It will be an interesting discussion to have this week at the...

It will be an interesting discussion to have this week at the presentations ... How far is it possible for the company to develop the technology as a general certification of it before the development requirements become so specific to whoever will be using the technology that it would need to be them rather than 4DS?

Whilst they have been gaining greater understanding with each platform lot, expanding the limitations of the technology to include more capabilities, they feel somewhat ... "generic" (?) to the chip, rather than what would need to be done to tune a chip to a vendors requirements.

There is no doubt that the company has pivoted somewhat over the 7 years that I have been here, their aims and goals have changed as the characteristics of the chip have been brought forward by laboratory research and new platform lots. Now there is conversation about AI (which is only logical, given its almost ubiquitous presence these days in the computing world.

Will companies that are intent on developing the hardware to make AI possible need to move to get hold of this technology to take it in the direction that they specifically require from it? Does that change their view on when they need to grab it and go? Is management aware of this sort of planning in the IT community, and are their current platform lots what they are to point in the direction that those players are looking towards?

It was a very good presentation, and I for one am very happy with what they have produced for these meetings. It should calm a lot of concerns, and add a lot of interest in the wider IT community at the same time. I am sure that even companies like NEXTDC and CDC would be fascinated to see what impact this would have on their power consumption and floor space requirements - given that they plan these sorts of capital outlays years in advance.