Ann: Half Year Accounts, page-56

I see both points of view.  AP should be saying more, and particularly to clarify the points @markpw raises.  This is the real point of contention.  We need technical details less than we need clarity as to whether or not the current "minor delay" is simply a delay or a problem they do not yet know how to fix.  Bart's comments are as usual just too cryptic and could mean one thing or another.  They seem to largely be encouraging generalisations designed to convey reassurance, dressed up in vague technobabble that is just not clear enough to allow anyone apart from an insider to understand exactly what is being implied.

However I also agree with @Triin that they cannot afford to give away any really important technical details that would give potential competitors or patent trolls opportunities to make life difficult.  But they do not need to disclose that level of detail in order to assure holders that they are dealing with technical problems that are already understood and are on the way to resolving them.  

What we need is a simple statement like: "We have encountered a niggling problem that requires assessing a series of potential solutions to see which one is best. Our testing program to assess this will take 6 more weeks."  or; "we have encountered a problem that is likely to take several months to understand before we will know enough to devise a working solution.  That will then add another 12 weeks to implement and get product out."

I know how this works because that is what I do for a living.

As I read it, the statements made recently definitely suggest the former is the case, but there is just a little too much ambiguity about how well understood the solutions are likely to be and how long they will take to understand and implement.  However the end of this fiscal quarter (30/9/17) seems to be implied as the date when we can expect a solution to be selected and begun to be implemented in FAB production of a "final' version of the MEMS. How long that will then take is not spelled out, but once finished MEMS are being produced reliably the rest of the integration process sounds like it has now been reduced to a reasonably routine process.  This should lead to a clear announcement of where we stand re production of finished demo-ready chips.

If that is not what others think has been said then that simply indicates how much uncertainty the unclear announcements generate.  Any other interpretations out there?