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.
From what I can ascertain, someone could test the FPGA and put in an order for the asic.
Geezus, Sherman. I simply don't understand why you would ask my opinion about something, get an answerr that is not what you w2ant to hear, but continue to put your made up, unrealistic fantasies out there anyway.
Just yesterday, I told you that companies do not buy, or place orders for semi products that are not finished. I told you that it doesn't happen, and even asked you to satisfy yourself that this is true by looking at the PRs of relevant other companies. YOu refused to do the research, and even said "That's OK, I'll tkae your word for it."
NOw, here you are again, making up more pure fiction, refusing to to the research, and acting as though the conversation never took place.
You are being incredibly dishonest. Keep tyhat up, and Austin and cosmo might stop worshipping you...
spoke: However if a company committed to design their equipment around a future chip because a telco wanted to use that chip, then the design win would happen at the time of commitment, even if the chip is not done yet, hypothetically. Is that conceivable?
No. Absolutely not.
It doesn't work that way, and you know that. We have been through this countless times. But, don't let that stop you from making things up. That seems to be your new hobby.
I'll tell you what. All semi companies always make a pretty big PR deal about their design wins. Do just a tiny bit of research for yourself and look through some other companies' PRs. You won't find a single example of a design win for a product that is not in final silicon.
I guarantee it.
It was my understanding that a design win is when an equipment manufacturer agrees to design their equipment around a companies chip. So does the ASIC have to be done before that design win can happen?
Yes. I thought I was pretty clear on that point.
cosmo: Re: What is the sequence of even for a company that is producing a chip (forget about the fact that the company in question is RIM), is this correct:
completed fpga
design win
completed asic
final implemented salable product/revenue
is this the correct order? are there other steps?
No, it's not the correct order, and there are many other steps. A few years ago, I posted s short primer on the semiconductor lifecycle. Here it is:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=933287
Note that this post was done over three years ago, when the company was then claiming to have a complete FPGA design (remember the "design is frozen" statement...) and was predicting ASIC production and revenue in that year (2003). It's almost comical to look back at how the same people get suckered into the same lie year after year. Don't worry. The same lie will be told for next year, and the same people will buy the lie hook, line and sinker. I admit that I am a little bit surprised to see you among the suckers. But, hey. It's your money...
At any rate, there will be no "design win" until there is final silicon, i.e. a tested and working ASIC. That would be 6 months to a year away if they started *now*, assuming everything went perfectly, and that they had the $10 million or so needed to produce it and keep the doors open.
By orders, I mean that a company makes a commitment to Rim for a specific # of chips. I believe we will have orders in 2006, revenue the first quarter of 2007...
As we have discussed before, there will be no orders until there is a product - meaning custom silicon. An ASSP (or ASIC - same thing). There has been *no* progress toward actually producing custom silicon. There is no fab deal. If they ever do sign a fab, it will be at least 6 months before the first engineering samples are produced. In the unlikely event that this ever happens, the target customers will evaluate the design for several months before placing orders. That puts us well into the second half of next year before any orders could possible be placed. (Of course, I mean orders for volume products, not fabricated orders for FPGA test kits)
That's how this industry works. You know this. We have discussed this many times. I have even provided reliable sources for you to learn from. Nonetheless, feel free to make up anything that siuts your agenda. At least Austin is buying it...
As for the ASIC, we had a discussion some weeks ago about the missed timeline of having the ASIC done this summer. Here is yet another source for their, er, shall we say "faulty" predictions. From the December 14 president's letter:
"These design revisions will then be built into Release 2.0 of Cupria™ and fabricated into an application specific special part (ASSP). The ASSP will have a much lower cost and therefore be suitable for high volume deployment. Subject to our customers’ approval, and also to us raising the funding that we need in the spring of 2006, we plan to release the ASSP in the summer of 2006."
That makes five years running that they have promised a product in the following year. It has never happened, and didn't happen again this year.
Thank you sir, may I have another...
I admit that there were two qualifications to that statement - subject to our customers’ approval, and also to us raising the funding"... Well, they got the funding. That can only mean that the customers don't "approve" of the design. Given how late they are in meeting this committment that is only a few months old, the degree of customer disapproval must be quite high.
That certainly doesn't jibe with the company's statements that Cuparq is the best thing since sliced bread. Please make up a convenient excuse for this major timeline miss. It should be amusing...
OK, so I'm willing to be educated. What did the report mean by this statement? Rim Semiconductor's Embarq(TM) chips deliver up to 200 Mbps -- 100 percent faster than traditional VDSL2 technology. What version were they referring to at 100 Mbps.
They were referring to the version explicitly identified in this statement:
Using accurate models of transmission systems and the copper telephone loop plant, Telcordia tested Rim Semiconductor's Embarq chips against VDSL2 profile 12a products that are being used by telecommunications carriers for new triple play services deployments.
They didn't mention *any* other profile that was tested. It's cut and dried. They tested Embarq against a crippled (from the perspective of sheer speed) version of VDSL2.
Also, if they tested it agains VDSL2 12a is it likely they would they have also tested Rim at 12 MHz for comparison?
I have no idea what spectrum Embarq might use, if it even exists. However, if you are claiming that Rim would test a crippled version of Embarq against the crippled version of VDSL2, then I would love to hear your reasoning. The passage that you cited seemed to tout Embarq's top speed. It is clear and unequivocal that Rim tested their best against VDSL2's middle-of-the-road. Can you not admit at least the possibility that the test is misleading? Given the company's extraordinarily long history of artful deception, surely you have to agree that this is possibly yet another instance.
I have made my point about this test ad nauseum. It's all there in black and white. You can make up whatever scenarios you wish to make the facts more palatable to your agenda. That may make you feel better, but it doesn't change the facts.
If Telcordia tested Rim and VDSL2 under identical conditions then the test is legit. I don't think they would do it any other way and report that Rim beats VDSL2. It doesn't win if it is tested in different conditions.
Please read the PR again. Telcordia did not say that Rim beats VDSL2, they said that Rim beat VDSL2 profile 12a.
There is a *huge* difference.
So, this simply means that they did not test Rim's chips in the real world out in the field, they tested Rim's CHIPS using an accurate model of the phone loop plant. But it still clearly says they tested Rim's CHIPS. It does not say a model of the chip, it says their CHIPS.
Read it again:
"Using accurate models of transmission systems and the copper telephone loop plant..."
I'll agree that it says that they tested it using a model of the phone loop plant. It also said that they used "models of transmission systems". What do you suppose they meant by that?
Embarq is the "transmission system" that they used a "model" of.
Seems pretty clear to me.
It's interesting that anything you post is "indisputable".
No, it's not. I'm certainly man enough to admit when I am wrong. Clearly, you did not make that part up. My apologies.
Given your recent incorrect, yet unqualified proclamation that Rim had submitted IPSL to the ITU for standardization evaluation, coupled with you recent similarly incorrect yet unqualified proclamation that telcos don't care about standards, you may be able to understand my reaction. Nonetheless, I jumped to a conclusion before making sure I was right. I usually don't do that. So, I apologize.
None of this changes the fact that the celebrated Telcordia test did not compare Cuparq to the fastest VDSL2 profile. Yet, the cheerleaders here have come to the conclusion that Cuparq is faster than VDSL2. That simply is not true.
Q. What part of the spectrum did they use to test Rim's technology? Since they want it to co-exist with ADSL, it seems reasonalble that it may not have been @ 30MHz.
Please provide your source for this claim. Rim has said thatg Cuparq in not standards-compliant. It CANNOT co-exist with ADSL. Furthermore, RIM has already said that Cuparq far outperforms ADSL. There would be no need for co-deployment.
You are making things up again, Sherman. Provide proof for this statement, or admit that you are lying.
And one more point. For your comment above to have any relevance, Telcordia would have had to test SOMETHING of Rim's.
Telcordia said they tested a model.
Again, since this test was for customers, and they received the full report, I think the comparisons would have been apples to apples, or it would not have the credibility it needed and would have defeated it's whole purpose.
It served its purpose famously. It caused naive investors like you to continue to believe.
It is truly astonishing to me that you have no capacity for rational thought. I present you with indisputable evidence, straight from the company's own mouth that the Telcordia test was not really what they claimed, and you fabricate and spin rather than admit the facts.
There seems to be no depth to your dishonesty. I've said it before. I don't know how you sleep at night.
Using accurate models of transmission systems and the copper telephone loop plant, Telcordia tested Rim Semiconductor's Embarq chips against VDSL2 profile 12a products...
Holy crap. I can't believe I missed this before.
Damn.
I'm a bit pissed at myself for letting this slip by me.
Let me explain. VDLS2 is available in various "profiles" for various uses. The VDSL2 standard allows for the use of up to 30Mhz of spectral bandwidth. Different profiles use varying amounts of that bandwith from 8MHz up to the full 30 MHz. Now, for a question to the class. Which profile offers the greatest performance?
That's right. The one that uses the full 30MHz spectrum. This profile is called 30a.
Now, for the bonus round question.
How much of the available 30MHz spectrum do you think "profile 12a" uses?
That's right! 12 MHz. Profile 12a, the one that Telcordia compared Cuparq to, uses less than half of the available spectrum.
OK. Here's another question. Given that profile 12a uses less than half of the available spectrum, how does it compare to the performance of the more powerful profile 30a, which uses the full 30MHz?
BINGO! Profile 12a is a middle-of-the-road profile in the VDSL2 standard. As such it offers somwehat less than half of the performance of the "big dawg" 30a profile. In fact, the standard minimum data rate for profile 12a is 68 Mbps. The next profile up, profile 17a, has a minimum data rate of 100 Mbps. The "big dawg" profile 30a has a minimum data rate of 200 Mbps.
So, let's summarize. RIm makes this big deal about this Telcordia test. The PR says that Cuparq beats VDSL2 by 40% to 100%. What they don't tell you (at least directly) is that the comparison was made to what is only the mid-range profile for VDSL2!
Let me put this in layman's terms. It is as though Rim has developed a sports car. They publish a PR stating that their Cuparq sports car is 40% to 100% faster than the Corvette profile G2. What they don't tell you is that Corvette "profile G2" means that the Corvette is limited to second gear.
So, the PR makes a big deal about how fast Cuparq is - even faster that Corvette as long as you don't shift the Corvette out of second gear.
This, Sherman, is a perfect example of how this company can enlist those other companies in perpetrating the scam without the other companies actually being involved in the scam. Rim probably told Telcordia to test the Cuparq "model" against VDSL2 and report the results. Assuming that the check cleared, Telcordia would have no qualms about doing so and doing it legimately. The real sleaziness comes when Rim writes the PR. They are no doubt quite certain that Joe Investor has no real idea what "profile 12a" is. So, they craft a PR that makes it *look* like their product beats VDSL2, when it only beats one of the slower, watered down profiles.
You know, you have accused me numerous times of parsing the company's PRs. You then ask how it could be that these other companies are in on the scam. I parse the PRs because they are incredibly craftily written to imply far more than they actually say. This is a perfect example.
Un-FREAKING-believable.
My question would be, were they anticipating that if (and I recognize that this is a huge if to you) the Rim technology was what they wanted, they would then expect Rim's IPSL standard to be accepted, or would they deploy a non-standard technology?
I think the question you are asking is if Embarq found "The Product Formerly Known As Embarq" to be thr greates thing since sliced bread, would they use it even if it was noncompliant. Does that about sum it up?
If so, the answer, in my opinion, would be a resounding *no*. I have already explained my reasoning.
You know this how?
I know this because I know and understand the industry, and I understand the meaning of the standards. I am also acutely aware of the early problems that DSL had before the advent of standards. In the early days, the US telcos were the worst offenders by deploying noncompliant equipment, and it bit them is the ass - badly. Virtually all of the telcos worldwide now understand the importance of standards for reliability, upgradability, maintenance and QoS.
Having said all of that, I should modify my original statement to be more correct. I should have said "there is not one single telco that has recently deployed noncompliant equipment in any meaningful way." The reason for the correction is that you will no doubt wear Google out trying to prove me wrong (while completely ignoring my request for proof of your statement from you), and you will no doubt find articles about telcos deploying noncompliant equipment in the late 90s and early 2000s. Because of the mistakes made then, virtually nobody does it now - at least intil they can be quite certain that an approach proposed for standardization will succeed. Which, of course, is what the article you keep coming back to was all about.
Spoke: I think it is clear that he was speaking of the CLEC's doing something different from the examples above in the article, namely going without the standards vs those going with products where the standards are in the process of being approved.
~~~*sigh*~~~
Well, I tried. You really need to work on those reading comprehension skills. You should know that those 6 words are meaningless without the context of the entire article.
Your surprising inability to understand the article does not change the fact that there is not one single telco that has deployed noncompliant equipment in any meaningful way, despite your rather stubborn obsession with a single irrelevant prognistication made over a year ago.
I suppose that your astonishing ability to believe only what you want to believe helps to explain your behavior towards this stock. You seem to have no capacity for rational, critical thought if it conflicts with what you want to believe. That's pretty sad.
Please explain to me what you think Mr. Madison is saying.
The article itself explained it to you. I have already explained it to you. Bill just explained it to you. I'm not sure what else you want.
The statement that Madison made that begins with "one result may be..." was made over a year ago. He was predicting the possibility that some companies might be willing to deploy a VDSL2 product that has been informally standardized by the ITU but has not yet officially completed the process. Specifically, he was referring to the VDSL2 standard which was on the verge of ratification by several bodies.
Since then, I know of no company that has adopted a noncompliant technology for deployment on even the most modest scale. I cited that as part of my argument that a noncompliant product would be difficult if not impossible to sell. You countered that small telcos don't care about standards. I asked you to prove that statement by citing a single company that has deployed a noncompliant product. You refused to do so. Instead, you cited a quote over a year old predicting that some companies might roll out VDSL2 before it is a finalized standard. I think it is clear that Madison's guess is not proof that a company has adopted a noncompliant product. Nonetheless, you seem intent upon claiming victory. Fine. Delude yourself all you wish. The fact still remains that there is virtually no market for a product that either does not conform to standards or is not substantially finished with the standardization process.
I'm sorry this is so difficult for you. I believe that I have been artfully clear and concise. You either do not have the capacity to understand it, or are unwilling to do so.
Spoke - from what I've read, when telcos or CLECs are said to not be concerned about standards, or are not going to wait for the final VDSL3 standard to be released - what I am hearing is certain entities, who are in a particular competitive environment, may jump the gun and institute a "VDSL2" compliant network before the VDSL2 standard is in place...
Thank you for reaffirming my point. I see that some people are capable of understanding it. Clearly, 427 is not.
In that sense, the article is not saying some telcos and some CLECs don't care about ANY standard, or that they would adopt/install non-compliant product, such as RIM's, but only that they're will to adopt/install soon to be VDSL2 compliant product before it's officially VDSL2 compliant... right?
Exactly. I am astonished that Sherman cannot seem to understand that. It seems so simple.
Let me try one more time. I asked you to provide supporting information for a single telco who is not concerned with standards. You *still* haven't done so.
Read the sentence immediately before the one you are hanging your hat on: "Several executives involved in the standardization process say the desire for VDSL2 is so strong that some carriers in particularly competitive markets won't wait even for the close of the standardization process."
Clearly, the context shows that some companies are willing to gamble on a product before the standardization process is complete. That's a far cry from not being concerned with standards. Nobody was talking about VDSL2 until it was clear that it would become a standard. I just don't understand why you don't get that...
Let me be clear. You said that Rim "was applying" for standardization last spring. Past tense. No such application was made. The words that you typed were not true. What else would you call an "untruth"? I don't really care whether it was Rim's "untruth" or your "untruth". It was an "untruth" either way. Besides, you and the company speak with the same voice, so the source of the "untruth" is immaterial.
I don't know what has happened with IPSL, but Rim was submitting it as a Standard last spring.
Just to be sure, I just finished a search of ITU abstracts. Rim has not submitted it as a standard. The above is simply not true.
So, I'll ask you again to provide a source, or admit that you made this up.
Somebody is lying.
The urgency is so great, in fact, that some vendors are already preparing “pre-standard” VDSL2 equipment, hoping to tweak the gear when the standard is approved.
Man, you are in rare form lately. Let me try to explain. I will try to type slowly. The article that ophelia posted was over a year old. Furthermore, if you had actually read the article rather than cherry-picking passages that you incorrectly assumed proved your point, you would have noted that the title of the article was "CARRIERS GET THEIR WISHES: ITU APPROVES VDSL2 STANDARD". The article was posted the day after the VDSL2 standard was ratified by the ITU. The article was aslo very clear that there would not be a large scale rollout of any technology unless there was a ratified standard. The fact that some companies might have begun pre-testing while the standard was still draft is irrelevant. The standard had already been reviewed and finalized by consensus. The only thing left to do was for it to navigate the ITU bureaucracy. Nobody even gave VDSL2 the time of day until it had been through committee.
Furthermore, the article served very well to emphasize how concerned the telcos are with standards. I asked you to name one single telco that was not concerned with standards. You could easily do that by citing a single company or PR that indicates a rollout of a noncompliant technology. You failed to do that.
I just laugh at how you make things up. I am conceding no such thing.
I'm sorry. I must have missed something. To summarize the conversation, I said that since Cuparq is noncompliant, telcos and equipment manufacturers would not be interested. You said that small telcos don't care about standards. That seemed to imply that you considered that to be the only market for noncompliant products. Did I miss something? It doesn't seem that I made anything up.
I don't know what has happened with IPSL, but Rim was submitting it as a Standard last spring.
Source? Seriously. That's a bold claim, considering that the tech sheet says the following: "IPSL is at this time a proprietary protocol. Rim Semiconductor Company’s Licensing and Standardization Program exists to eventually offer a standard to the ITU." This sheet was just released a few days ago. Are you making things up again?
Oh yeah, Brad said that the FPGA was done 2 years before it actually was done. He is so stupid that he would lie to you about it knowing that the truth would be evident immediately, and also, he somehow never told anyone else that. Hummm, do you suppose you misunderstood?
That's not exactly how it went. You know that. We have been through this before. Ketch did not say the FPGA was done. He called me after I made a stink here and said that they were ready and capable of producing the FPGA, but chose not to at the time solely to save costs. He also said that they would release the FPGA in the coming weeks. I posted the gist of the conversation here, and you replied that he had told you the same thing.
Clearly, they were not ready and capable of producing the FPGA, even though Ketch was very clear that the only reason for not releasing the FPGA was cost. And, it was never released in the following weeks. The truth was not evident immediately, but it was eventually evident.
I'm not sure why you are rehashing this. I frankly don't give a rat's ass if you believe me or not. You clearly believed me when you publicly confirmed that he told you the same thing.
I have to say that it is becoming increasingly frustrating conversing with you. You have not interest in truth, and as evidenced by your statement about Rim submitting IPSL as a standard, you seem to have no qualms about making things up to suit your agenda. That's just plain dishonest. Once again, you use your own dishonesty and disingenuity to try to implicate my integrity. This is getting old. Be honest or STFU.
I meant there are small Telco's that aren't concerned with standards...
Name one single telco that isn't concerned with standards. Just one. Please provide proof. Otherwise, you are just blowing smoke.
It is interesting, though, that you are conceding any large market and have now admitted that Rim's only market is those small telcos who aren't concerned with standards.
OK. I'll take a shot. I will take the unlikely assumption that there actually is some kind of technology - which I doubt. Be careful what you ask for...
How much better is the tech than VDSL2
There's no way to tell. The company has not offered any substantial comparison information. However, after reading the data sheet that I referenced in an earlier post, this company has configured Cuparq for 95% downstream throughput and 5% upstream throughput. VDSL2, on the other hand, is configured for symmeteric traffic - i.e. 50% downstream and 50% upstream. The most important number is total throughput, i.e. downstream plus upstream data rates. The tech sheet shows that Cuparq, which spends 95% of its load on downstream traffic, beats VDSL2 for download speeds, which spends 50% of its load on downstream traffic. That's not a fair or honest comparison. Trouble is, the VDSL2 standard requires symmetric transmission. If VDSL2 could be configured for 95% downstream traffic, it would beat Cuparq hands down, according to the tech sheet. It is also important to note that the company refused to release any details of the Telcordia test to Burstein, who could very easily have confirmed Rim's claims. In short, if you were able to compare apples to apples, (i.e. total throughput to total throughput) the tech would not beat VDSL2 - according to the company's own information.
How hard will it be to market Cupria if companies are already establised with the target customers.
It took Ikanos over $125 million to effectively produce and market its industry-leading products. It recently went public to raise a similar additional amount. If Rim had that kind of cash, they could possibly compete. They don't. As such, it would be virtually impossible to bring a comparable product to market.
Can the leadership and sales force get the job done? Why or why not.
Not without a buttload of money. Furthermore, there is no "sales force", unless you consider one person to be a "force". I don't.
Will standards be an issue.
This is probably the biggest issue if there actually is a tech. They have admitted that their product is not standards-compliant. Of course, I already told you that. Noncompliant hardware just doesn't sell. Customers are not willing to completely rebuild their infrastructures, which a noncompliant technology would require. This is a deal-breaker. Their only hope is to solicit a standards change. Ikanos did it with VDSL2, so it can be done. But, it took Ikanos 3 years to do it, and they had a shipping, tested product when they did it. Count on no sales until then - if ever.
What kind of revenue can we expect in 2007.
None. See the above. You can't sell a noncompliant product. Oh, and you have to actually have a product. Remember that they have projected technology revenue every year since 2001 but have yet to post their first dollar.
What other applications can be added to the Cupria family of chips.
You have to have a family of chips first. Crawl, then walk. Rim hasn't even begun to crawl.
Is a gofernment contract still probable.
It never was. The government only buys products that exist, and unless you are Haliburton, the contracts are competed openly. Contrary to what has been posted here, neither this company, nor any other company, has any kind of inside line to government contracting. Furthermore, the government includes in all of its procurements an analysis of "ability to perform". Rim has no product, nor will they have one for quite some time if ever. The government does not buy "future products" they buy stuff that is available now. That is a simple fact that I have explained to you many times. I have a great deal of experience with government contracting from both sides of the fence. The fact that RIM even alluded to this possibility is further evidence of their dishonesty. Do a little research on government contracting. Research GSA. Do some "good" DD and you will understand what I am talking about. The GSA red-herring was pure PR fluff and means nothing.
What kind of influence do both Tan and Wojcik have with target customers.
Who knows...Tan has that hair growth thing. There's that.
Will success with Telco's delivering the triple play over copper have any effect on Verizon's plans.
Telcos haven't delivered the triple play. Hence, Verizon's plans. I don't see that changing any time soon. Verizon is largely targeting the cable market, which has triple-play capability now.
How much difference does it make having VoIP, WiFi and Router software on the marketability of Cupria.
I'm not sure I see it as the marketing coup that the company says it is. All of the hardware for these features has pretty much reached commodity status. The chips for these features cost almost nothing. Other than saving real-estate on the board, I don't see any other real advantage. Even the real-estate thing is not much of a savings since the board will has to have the vias for all of these components anyway, and a combined chip would still take up about the same size as the sum of its respective components. Currently, a manufacturer has the ability to choose VoIP, WiFi and router hardware based on their specific needs and price point. An all-in-one package forces a manufacturer to settle for whatever feature set that Cuparq offers. If Cuparq doesn't offer a feture that a manufacturer wants, or offers features that a manufacturer doesn't want, the manufacturer is not happy.
There is a reason that there are discrete components on virtually every circuit board in virtually every electronics device. Manufacturers need the flexibility to choose the components that they want. They don't want, nor will they buy features, or the lack thereof, that are forced upon them.
If there was a demand for such an all-in-one device, somebody else would have already identified the market and made the device. It's not that hard to do for the big players.
Will more financing be needed.
Undoubtedly. I hesitate to bring up Ikanos again, since so many people don't understand the comparison. However, it is an apt comparison. It took Ikanos over $125 million to successfully bring a product to market. Rim would need a similar amount. I don't see that happening.
And on, and on, and on.
Instead, 95% of what is discussed on IHUB is totally irrelevant to what the shareholders need to know at this time.
Frankly, it is not for you to decide what "shareholders need to know at this time". I find it a bit arrogant of you to presume to be the arbiter of shareholder knowledge.
If your goal is to keep people from buying or to encourage people to sell, you are probably accomplished your goal with some people. Just remember that when Rim has a digit or more to the left of the decimal point, you will have hurt a few people.
I wonder how many people you have hurt with your incessant, unbridled, unfounded and untempered optimism, sprinkled liberally with obfuscation, and without a trace of critical analysis as the share price has seen repeated decimal shifts to the left...
It is pretty damn bold of you to speculate about how we *might* hurt someone *if* we end up being wrong, when, by the same argument, because of you countless people have been *actually* hurt by *actually* losing huge amounts of money. That "hurting other people" sword cuts both ways.
Also, the majority of people who are negative here, have not visited the Rim office, nor have spoken to anyone at Rim or anyone on the Board Of Directors for probably 2 or 3 years at least. Nor have they been to a shareholders meeting in the last 3 years. If you call that good DD, then that shows how clearly you are thinking.
"Good" DD consists of cirtical evaluation of the *facts*. I did speak to Ketch, and the last time we spoke, he told me a bald-faced lie. Part of "good" DD is knowing when the company is blowing smoke, and which things to take with a grain of salt. One day, I'll do a little research project and dig up some of your "conversation with Brad [or Ray]" posts. I perused them the other day. Not a single thing that you said that he said would happen has happened. Apparently, talking with company shills is not the great DD you think it is...
No one will be able to compete with the quality of Rim's technology anytime soon, IMO, but the question at this time is, how well they will be able to market it.
As you know, that is not the real question.
It's absolutely hilarious how so many people complained and complained about Rim not having an FPGA, then when they release 3 versions in 10 months, the complaint switches to other things like no revenue yet, what was not accomplished years ago, mistakes that I made etc.
I meant to comment on this as well. I am not at all convinced that there is even the first FPGA - at least in the sense of a device that does what they claim it does. I base this suspicion primarily on three facts:
1) The first picture of the so-called FPGA posted in their spiffy pdf sheet was a bogus picture of the board from a consumer product.
2)According to the information in this flyer...
http://www.rimsemi.com/embarqov.pdf
...Telcordia apparently did not test an FPGA. On page 6, it says "Dr. Ken Kerpez of Telecordia’s DSL Analysis Lab has performed a detailed study of Rim Semiconductor’s Embarq system, completed May 2006, using accurate transmission system models and accurate models of the copper telephone loop plant."
They tested "models" of Embarq on "models" of the loop plant.
3) They refused to release the test data to Burstein.
At this point, there is nothing that provides verifiable evidence that a working FPGA exists.
Let's talk about YOUR bogus information. I did say the FPGA was done and the size of a fingernail, but within a few days I corrected it saying that was my mistake.
Uhhh, no you didn't. You didn't change your story until almost two years later when I called you down on it. I still have your notes, and nothing in them either proves or disproves your point.
Let me refresh your memory. Here is the original post where you made the bogus claims:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=632237
Note the date - 12/19/02
Here is the post where I called you down on it:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4647677
Note the date - 11/24/04
Also note your response, in which you said "spoke: You make a good point. I will ask NT and CWH who were both at that meeting to see what they remember. I will also see if I have notes of the meeting I will review. Since they released the software prototype within days of that meeting, it would seem strange to say that a hardware chip was done, but my post seems to indicate that.
So, you see, you did not correct your bogus information until almost 2 years later, and only after I called you down on it.
Geezus. And you have the nerve to question *my* honesty. Let me borrow your words. Get a clue, dishonesty weakens *your* position.
All of that is beside the point. My point, as I am sure you know, is that people post bogus fugitive information here all the time. I used your post about dinner with Ketch and Howell as but one example. After all, your original post *did* contain bogus information. The fact that you recanted that information almost two years later is irrelevant.
This is why it is so hard to communicate with you sometimes.
Oddly enough, I seem to have no trouble communicating with anyone except you. Maybe I'm not the problem.
I'm just sayin...
my friends report was quite objective, I dont know why you always must see the WORST in everyone. The tone of your posts seems to indicate that I was collaborating with him to fabricate info - am I reading your correctly?
Read what you will. For years, we have had people posting fugitive information on this board. Three years ago, Cobra told us that the FPGA chip was done, and was the size of a fingernail with 3 million gates. He also told us about those infamous 9 engineers that never existed. Groovemaster had a "friend" telling him that Embarq was in xBox 360. Wheels recently posted about his own insider info. The list of bogus non-public information posted here is nearly endless. You may recall that we saw similar eyewitness testimony about the lab in Pleasanton about 5 years ago. Of course, that tuened out to be bogus too. You'll forgive me if I took what you said that another guy said when he supposedly visited the office with a grain of salt.
I merely pointed that the most recent filing with employee info contradicted what you reported. I admit that they very well might have hired the difference in the last two months. However, given the company's history, and the lack of job postings on the web site, I thought it was unlikely. We'll know for sure when the next filing is out.
You are the one who implied they didn't have more employees than 7...
I implied nothing. I simply referred to the number of employees stated in the SB-2A. This factual number seemed to directly contradict the observations of cosmo's "friend".
I made no statements at all about how many they had...
Well, there was that time, I think about 3 years ago, when you claimed that they had a team of 9 engineers working on it... I don't suppose it's fair though to bring up but one example of the myriad things you have misrepresented about this company. So I won't.
Why would you assume they haven't hired anyone in the last two months?
Perhaps a better question is why would you assume they have?
There are two "open positions" listed on the web site, and the postings are each dated 6/5/06. Clearly, they have not gone on an unposted, unannounced hiring spree in the last 2 months.
What contract employees are you referring to?
Cosmo: I'm curious about how you reconcile your "friend's" report about the dozen employees he saw at the office with the statement in the filing two months ago that the company had 6 full-time employees and one part-time employee?
Should we believe you and your "friend" or the filing?
If there is no product (ASIC) there will be no orders. That'a just the way it works. Since there is no contract with a fab, there will be no ASIC this year and hence no orders.
They can and probably will receive orders before the chip is completed. That is how you book orders before revenue.
Absolutely not. No way. That's simply not how the semi industry works. You know that - at least you should.
Here's how it works. When a semi company produces a product, the first "production" run (not testing samples) are called engineering samples. These are distributed to target custoners (free). The target customers do engineering analysis, speedpath testing, timings, etc., to determine if they can use the product. Only then will they place orders. Never in this industry are orders placed before a product is complete. It doesn't happen.
As for "booking" versus "revenue", let me clear that up a bit. The semi industry operates a little bit differently than most other industries. An order is "booked" when a company places an order for a large number of units. In essence, the "booking" company is laying claim to a portion of the production run, and locking in a price, but there in no firm commitment to pay. Its sort of like pre-qualifying for a mortgage. You get locked into a rate for a certain principle, but there is no guarantee of a sale until the closing actually takes place.
*Usually*, a unit is considered sold when it ships, or is "in the channel". However, this is also no certainty that there will be revenue. This will depend on where the product ends up. With CPUs, for example, Dell might order 250,000 pentiums from Intel, they might ship and Dell might receive them, but if Dell can't use them, they will ship them right back. It is a fickle industry.
An order does not produce revenue until it is "billed", meaning that money has changed hands. In fact, there can be such a discrepency between "booked" product and "billed" product, an industry indicator is the book-to-bill raio. The closer this number is to 1, the better the outlook for the industry.
This is a completely different concept than the "cash" vs "accrual" methods of accounting. At any rate, "booking orders" does not, in any way, mean revenue.
I do want to thank WHP03 for finding the PR in which Ketch said the ASSP would be complete in 3Q this year. I knew it was out there, but haven't had time to track it down. Obviously, that milestone was not met, even though they still have several million in cash. Given the late date, there is no way that there will be any silicon this year. No surprises there. I have to say that I am continuously amazed at the capacity for forgiveness that the faithful here have. Year, after year, after year goes by with nothing but promising PRs, and the same old bunch makes excuses for the company.
Oh, well. There'a always next year.
spoke: I don't know when they said 6 months for an ASIC...
It was in a RAQ or a president's letter. Not surprisingly, those have been removed from their site. I have them all archived, though. When I get some time, I'll look it up and post it, if you don't believe me.
...but they wouldn't say that today.
So, you are now admitting that you *do* speak for the company?
It doesn't matter anyway. Some time ago, I posted some good, reliable links that describe in excruciating how much time and effort it takes to produce an ASIC. Of course, you refused to believe it then. I have no illusions that you will believe it now - even though Ketch himself said so. Regardless, it is fact.
I don't know how this partly completed post got here, but the completed one is a few posts down...
Spoke: I didn't say there would not be an ASSP this year.
Come now, Sherman. The company has already publicly stated that it will take 6 months to produce an ASSP. In reality, it could take a lot longer. If they have not already contracted with a fab, which they haven't, there will be no ASSP this year. Which, by the way, was my original point.
OK. You seem to be vehemently arguing that there will be no ASSP this year, and that the company made no commitment to do so, despite what the "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" slide showed.
On that we can agree. The rest of you take note. There will be no ASSP this year - Cobra says so. That settles that. You still never managed to explain the "MILESTONE" entitled "ASSP PRODUCTION" that begins and ends in the 3rd quarter on the "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" slide, but that seems immaterial now. We know it never happened, and now you are telling us that it won't happen this year. Still seems odd, though, that they would put that "ASSP PRODUCTION" arrow in the 3rd quarter of the "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" slide if that's not what they meant. The same thing can be said of the "ASSP RELEASE" arrow in the 4th quarter of the "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" slide. But no matter.
That's the beauty of this company, isn't it. They hint at, and allude to commitments, but always leave themselves enough wiggle room for people like you to argue that they never actually specifically, syntactically made the unqualified, clear, concise, unambiguous commitment anyway.
Well, there was that "Delivering on the Promise" commitment three years ago. I guess they learned from that mistake. Still, you artfully argued that the "promise" wasn't a real "promise" and that you were completely at ease with failing to deliver on that specific promise because the words were not in *exactly* the right order, or they secretly had their fingers crossed, or some such.
I have to admit that it is amusing to watch you deny, on the behalf of the company, that any commitments made were not really commitments, year after year, and before long, decade after decade. Even now, you are adamant that there will be no ASSP this year, and you seem to be proud of the fact that you think you have shown me up with your argument.
OK. You seem to be vehemently arguing that there will be no ASSP this year, and that the company made no commitment to do so, despite what the "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" slide showed.
On that we can agree. The rest of you take note. There will be no ASSP this year - Cobra says so. That settles that. You still never managed to explain the "MILESTONE" entitled "ASSP PRODUCTION" that begins and ends in the 3rd quarter on the "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" slide, but that seems immaterial now. We know it never happened, and now you are telling us that it won't happen this year. Still seems odd, though, that they would put that "ASSP PRODUCTION
That's the beauty of this company, isn't it? They hint at and allude to commitments, but always leave themselves enough wiggle room for people like you to argue that they never actually
All you had to do is listen to what Brad said. It was as plain as day. Also, the arrows you spoke of had no dot at the end of them as the first ones did, showing an ending point.
I did listen. I also looked. You and I seem to have widely different interpretations of what "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" and arrows mean. I took the title "QUARTERLY MILESTONES" to mean milestones to be completed in the specified quarter. I also took the arrows placed within said quarters to represent said milestones. Rather than elucidate your clearly different interpretation of these symbols, you attack me and accuse me of having an "agenda".
*You* accused *me* on having an agenda. That right there is some funny chit.
I believe that you would find that it was an actual picture of the board they were testing in India at the time.
Horsehockey. The *first* picture that appeared in the pdf was of an Actiontec wireless modem board, not a test board. We have already been through this. That is indisputable to anyone capable of rational thought - and who can honestly admit the truth - something you seem incapable of. In fact, we found a picture of an identical board that came directly from a commercial modem. The pictures were posted here, side-by-side. Only after the truth was revealed here did they revise (silently) the pdf and replace the bogus picture with what appears to be a a picture of a more genuine test board.
Did you not look at the slide and notice the timeline? The title of the slide is "Quarterly Milestones". The arrow in the 3rd quarter says "ASSP Production" and terminates at the end of the 3rd quarter on the timeline. The arrow titled "ASSP Release" begins in the 4th quarter.
I don't know how you interpret that, if fact I can't see any other way to interpret it other than "ASSP Production" is a milestone for the 3rd quarter, and "ASSP Release" is a milestone for the 4th quarter.
Sheesh. There is no end to the excuses you guys make for this company.
Just so everyone is clear, the commitment made at the SHM was to begin ASIC production in 3Q06 (didn't happen) and volume release in 4Q06 (not gonna happen). See slide 22 of the SHM presentation.