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.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
