Science and Technology

Meet the Next Product from Fitbit’s Designer12 min read

Comments (17)
  1. Jed says:

    Great approach to NXO and great review! Thanks I have owned these shares for some months now.

  2. Blaise says:

    A “wearable “ binocular “ sounds good to me.
    No more sore arms.

  3. Richard vedder says:

    Thanks, I lost my butt the last time you pumped this company. I always enjoy reading your perspective on things but this Pump re-categorized you for me.

    1. Equedia says:

      I am sorry to hear of your loss. Please look at it from our perspective:

      We first featured this Company in 2016 when the stock was trading at $0.34. It fell as lows as the mid $0.20’s, so anyone who has followed this Letter for some time has had the chance to make a lot of money. We continued to update our readers, below $1 and around $2.

      In fact, when the stock hit above $3.50, that could have been a 10 bagger (the dream for many) for those that have been following this letter for some time.

      The stock is trading above $1.50 at the time of this comment.

      The stock ran not because of our “pump.” It ran because the Company continued to hit milestones leading up to the prototype. The shorts took the momentum and ran an illegal short and distort campaign to take the stock lower. And they were successful. Illegal, but successful.

      Furthermore, we have invested in this Company and have participated in every round of financing so that the Company can hire and innovate and bring this amazing Canadian technology forward. In other words, we are contributing to the Canadian economy and Canadian innovation. The Company has hired more people and recently raised over $7 million to move this project forward.

      Who do the shorts benefit? No one but themselves.

      The average VC /Angel exit is 7-10 years.

      This Company is 3 years old.

      We never tell readers to buy or sell stock, but rather present them with ideas and updates.

      If we don’t update our readers, our readers ask for updates. When we update our readers, you call it a pump. How do we, as an investment newsletter, win?

      In fact, our readers have had a very successful year.

      Mogo was introduced earlier this year above $2 and today it’s trading at $8 at the time of this writing.

      Abcann was introduced earlier this year and hovered below $1 for many months. This week, it hit $1.81.

      The average failure of VC-backed companies is 9/10.

      Our newsletter in the past few years alone have had multiple winners – in fact, 2 gold stocks we introduced were recently bought out in the last year – one for more than US$500 million, the other for more than US$1 billion. This doesn’t include the big wins we’ve already shown our readers this year with Mogo and Abcann. It doesn’t include a lithium company we introduced last year that has more than doubled in share price based on today’s price.

      We hope this helps answers your question. Most of our ideas are speculative. Our time frame may be different than yours, especially if you’re a trader.

  4. Rob says:

    How is the cash burn? I ask because this guy don’t work cheap, he’s an expert in his field as was I back in the day. It’s also a substantive question, and as such questions go; they get lost in the hype. Looking forward to more substance in the next article.
    Oh, and how much $$ needs to be raised to bring this first product to market?

  5. sarah says:


  6. Missy long says:


  7. Frank says:

    A larger aperture doesn’t indicate a longer lens, but a larger front lens element. Sports photographers don’t have long lenses because they need more light, but because they need to get closer to the action. Clearly the author doesn’t understand lens design.

    1. Equedia says:

      Sorry, but I think you’re misunderstanding what was written.

      There are certainly numerous other factors when it comes to lens design. Large apertures collect more light and has higher resolution. While you are correct in that sports photographers don’t have long lenses because they need more light, but because they need to get closer to the action, you can’t have sharp high resolution images without large apertures to gather that light.

      That is the problem with small lens systems, such as those in your phone.

      If we are wrong, please explain why camera phones and small lenses don’t see very far or rather, please show us sports photographer’s camera lens that’s compact – since, as you mention, a large aperture doesn’t indicate a longer lens.

      Perhaps we understand lens design more than you think.

      1. Neil Fiertel says:

        I would more than be glad to clarify the issue of optics with you as you are missing a critical understanding of why one needs a larger aperture for high resolution but it is not an optical solution at all. I think your designer is wonderful and as I was formerly a professor of fine arts the University of Alberta (emeritus) I have a good handle on such a field but I also have a pretty solid understanding of optics as a long time photographer and I do think you need to understand much better the implications of optics and its affects on resolution and so forth. It is not the issue of resolution that is the key variable but in the light gathering compromises that make small optics unable to deliver super sharp high resolution results. Consider for example the tiny lenses in a microscope. The logic is right there to have missed in other words the real reason why smaller apertures sizes are the limitation for say a camera or imaging device..the number of photons that impinge upon the sensor used. The more , the better so long as they accurately hit the sensor sites. Physics is physics and new optical designs can do many marvellous things but they do not change photons and wave mechanics! In any case, I do suggest you do need talk with an optical designer at least a teacher who can explain all of this clearly as you are undercutting your own sales pitch here to be blunt.why am I writing to you? I want Canadian companies to succeed to be simply put.

  8. Tina Norgaard says:

    My friend is a photograaf so im interested.

  9. Edward Simpson says:

    I remember this Product and when the maker marketed it for the very first time sevral years ago. I still remember some details but I do remember being absolutely impressed. I believe the “maker” a photographer himself has a very unique concept.
    Great idea!

  10. Sharon says:

    Love all the information as I am new to buying and trading. For beginners which App would you recommend I use to buy and trade stocks?

    Thank you all for the comments as this was very interesting reading.

  11. Ken Mead says:

    Guys, more light into the camera allows for fast shutter speeds. Fast shutter speeds are the key requirement of sports photography. I look forward to better cameras in cell phones. Mine has been bad for my photo album. It has caused, the lazy me, to leave a real camera at home too often.

  12. Chris pauschenwein says:

    I can see that big brother will now be able to spy on us easier with the new lenses as well. Imagine cheaper sataliites and micro bots ….. maybe micro bats, birds and insects carrying spy cameras!

  13. James Fairleigh says:

    I am interested.

  14. Brian says:

    What products have you brought to market? I don’t see any evidence that there are viable products being produced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.