Fender's been at it for around 60(?) years, Gibson has for even longer. This guy seems pretty quack-ish to me.
He contradicts himself multiple times... "I carve out a cavity, which leaves more wood in the guitar. My goal is to take away as little wood as possible from the cavity... This [headstock] shape is a very compact design... This headstock design is a true innovation in terms of tone transfer... the Body Tone Hole Option, which not only adds to the intricate beauty of the guitar, but reduces the overall weight, changes the feel and alters the resonance."
If he is worried about taking more wood out of the guitar via the electronics cavity, why on earth is he drilling holes in his guitars? And likewise, why is he making the headstock so small, making it wider like a Fender headstock isn't going to make it weaker, only add more mass, which I'm pretty sure is scientifically proven to add sustain. Making it thinner like a Fender may affect strength, but a negligable amount.
Oh, and I love this: "My design and manufacturing process utilizes only primitive Old World craftsmanship and never any 'New World technology'. " Just to the left of the original text, there's a picture of this moron on a big circular sanding device (please excuse my lack of power tool name knowledge) and above he's on a table saw, working away. I was unaware that "primitive old world" craftsmen had motors and machine made blades and precision grit sand paper and all that jazz... Fool.
As far as I'm concerned this guy is full of hot air. He makes claims that are not backed up by science. Not that that is a big change from most guitar builders/companies/-ists, but some of them are much better about it.
I feel he makes very little sense, contradicts himself like a certain top-selling book, and is just trying to sell a product.
Have a nice day.
-Galen