Other posters said that SFI are only a tech company, not me....

Other posters said that SFI are only a tech company, not me. Further I'm hardly biased as I'm one of the few here that were poking holes in the NEA FY reports. I was actually only discussing the NEA financial results to begin with, though of course someone always brings up SFI, ( which is fair enough - they are relevant).

I was mainly arguing that the capture to customer systems are the crucial basis for NEAs value and not their historic libraries as someone else had commented. Then SFI fans started asking whats so good about NEA's systems? This was off topic but Im the fool who made the error of answering.

NEAs operation is currently larger than SFIs. NEA operates from capture to customer in their two shared major markets, while SFI only operates a trial and a supporting role in the same. NEAs offering in Australia is matured enough to be turning a profit. NEAs offering in the US is not as mature but it is still more of a complete system than SFI's which is just providing camera technology for another company. These more developed operations implies that the NEAs capture to customer systems are more developed. You simply cannot say SFI have the same level or scale. Simply a point of difference between two companies. Nothing so biased or incorrect there.

Pretty hard work having a middle of the road opinion on HC, I have to say.