Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I was just scolded by 427Cobra in PM about speaking for him and was asked to correct my statement. So, here is what he actually said:
"1) They are selling a line card with a chip on it, they are not selling a picture.
2) Any customer that wants to buy a line card with Cupria chip (s) on it will not in any way be deceived.
3) Since the line card is done, then the investor is also not being deceived.
All they would be guilty of is poor judgment, not deception. No one believes something that would make any difference. If you disagree with me, tell me what negative outcome would occur.
If I look on ebay for a Taylormade driver with a stiff shaft, I find one and the seller says that it has a stiff shaft, but the picture he used shows a regular shaft. It doesn't matter what the picture was as long as I receive a driver with a stiff shaft if I order it."
I normally would not post a private mail message, but he asked me to set the record straight, so there you have it. I have to say that equating a publicly traded company who purports to be a major competitor in one of the worlds largest markets to an e-bay seller is ridiculous, but then, what do I know...
Ketch said "The line card that is pictured here carries the version 1.6 software and is for sale", when in actually, the line card pictured there was a complete and utter fake. It is amazing how some people define honesty. Truly amazing...
However, it's hard to believe that they would do that again, having been called on it previously.
Why? Just look at the "GO RIM!!!" zombies who have lined up to defend this company - even in the face of yet another blatant deception.
Right now, 427Cobra is trying to tell me in PM that this is a perfectly acceptable practice.
As long as people like him and Groovy keep defending them, they'll keep deceiving - and pocketing the money.
Come on there are 100's of differnet types of line cards out there in all shapes and sizes.
Really?
Name two.
You are completely missing the point. They could have shown a picture of a real line card with a bogus picture of a chip pasted in it and it would not change the fact that the picture that they said was a line containing their product was a fake.
The fact that this does not seem to bother you is quite telling...
You need to read the letter again. It says "This is just one example of one line card". Not "their own line card". When did RSMI say they were building line cards. Nice try on the bash.
I don't have any interest in trying to convince you of anything. I do find it amusing though, that after posting what I believe is convincing evidence of yet another bogus picture of a non-existent device, you start playing word games and resort to the tired old "basher" ad hominem attacks.
If you bother to read the letter yourself, however, you will find that Ketch said "The line card that is pictured here carries the version 1.6 software and is for sale."
I don't know how you interpret it, but it seems clear that Ketch is claiming that the line card pictured was for sale. The picture is a photoshop fabrication. That is clear. What you do with that information is entirely up to you.
I can't help but wonder - if a line card complete with Cupria chips actually did exist, why would they need to fake a picture of it?
I have to say that I still have a level of morbid curiosity about this stock and it's rabid followers. I gave up long ago on trying to convince you people of anything that involves rational thought and critical thinking. You are just not capable. I find that fascinating. Here is but another example of this company being caught in an obvious outright lie, and people like you try to cover up for them by providing semantic loopholes while completely ignoring the fact that they are lying (again) to you, their loyal shareholders. Fortunately for the likes of Ketch and Ray, there are still enough of you around to keep their scam alive.
I'm not arguing that PMC boards can't be used for what RIM is claiming. I'm pointing out that the picture of what they offered as their own "line card" is a fake.
It's not the first time...
I haven't read the filing yet, but from what I can gather, they are now saying that they don't have enough money to complete the ASSP. I can't say that I am surprised despite the fact the 427Cobra demanded that they had enough money when I said they didn't a year or so ago.
And, it also looks like Ray is continuing to line his pockets - as usual...
Well, I just read the recent president's letter. I haven't been keeping up with this POS. Anyway, there is a picture, and it is called a "line card". Well, it's not a line card. It is an ethernet card in a somewhat obscure form factor called PCI Mezzanine Card (PMC). In fact, it looks like another photochop job of a commercially available card. Here is the picture from Rim:
Here is the card that they ripped off:
This is an ethernet card based on the Intel i82559 chipset. If you look carefully, the cards are virtually identical with the notable exception of Cupria chips that have been pasted in. In fact, if you look at the second pic, you can see a chip that says "HALO" on it near the front bezel. The RIM pic also shows the same chip, only partly covered by the pasted Cupria image. Also the Rim pic still shows the Intel controller chip. You can see it at the top near the back of the card in both pics. There are some other minor differences that can be attributed to a poor photochop job.
The ability of this company to deceive is truly astonishing.
If Extreme Coppers business were operating out of someones garage it wouldn't prove anything. If your business is installing equipment at other premises all you need is a place to receive the equipment and service vehicles.
Sure it would be nice for us to see we were doing business with someone with huge offices and a few secretaries, and maybe a couple of vice presidents in charge of different departments, but in and of itself, the absence of that does not prove anything.
Now who's filtering...?
Are you saying that is is standard for chip makers to accept chips back for any reason other than defective goods? I'm not buying that.
Actually, as chip giants like Intel and AMD can attest, it is rather common for a chipmaker to accept chips back if the reseller can't move them. Happens all the time.
Still, chips are usually booked as sold when they ship, and taken as a write-down if they are returned.
OT--gotta plead ignorant on Firefox. If it is a browser, how does it play out against MS Explorer?
It does not have nearly as many security exploits as IE, but that's probably because it is much less popular - kinda like Macs. There is nothing more inherently safe about them, just that writers of malicious code tend to go after big targets.
A lot of people swear by Firefox. I don't use it, mostly because I have to use IE at work, and I am used to its idiosyncracies. People who do use Firefox tend to love it, though.
I think a great comparison for open source is Firefox's add ons.
Firefox is an alternative web browser to say Internet Explorer. It is open source. 1000's of individuals have written software to fullfill personal needs that fit into the Firefox browser. Here is some examples. All it does is add to the existing Firefox product and allows the user to customize to his needs. But you knew this already Bill.
You do know that nobody makes any money off of Firefox, don't you?
Not exactly an ideal comparison...
That is intended to market and publicize IPSL.
No, it's not. It is intended to be a hail Mary effort to try to garner enough interest to make it a standardized protocol. As I said long ago, nobody wants a non-standard DSL technology. The only protocols that have been adopted on a large scale are those sanctioned by ITU and IEEE as standards, which IPSL is not.
It does not they are giving away their patent rights to it.
Sure it does. If they make IPSL an "open protocol", then all intellectual property associated with it becomes public domain. While they might still have rights to the patents (they don't "own" any patents, IIRC), the rights to exclusive use are given up when they voluntarily offer the IP to the public to "use it, modify it, and make money off of it".
Here's the deal. By making IPSL an "open protocol", they have instantly commoditized it. If it is ever adopted as a standard, those who make money off of it will be those companies who are able to develop chipsets quickly and mass-produce them cheaply.
RIM has demonstrated a decided lack of ability on both of those counts.
I do not understand the motive to bash everything that this company tries to do. If you are not happy with what they have to say, then sell your shares and move on...someone else will take your position.
Yet another cheerleader who tries to stifle constructive discussion...
This is hilarious Spoke as your bashing buddy billy was just saying how everything had to be in a Standard.....which way is it.
I'm not sure I follow. IPSL is *not* standards-compliant. As a result, nobody wants it. I think Bill said pretty much the same thing.
All that "open source" means is that they can modify it to fit their model. But you knew that didn't you.
I've said this before...if you do not have the capacity to understand even the most rudimentary aspects of an industry, you have no business investing in it. You clearly have no idea what "open protocol" means.
Look, folks, the latest president's letter told you that this company has now given away, for free, to all of its competitors, the very thing that they have claimed will give them the huge advantage in the industry.
We are volunteering it to a standards organization and making it open for anyone who wants to use it, modify it, and make money off of it.
It's right there in black and white. If you can't understand those simple words, I cannot explain it to you any further.
As I said before, you are free to believe whatever fantasy fits your agenda. I'm not going to argue these issues with you. You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you.
"again you refuse to mention anything about Rim. Why dont you confirm or deny some of the amazing things they have stated recently?"
I can't "confirm or deny" anything.
I do have a few observations. The company made all of this hullabaloo about signing all of these deals for "design wins", yet the filings say that there are no financial commitments. That would seem to "deny" that the so-called "design wins" are genuine.
The latest revelation is that the company has now made its only IP that has any potential value open source. Do you know what that means? It means two things:
1) It is non-standard, and nobody wants it as a result.
2) It no longer belongs to RIM.
Can you honestly say that you are happy that RIM gave away its only IP in a desperate attempt ot get someone else to adopt it and create a market?
All the while, Brad is giving himself six-figure bonuses and millions in stock options struck at a tiny fraction of the market price.
These things are indeed "amazing" but not in the sense that I assume you mean...
Re: "Spoke, you would bash this company any chance you got before, why would you suddenly stop?? The only rationle reason I can think of is that you realize your assumptions were incorrect!"
Are you sure that is the *only* rationale?
There are literally dozens of former cheerleaders who no longer post here. By the very same "only rationale" they must have finally realized that this is a scam.
Mostly, I have decided to move on. I have far too many exciting things going on in my life to spend untold hours here arguing endlessly about an obscure, mostly meaningless OTC penny stock.
Of course, you are free to believe whatever fantasy fits your agenda.
Yeah, 4 posts in the last months. Quite the basher, I am.
rolls eyes...
Re: "Oh please dont ask input from those 2 clowns..."
I see that the moderator of this board still has no respect for the TOU...
I haven't posted here in a while, and the only reason I am posting now is because I got some disturbing information from a fairly reliable source. I am told that cosmo is indirectly compensated by RIM to spin this board in their favor. It wouldn't be the first time that they paid people to be their public shills.
I obviously can't directly confirm this, but the source has been pretty reliable in the past.
I will ask the question directly to cosmo:
Are you compensated by the company or by an agent of the company to post here?
OK, but I just found it very ironic that you dissappeared at such a convient time.
Frankly, I don't give a hairy rat's butt whether you found it ironic or not. The fact is that this board is mostly worthless, and I have little interest in reading it anymore. You do a poor job of moderating by selectively allowing attacks that suit your agenda and deleting those that don't. In short, you have the distinguished legacy of being moderator of one of the worst moderated boards I have ever participated in.
As for the company, none of the recent announcements amount to a hill of beans. They are completely without substance. Until there is something of substance, I have little to say. I have already made my position clear.
Tim waltz out the back door quielty when Rim began to do all the things that he predicted would NEVER happen. Just that simple...
Geezus. You *think* you know everything, don't you?
I'm mostly waiting for the "K" to come out so we can find out how much all of these "customers" are costing the shareholders.
Spoke: that is the whole satirical nature of these message boards - most of them are like that. If one always spoke formally here, it would be about as dull as a city council meeting. To elicit a debate or to add dramatization to a board is what adds to its lure and attracts users simply beyond the actual topic of the board. Sort of like reality TV I guess. Although the majority would publicly insist that they don't enjoy the 'entertainment' aspect here because they are above and beyond that.
I guess its about trying to find the correct balance between the emotional theatrics and communication/information exchange to make a board both entertaining and useful.
After all of that BS, your post was deleted. Apparently you are not quite as entertaining as you think you are...
I doubt you are man enough to reply to this post.
Another personal attack - and from a moderator.
It never fails that weak-minded people who can't carry their point with intelligent discourse seem to always resort to infantile insults and attacks.
There is no question if you are man enough to actually carry on a decent, civil, mature discussion without resorting to insults. Clearly you are not.
I am also quite sure that you aren't man enough to insult me to my face.
I agree, I always like Spokes posts, but I think he like all others should be accountable and back up his claims.
I have always tried to provide as much "back up" for my claims that is humanly possible. In the last discussion about "design wins", I provided a detailed description of what constitutes a genuine "design win" in this industry. It is an industry that I follow closely and know a good deal about. I think I have proven that. I challenged several of my antogonists to do some research for their own edification on what "design wins" other companies in this industry have claimed. If you were motivated enough to do so, you could easily look up PRs for other semi companies to find out what a *real* design win is.
My guess is that you won't bother. Instead, you will continue to do your best to baselessly attempt to discredit me and others by "holding us accountable" without saying what that really means or providing any "back up" of your own.
I'll ask the same question of you that I asked yesterday which you apparently chose to ignore - why do you seem to only hold us "bashers" accountable? Why don't you hold Cobra accountable for all of his grossly wrong predictions? How about holding the company accountable for all of its lies?
I think I have established my credibility. I am not accountable to you, or anyone else here.
Spoke, my apologies if it came across as an insult - my point was that you need to be held accountable for your previous assertions.
I am curious about why you only hold those who disagree with you accountable for their assertions...
Nevermind. I know the answer.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. I don't know how you people sleep at night...
Hey Spoke, you said under current conditions Rim could not secure a design win. But how about this, you never even commented on it!
I thought I did comment on it. At any rate, this is not a "design win" by any stretch of the imagination or by any industry-accepted meaning of the term. This sleazy company can call it anything they want, but it is still lipstick on a pig.
But I dont think you said that in an attempt to bash, maybe since you have been out of school so long your tech skills might be outdated.
I see that, even though you are still a moderator, that doesn't stop you from feeble attempts at back-handed insults and personal attacks.
But regardless, Rim now offically has a design win (as documented below).
Well, it did serve its purpose. Even though it is clearly a completely fictitious "design win" by any interpretation of the term, it did cause people like you, who are ignorant of the industry, to jump for joy.
Given the market's reaction to this stunning news, smarter people obviously know better...
Interesting...
http://ticktockstock.com/index.html
A stock site that is apparently devoted exclusively to RIM. Some familiar names there too. I reckon this is the "secret place" talked about some time ago.
Some people's obsessions are disturbing...
Spoke, I have made peace with bill now. Any more silly comments from you? Get it out of your system...
As long as I'm at it... You were baiting Bill, and then when he responded to your taunting, you whined about him "stalking" you and threatened him with lawsuits.
It is disappointing to see you, once reasonable and fair, become so juvenile. It is unbecoming of a moderator. You have lost your perspective, and have taken to the typical RSMI party line of attacking those who attack the company.
In short, grow up.
There. I think it is out of my system now.
then cool off please...you are inviting a lawsuit.
LOL!
You really are losing it...
maybe WHP3 and Greg, lol
Another example of WHP03 stalking you, I see.
As I recall, you took the first shot in the last conversation, too. If anything, you're stalking him. You are losing it, man.
I know he personally didn't produce them and there was a large staff, however, if they take 6 months doing 135 of them seams difficult to do in a year. That makes me suspicious of the 6 months figure.
Believe what you wish, Ernie. HOwever, you might also want to consider some of these resources:
New tools and methodologies are also coming into play that compress ASIC design cycles, which can stretch out to two yearsfor the most complex chips.
“There are no shortcuts; you cannot eliminate any of the steps,” he said. “You can shave off some time, but for any design today, it would be unrealistic to think ASIC design [from vendor selection through RTL handoff] can be done in less than six months.”
http://www.us.design-reuse.com/articles/article2286.html
Already, typical ASIC development time to first silicon is generally around 18 months...
Even a relatively small design fix to bring the device up to desired performance specifications can lead to a catastrophic delay in time-to-market of as much as six to nine months. Today, 24 to 27 months is often the equivalent to an entire product or process generation.
http://www.rtcmagazine.com/home/article.php?id=100227
Here's one for structured ASICs:
In fact, Freescale’s SemiCustom operation can develop ASIC products within a six- to nine-month timeframe, thereby accelerating each customer’s time to market and extending time in market.
http://www.freescale.com/files/abstract/article/LEADERSHIP_SEMICUSTOM.html?tid=ASIChome_geninfo1
Standard Cell designs are extremely complex and therefore take an average of 2-3 years to develop.
http://www.chipx.com/about/index.asp
...it can take up to two years to design and produce a ASIC.
http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA489811&partner=eb&industryid=211....
According to this source, typical ASIC production times are 12 to 18 months, with 9 months being the minimum:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/1/8/f/18f8cee2-0b64-41f2-893d-a6f2295b40c8/SW04032_WINHEC2004.... To Market
Upfront investment in a single ASIC can exceed $6M and time to market 12-18 months.
http://www.connextechnology.com/about.asp
Nearly all of the resources I have researched inidcate that typical ASIC time-to-market is somewhere around 2 years. Structured ASICs can cut that time in half. That puts it at a year. As you can sxee, I have been very generous by saying a minimum of 6 months.
YOu don't have to believe me. After all, jjz has established that I am not the be-all, end-all. But before you take the company's word at face value, look into what actually happens in the real world.
Standards won't be a problem.
Here we go agian...
Maybe not in Cobra fantasy land, but here in reality, standards are just that - standards.
I challenged you when we had this conversation before to find a single example of a noncompliant product that has been substantially deployed by a telco to support this position. Just one.
Well?
My "little buddies" as you insultingly refer to them dont hide behind their "Spokeshave" moniker or their computer monitor in backasswoods tennessee.
And yet you hide behind your "jjz34" moniker and spew forth vile insults.
I'm not hiding behind anything. I am perfectly willing to share my contact info with you privately if you truly want to know my credentials or just want to talk about this company. I have done so with several others here.
Well, at least I would have before you went postal. You need to get a grip, counselor. Seriously.
OK, that was very informative. So how does a structured asic reduce time to market?
Because some of the structures that would have to be designed from scratch are already precharacterized - meaning that they don't need to be developed and will *probably* work on the first spin.
Companies have plans, sometimes they change them. I was showing options that could lead to results that coincide with their statement that there would be orders this year.
When they change their plans, we can discuss their new plans. Until then, any speculation as to how they might change their plans is meaningless.
I thought that a structured asic was one that was made by another company, kind of a prefab asic that you buy from them to put your code on.
No, there is no such thing as a prefab ASIC. Like any other custom silicon, all ASICS must be manufactured from scratch with silicon lithography.
There are basically three types of ASICs:
Full-custom ASICS - These are devices that are pretty much designed from scratch. The masks for each layer are designed from the bottom up, with all of the logic components designed specifically for the manufactuer's application. This is the most difficult and costly approach.
Gate-array ASICs - These devices use pre-characterized masks containing large numbers of gates that are already developed and tested. The manufacturer develops the logic by designing metal layers that connect the various gates as needed. However, other elements, such as clocks, test logic, power etc. must be custom designed.
Structured ASICs - These are very similar to gate-array ASICs in that the masks for the gate-arrays are already characterized. Additionally, elements that must be custom designed in the other ASIC types are already designed and characterized. There is typically a large library of pre-characterized mask elements offered by the manufacturer.
All ASICs are made-to-order. In other words, you don't buy ASICs off the shelf and program them. In fact, that is the definition of an FPGA. Instead, you buy a manufacturing approach. In the case of a structured ASIC, you buy the IP elements that you can use, and then design the metal layers to make all of the connections. The fab then takes these designs and makes the silicon.
You said that they said that they could just take someone else's ASIC and add things in to make their own. They can't do that. Think of an ASIC designing package as a computer with a hard drive and an operating system. By itself, it can't do much. A company like Oracle develops logic that can run on the hardware, and makes it into something useful. You are saying that Rim could take the Oracle software, add a few things to it and call it Rimacle.
That's not allowed.
Are you saying then, that the company makes their own structured asic and doesn't buy someone elses?
You can buy someone's ASIC development and production services. That's how ASICs are made.
He mentioned that one way to get to market more quickly is to use an ASIC that was made by another company and add Rim's technology to it.
Seriously. If Brad told you this, then he is an idiot.
ASICs are patented, copyrighted devices. You can't just take someone else's product, modify it, and call it your own (although Rim has done that with pictures...). The only way this could possibly happen would be if the other company licensed their product to Rim. What company would license their product to a competitor?
Come on, Sherman. Be realistic.
According to the IEE Times. FPGAs top choice for some telecom equipment, survey says...So orders could come from FPGA's.
Ketch himself clearly stated that this was not likely. That's probably because the FPGA pictured in the pictured that replaced the bogus one was an Altera Exaclibur FPGA. These run anywhere from $20 to $200 per copy depending on volume. It's hard to hit the xDSL port price point of about $15 with that kind of cost. Don't let that stop you, though. You're on a roll.
Also from the IEE Times. More and more engineers who are designing advanced systems are considering structured ASICs because of the devices' low unit cost, low power, high performance and fast turnaround
That's certainly an option. Structured ASICs, however, still require significant initial NRE time and effort. Where they save time and money is in the manufacturing due in part to the smaller number of masks required. They company continues to state, however, that they will produce an ASSP, not a structured ASIC.
Tom Moxon who specializes in FPGA to Silicon says that if pressed, the conversion from FPGA to a slightly less complex version of the integrated circuit (IC), called an ASSC (Application Specific Structured Cell), could take place in 30 days!
Source? I would be left to wonder what they would be forced to leave out to make the design less complex. Nonetheless, this is in direct contradiction to the company's claims that they will produce an ASSP. That premise is what all of my analysis is based on.
So even though Spoke has a lot of technical knowledge, I don't think that he gave us the whole picture, but many people just take what he says as gospel, without finding out if it is the whole story.
I don't think anyone takes what I say as gospel. However, I usually take great care to make sure my answers are correct. Your few minutes spent Googling won't change that. I will say this. Over the last few years, it seems we have this discussion about once a year. Time and again, you gin up scenarios to try to justify your opinion that the company can produce faster than is likely. To date, you have been wrong every time. Year after year, it has taken the company a seemingly endlessly longer time to produce than you want to convince us will be the case.
Year after year, you have been wrong, and year after year, I have been right. That may be why some people (except Austin and cosmo) will take my analysis as more accurate than yours.
Once again, you can make up any scenarios you wish. If you make up things that are contrary to what the company has openly claimed, then your conclusions are worthless.
They company has clearly said that their product will be an ASSP. Not and FPGA and not a structured ASIC. My analysis is based on those facts, not your made up fantasies.
So apparently you don't think it is a legitimate question to try and understand how a company can make a chip that has specific parameters requested by the customer without an order to do so ahead of time.
I'll tell what I think is not legitimate. It is not legitimate to ask a question, get an answer, say "I'll take your word for it" and then completely ignore the answer and post fiction as though it were fact anyway.
At any rate, it simply does not work that way. A company may hint at the possibility of future orders if certain features are incorporated, but no company will will commit funds until they have seen and tested final silicon. Too much can go wrong. This company has been promising silicon every year for the last 5 years. Imagine what would have happened if a company had "placed and order" in 2001.
This industry changes very quickly. New and better products appear constantly. Even so, it still takes 6 months to a year to bring a new design to market if everything goes well. A company will not be willing to tie up capital for that long when there is no guarantee that the final product will work as designed, or that another more capable product won't come along in the mean time.
Surely you can understand this. We have discussed it numerous times.
All you can do is attack me. I guess that helping us understand the questions is not as important as disparaging the one asking the question.
I don't like being "played", Sherman.
I'll be sure to tell the people that I speak with that "Jules" on Ihub says, despite their job title and years in the business, that their opinions are "laughable." Let's make it clear without the sarcasm..
How is that any different that you coming here and basically saying "I know guys who know stuff who say that spoke is wrong".
That seems like the kind of dishonest trick I would expect from Cobra, but not from you. MAybe its an old lawyer trick. You try to pollute a witness's testimony by saying "experts disagree" but don't provide any further information about the so-called "experts" and what they disagree about.
It's a neat way to get weak-minded people to agree with you without having to actually prove anything.
I'll be the first to admit when I am wrong. If your little buddies can provide you anything to substantiate your so-far completely unfounded attack on my integrity, please post it here.
To use your own words, put up or shut up...
Burunstien is a basher, why would hey show it to him, he just puts a negative spin on things.
LOL. You have really gone off the deep end. Burstein gives a fair shake, and showing him the test data could have cast aside all doubts... WOnder why they refused?