hard to say definitively '56
without the right market disclosure on progress what do any of us know .....
all the 16th august pre announcement discussion was quite rightly centered around a working array / memory cell and the structural company changes supported that view ....even blind freddy understood that
KH as the sales exec setting up to close a deal ....god help his reputation in light of the issues that transpired - to be offering a product into market and for it then to be clearly evidenced the product is not only displaying manufacturing issues but unknown issues at this point in development is damaging to his reputation say the least ...hopefully he had enough nouse to stay schtum till this unfolded ( unknown to the current management of 4DS - there are historical precedents as to this exact issue in the manufacture of pcmo .....and no others that I've been made aware of as I tried to illuminate in the previous post)
For the company to have the shiny new machine at the ready to benchmark expected data for those potential suiters to analyse supports this position in my mind.
IMEC is not to blame - we have no information as to their 'operational condition report and expert opinion' on the cells ....and it would absolutely be made available to 4ds .....
the window we have available is what has been divulged as per the last root cause announcement.
that carries implications as to process and development time lines to satisfy that analysis - that is very clear in the semiconductor industry - we know little more 56
release summation / my interpretationthe first 2 paragraphs arguably indicate they did not know the initial 'shorting' was resolved - word specific it indicates the process undertaken to address what was thought to be the issue was successful....not the issue itself.
'additional characterisation' not
successful characterisation of the short loop wafers....that's a rather large statement at this point in development that again - arguably was not made crystal clear at the time.
specifically paragraph two suggests they was expectation the instigated process changes would resolve the issues ...they still were no closer to a definitive solution of that issue...( fingers crossed kind of stuff in my mind)
third paragraph states that IMEC had manufactured to the required specification for the cells / platform lot as defined by 4ds
this was incorrectly interpreted by many that it was only a new small issue that could be easily addressed......this is not the case
the reverse is true - it underpins the fact that an issue unrelated to what was thought to be the problem( the mask / etch potential fix) is deeper and lies in the specific manufacture process of the cells at geometries suitable to scm.....
( at geometries suitable to scm
is not a satisfactory statement in light of all that is occurring - its a mulligan cover up - potential suitors would also read it this way....even more damnably imo)
the announcement states a new issue ??? the simple fact is that again is guess work,,,,the first issues was not definitively fixed per say...we can take this as a given due to the fact that IMEC has manufactured the cells to spec....the spec is where the issue resides IMO ...as per above post....hence the required root cause and TEM of product that arrived at Fremont
no other announcements or prior releasesto this onemean much at this point - this is where we are with this company - we need information as to the process moving forward - specifically from IMEC as they are the pre eminent authority.
as I closed last time the silence is not a good thing....
that's my take 56...till the company decide to illuminate us all
