Share
314 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 48
clock Created with Sketch.
14/03/21
19:41
Share
Originally posted by Fact Finder:
↑
The CEO advised last year that they were being selective about who they invited onto the EAP customer list. He stated they had limited resources to properly service EAP customers and that he thought they would end up with about two dozen for this reason. He stated that they were choosing the about two dozen based on their assessment of the ability of the EAP customer to implement and commercialise AKIDA technology. He stated that the EAP customers contained household named companies and Fortune 500 companies. He stated that they had well north of 100 NDA's with companies and that the about two dozen EAP customers would be chosen from this group. Posters here have found over recent weeks various employment adds run by Brainchip seeking additional technical scientific engineering staff. We know that one of the things an EAP customer receives is technical scientific engineering support from Brainchip staff to implement AKIDA technology which as the CEO stated varies with the sophistication of the EAP customer with respect to their knowledge of spiking neural network technology. We know that the EAP customers selected pay a fee starting at $50,000 plus a fee to cover the costs of Brainchip providing the technical scientific engineering support. Clearly the EAP customers chosen if Brainchip has enough choice of willing customers would where ever possible be those customers who already have a strong understanding of spiking neural network technology. If we look at those that have been announced to date NASA, Valeo, Ford, Socionext and Renesas they clearly have these sophisticated people on staff and would be low impact on Brainchip's human resources in consequence. If Samsung is the large Sth Korean company both from the statement made by the CEO of Brainchip about how extensively the Sth Korean company was testing AKIDA technology beyond anything Brainchip can do and from a little digging on the Samsung web site it is clear they would also be a sophisticated low impact EAP customer and the same goes without saying that Tesla would also fit in this category. Then we have NaNose and the VOC detector. This relationship has generally been described as a partnership which indicates that NaNose has its role to play which is the nano technology sensor side of things and Brainchip has the spiking neural network technology side to look after. Clearly this relationship would be one where Brainchip is human resource heavy at the highest level of its scientific and engineering resources. I suspect that this would also be the case if the relationship with the Noisey Gut Belt is also proceeding at pace and in parallel. So why am I posting the above well two reasons: 1. I looked at the web site of Murata and they do not have the same type of sophisticated understanding of spiking neural network technology as those mentioned above and would I assume require a great deal of support from Brainchip at a time when to quote the words of Ken Scarince provided by Jesse Chapman: “we have more leads to chase than we have people”. 2. It is clear that Brainchip has a strategy for growing its market and that strategy is one of providing the best possible service it can to the best possible opportunities to commercialise its AKIDA technology. In these circumstances Brainchip can have too many leads and does not need to chase random opportunities and in my opinion should resist the temptation. My opinion only DYOR.
Expand
Given the .......“various employment adds run by Brainchip seeking additional technical scientific engineering staff to provide support to EAP customers “ .........then it would be logical to assume that (a) these new staff will require at least some introduction themselves to the unique qualities that Akida offers regardless of their qualifications to be employed in the first instance ?.....and ..... (b) given the field of expertise and selective quality of the EAP customers that these customers would already have their own technical engineering staff of equal or better qualifications? Somewhat of a conundrum in terms of training the new trainers to be received with confidence at an advanced stage in the EAP ?