no small part by Streater’s use of his PhD research on image processing to create a new video compression technology, a technology they sold
to Oracle for £36m.
“I thought we’d sell our technology to Larry
Ellison (Oracle)," says Streater. |
Maybe Stephen Streater can see if Larry is interested in buying elevate.io. |
Take Adobe they are running at $500 million a Q
I don’t think they would wait until we are running at say $2 million a Q
Google or Microsoft much bigger numbers
All those guys know the future is in the Cloud with Cloud native apps, they know this before the customers and they invest accordingly |
This may be correct, salmon
Issue is that many have been thinking the same thing for years if not decades!
Hopefully 2025 is the year it happens! |
NickB
Sorry, my post 22994 was unnecessary. I read the first part of your post 22993 which simply repeated what someone else had said. I had thought it was your opinion which surprised me!!
The debate this morning has again convinced me that the current elevate, the subscription edition and the player represent such a big breakthrough that it must surely be acquired soon by a big player who has the ability to use the technology to reach the masses with related products. They are well used to serving huge audiences. IMHO |
Sorry if I sounded dismissive earlier Horneblower, it wasn't intended, your option for a takeover after launch milestones are achieved is also perfectly reasonable. None of us know so it's just speculation. But there are certainly examples of loss-making companies being taken over for large prices. I agree it does seem hard to believe though that with the market cap at £20m today, someone might come in with a £1bn+ bid... Not impossible though... |
Shortsqeeze
Good question
In Adobe’s case they definitely can’t leave it too long because it will look like they are taking out competition before it can get established
They would have to move very early preferably before launch
They don’t need our subscribers they already have them!
They also don’t need to wait to see if it’s a good idea they know the direction of video editing technology |
Possibly NickB, but if they keep many of the best features (eg collaboration) behind the paywall, how will freebie users know whether it's worth paying for?
Good question Cyber
They should know their needs if they have any experience
Simple one, a message pops up
You are running out of storage do you want to upgrade
Do you want better audio tools, better graphic tools?
Most users should be able to work that out
Plus a couple of videos on the website showing what they can do.
Hardly any risk!
They could pay $20 for 1 month only
Annually is always discounted |
HB
You’re getting me all excited again.
Let’s hope these milestones are reached. |
 Salmon
Yes I do think that they can estimate plus it’s a strategic decision for their own platform.
1. Does Google provide YouTube creators with their own creative tools to keep them tied into to the YouTube platform
2. Adobe HAS TO bring out a web browser video editor of power and quality
3. Other companies can have their own strategic reasons
These companies already have vast income BUT they have to keep investing to stay at the top
So elevate subs from their customers are important but strategic investment beats those numbers in my view
The Player adds an interesting twist because of Clip and share which drives viral retention rates on social platforms which is Big money for them
Also our Player could be interesting connected to AI automatic editing from say Google search video AI
eg
“Hey Google go and look at the Blackbird AGM and show me all the best parts of them talking about elevate and limit the time to 5 minutes”
It would be able to make a video for you to watch personally which you could then share with others
So to me it’s beyond just elevate subscriptions it’s strategic for a big tech company who I’m sure have the skills to work out the numbers
Just my view |
Possibly NickB, but if they keep many of the best features (eg collaboration) behind the paywall, how will freebie users know whether it's worth paying for? I suppose they could just pay up for a couple of months, and no harm done if it's not quite what they needed. Or as mentioned by others, they could give full access to all features for a month and then the best features (or the full app) are disabled until people pay.Anyway it's all a moot point, as we've said we have to trust that the professionals in management have a viable plan for monetisation... |
I believe that they are following the tried and tested Canva Figma model of Free and paid tiers
Yes there is a cost for free to us but remember the Blackbird technology is highly efficient compared to other traditional methods
Hopefully they have done a lot of cost modelling work
To me the free version is doing all the marketing work with no barriers to sign up.
Don’t forget about The Player in all this |
NickB
Don't you think that right now, if a giant was shown behind the scenes what the subscription version of elevate will be, they could surely estimate (within confidence limits) how many subscribers they would be able to sign up over the next few years.
They surely know their marketplace inside out from their big company perspective and years of experience. |
NickB I can understand the logic of being taken out but the facts now make a pre-release bid unlikely. A bid after the paid release does make sense for any bidder as they will have some feedback on the rate of take up.
Big tech doesn’t need that data they are not buying a business
eg if Adobe bought us they immediately have 30 million subscribers for the product overnight
Google Cloud apps have around 3 Billion users |
At what stage would a potential buyout fall foul of the anti competition legislation that Adobe bumped into ? |
Good conversation going on here.
My own feeling is that although the majors are no doubt watching with interest, they are not able to make an offer until the company has an understandable income stream.
Until that happens, there is sure to be a massive gap between what the directors are aiming for and what could credibly be offered for a loss-making company.
There are many milestones to be reached before this can happen...
100,000 total users,
500,000 total users,
1,000,000 total users,
3% conversion rate,
5% conversion rate
etc.
It would be nice to see all this happening in the first half of the year but 1 million total users with 5% conversion is unlikely before July '25 at the earliest.
Having said that, I believe the share price will react in advance of these milestones and we should be looking at challenging the obvious chart resistance around 30p by April. |
Thanks Cyberhub.
I recall that one of the benefits of the subscription version will be software for efficient intelligent retrieval of stored material, perhaps this is where 12 labs will come in. So maybe it will be best for most professional users to store their material with elevate subscription level. |
Alternatively they may be planning to delink the app from storage entirely. They've said that Elevate can work with AWS but also other providers. So perhaps they will offer a deal for AWS storage at a good price (taking a commission) but not actually enforce this as the only option? In effect they will charge purely for access to the app, and people can store their videos anywhere they like. That eliminates complexity. On the other hand it means they can't do deals with AWS as an exclusive provider. In that scenario, AWS may be actually willing to waive the tiny fees for 'trial' or 'freebie' account storage (I suggested a few pence per month in my earlier post), in return for the eventual potential of millions of fully paid accounts' storage? |
I think it would be perfectly reasonable to give people full access free for 30 days with say 10GB storage and then they have to pay, or lose access. That model is common for a lot of paywall newspapers, for example. After paying they could immediately get say 200GB with options to increase that.Alternatively give full functionality permanently, but restrict storage to 2GB which is enough to trial the features, and could even be enough for 'home' users to edit an occasional clip of their kids or whatever, without ever paying. 2GB would only cost a few pence per month, based on typical retail costs for Google Drive storage, which is £1.99 for 100GB. So even if we hit 1M freebie users in an initial run, that would be less than £50k per month, which is affordable in the short term. Of course if numbers started going through the roof then we would be needing further working capital... but in that scenario we would be raising it at 50p+!! |
johnveals
I get that having masses of free users will help to get the word out, but if the conversion rate is only 5% I would just like to understand the cost benefit analysis.
I accept that SR and the team will have done all the analysis and so will proceed with a scheme which they believe will work and which can be afforded. |
salmon 9
‘Thanks Cocorico, but is more than 30 days free for the full version affordable and should anyone have a basic version free for ever?’
Yes, otherwise you strangle growth through the networking effect, but with reduced function and storage capacity to limit overheads.
There needs to be a visible carrot dangled in the free version. |
Couple of billion next week, tens of billions next year.
Decisions, decisions.
In Sumit we trust.
££££ not pence |
Yes, I agree that a giant would have the option of a very different launch budget! |
Good Q's - For BIRD - I really dont know.
But shouldn't be a prob for the big boys like Amazon or Google |
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
Hot Features
Premium
