wrong! what you offered was NOT an alternative!! here you must have missed it, Shorts tend to miss things
unfortunately TSMC's 2nm process is for CPUs, GPUs, and ASICs, which may well be a great power safer for sure, but it is an apples and oranges comparison because LWLG's technology is for transmitting all that data, a whole separate function, and one where LWLG's technology certainly is best in class, even Andy B the top dog of Arista had projected the use of such low power modulators could reduce his overall system power usage by 20%, this is HUGE, and Andy had projected HVP (High Volume Production) of LWLG Polymers in Transceivers in 2026 but Yves is now projecting it to happen in 2027, so one year behind a plan Lebby had originated way back in 2016-2017!!!
Thin-Film LiNbO3 (TFLN) versus LWLG Electro-optic Polymers
Performance
Thin-Film LiNbO3 (TFLN) - r33 intrinsically capped at ~ 31 pm/V at 1310 nm - n = 2.2, er = 30 (high dispersion across frequencies)
LWLG Electro-optic Polymers - No intrinsic cap on r33 (> 200 pm/V at 1310 nm easily achieved) - n ˜ 1.9, er ˜ 3-6 (low dispersion across frequencies)
Integration
Thin-Film LiNbO3 (TFLN) - Integration with Si/SiN very low yielding & basically still in R&D stage - Limited wafer size (150 mm) - Large device footprint (sub-cm scale) - High material cost w/ only one supplier (NanoLN)
LWLG Electro-optic Polymers - Fully Si compatible - Easily scalable to 300 (+) mm wafer - Very small device footprint (sub-mm scale) - Low material cost
Processing
Thin-Film LiNbO3 (TFLN) -Thin film uniformity becomes difficult as wafer size scales up - Specialized processing/tools needed – leads to higher costs associated with processing, QC, etc.
LWLG Electro-optic Polymers - Spin-coating produces films with high uniformity - No specialized processing/tools needed (completely compatible with existing Si foundry processes/tools) – reduces costs associated with processing, QC, etc
Market Data 
Markets 
