2020 BRN Discussion, page-18030

Yes this is a valid concern but it is one which BRN encountered with Studio so they took that on board for the purpose of settling on the strategy for bringing AKIDA too market.

They used the feedback from those who trialled studio to design the ADE. They then released the ADE to those same companies and that further feedback informed the final design so they were building what customers wanted not what they tried to tell them they should want with Studio.

The other thing BRN has done is learn from the fact that they targeted Studio at existing markets serviced by existing technology which failed.

This time they choose the edge and far edge which is a new area where there are no established players and baked in notions of what is needed at the edge.

My personal belief is that this lack of knowledge as to what is required at the edge actually makes the idea of having greater capacity just in case something comes to light an attractive feature of AKD1000.

It is ridiculously cheap and it is so power efficient compared to anything else why would any potential customer be put off by the fact that it can handle more through put than is initially envisaged in a particular application.

It does not even produce sufficient heat to require cooling even running at its highest power setting.

If it had a competitor that was less powerful and but was not cheaper and more power efficient I cannot personally imagine rejecting AKD1000 because it is able to do more things than you initially require. Makes absolutely no sense.

My opinion only DYOR.