Rereading posts from the last few days, TT, and regret that a good point got lost.I don't see our respective points as being mutually exclusive.
There may well be legal/liability considerations for having a fully functioning diagnostic tool localised in the event, for example, of temporary network outage. There may be safety/robustness hurdles that need clearing? Protecting our IP? Who knows?
On the other hand, you can't discount the fact that we're applying for approval for an app that will be embedded on a mobile phone.
What you missed in my fake scenario is the implied use of the app at each step. One informs the other. They're codependent.
Convincing people that the science behind the tech was sound was achieved when the hospitals agreed to host the trials.
What we're applying to have approved is a smartphone app.I just can't imagine that the RAP team has kicked the can this far along without real conviction, and the support of their contemporaries that the end product has legs.
That's also why the talk of network capacity/ bandwidth is important. How well our app integrates with the broader telehealth trends will determine our commercial success or failure.
I'm sure hammering out the parameters of licensing agreements is taking up a good deal of the team's time at the moment.
More grist...
Peace
RAP Price at posting:
7.1¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)
