Couple of errors I can see. The Access speed is the read speed,...

Couple of errors I can see. The Access speed is the read speed, not the read & write speed. You need high balanced read & write speed for the SSD storage market, not so much for embedded market where the behaviour tends to be write occasionally - read lots. As I recall WBT (which I also hold) is much slower in writing than in reading, whereas 4DS is the same in both directions. Secondly NVRam is precisely the market for 4DS so that should have been included in the 4DS column. 4DS is not intended to be a DRAM replacement, it just happens to do NVRam operations at near DRAM speeds. You also left out the power usage comparison, in which 4DS is very far ahead of I believe all contenders. The other point related to commercialisation is that the end point for each is entirely different. WBT are licensing other manufacturers so they need to get way more certifications for commercialisation, whereas for 4DS commercialisation means having proven the tech on industry standard equip so that it and the patents can be bought outright by a major drive manufacturer for further development and market packaging. WBT need to prove tech in multiple scenarios and use-cases, which they have been doing, whereas 4DS has one target and needs essentially only one use-case - drive storage, and there most likely buyer is already the industry partner WD. They have been building to WD's requirements, so achieving the successful megabit array was WD's commercialisation requirement.

Both companies are being "held back" by the fact that the memory cell arrays can't do the geometry the cells can get down to yet so the 60/130 comparison is unfair on both.