Now this sounds like FJ.
There’s hardly any POET “bashing” or LWLG “pumping” here. Also, the posters I see here that come from the LWLG board are actually POET shareholders, too. Myself included.
The amount of “bashing” of LWLG by POET investors on Agoracom FAR exceeds anything I’ve ever seen towards POET by LWLG investors. And if this is FJ, you lead the charge in that regard. Go through my old comments here or on Reddit. The LWLG vs POET “thing” is completely unwarranted and annoying. It’s pathetic what some POET investors say about LWLG. It stems from jealousy, I’m sure, and lack of understanding.
The only time I’ve seen or heard anyone from LWLG say anything about POET regarding “flaws or limitations”, as you say, is when someone pointed out the GaAs platform issues. In hindsight, that person was clearly correct since POET shelved that work. Interestingly in POET’s latest presentation, they no longer include the old GaAs patents in their stated portfolio.
POET and LWLG have different commercialization paths. LWLG’s primary path is to transfer the IP and technology to the various foundries they’re engaged with. To say that it’s negative they’re working with 7 and not 1 is preposterous. To become “ubiquitous”, one has to offer the technology to the widest set of customers possible. I spoke with Dr. Lebby and the team directly and it is common knowledge that certain end-users have guided LWLG to certain foundries. Others have taken notice of their offering and approached LWLG directly, and then of course there’s foundries that LWLG has deeper relationships with stemming from over 2 years ago who have helped co-develop the technology and manufacturing processes. Management has also told shareholders that there is a distinct sense of urgency between the ‘competing’ foundries. It’s called first mover advantage and it’s creating a great position for LWLG to be in.
The beauty of this approach, which is in stark contrast to POET, is that LWLG doesn’t have to give any single commercialization partner exclusivity. Dr. Lebby has told shareholders he will NOT allow anyone exclusivity. POET has already effectively given away half the value of its 100/200gig engines globally and 400gig engines in certain Asian markets to SPX. Sure it may prove to be a fine exchange in that POET saves a lot of CAPEX money and time to market, but it does not allow POET flexibility should they need to change direction (again). I’m sure potential investors consider geopolitical risk and the Chinese reputation for “funny business”. Whether its IP theft, accounting tricks, or outright deception…
Any technology start up can claim they have the next “best thing”, but it takes more than neat technology to make a company a highly successful investment.
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again…POET has a promising and novel packaging solution for the future of electronic and photonic integration, but the amount of competition and variety in the space is extreme. It’s not unreasonable to believe that other photonics packaging companies/efforts could come up with something that is “good enough”.
As for LWLG, electro-optic modulators are not new and they are almost everywhere data is processed with light. LWLG promises to provide the fastest, most efficient, smallest, and simplest of its kind in a scalable platform. What if when these are available, it negates or littles the need for major innovations elsewhere?
The physical limitations of TFLN, III-V, and silicon modulators are known and nothing comes close in terms of performance and future scalability like EO polymers.
If, or when, they finalize the foundry processes to allow high volume production of EO polymer modulators, the industry is going to have to adapt.
I’d say the market has affirmed the above consensus for now.
