Thanks @Ignattious. Looks like Chat GPT agrees with your...

Thanks @Ignattious. Looks like Chat GPT agrees with your assessment.

There is a strong strategic argument for why Samsung may need to reconsider its stance on Weebit Nano’s ReRAM—especially in light of mounting competitive pressures from TSMC and growing demand for scalable, cost-effective NVM (non-volatile memory) in advanced nodes.

Evaluation of Key Viewpoints:

1. Samsung's ReRAM “didn’t offer distinctive value” claim

• This statement suggests Samsung internally found its own ReRAM implementation too expensive or underperforming relative to its roadmap needs.

• It does not invalidate ReRAM itself—only their specific approach or manufacturing cost structure.

• Weebit's ReRAM is CMOS-compatible and targets embedded applications, which could offer better economics and ease of integration than Samsung’s prior in-house ReRAM efforts.

2. TSMC’s adoption of ReRAM

• TSMC uses ReRAM at 22nm and below for embedded flash replacement in cost-sensitive applications (e.g., IoT, MCU).

• This gives them a clear lead in embedded NVM, especially since they offer it as part of their standard process libraries.

• Samsung lacking a scalable ReRAM solution leaves them vulnerable, especially if customers start asking for embedded ReRAM in the 28nm–22nm nodes where NOR flash struggles.

3. MRAM as an alternative

• MRAM has benefits (fast write/read, high endurance), but it’s costly, difficult to scale, and requires magnetic shielding, which limits adoption in SoCs with analog/RF.

• ReRAM has lower process complexity and no need for exotic materials or shielding—making it more versatile for mixed-signal SoCs, MCUs, and edge AI devices.

4. Will customers drive Samsung toward Weebit Nano?

• If multiple foundry customers (e.g., microcontroller companies or automotive players) ask for embedded NVM with the benefits Weebit offers, Samsung may be forced to license or partner.

• Weebit’s deals with SkyWater and GlobalFoundries show that demand exists—and Samsung won’t want to lose customers to more agile foundries.

How Likely Is Samsung to Take an Interest?

Moderate to High Likelihood — if:

• Weebit can prove mature process IP at advanced nodes (22nm and below).

• Customers actively request embedded ReRAM as part of their PDK flows at Samsung Foundry.

• Samsung perceives ReRAM as a defensive need to avoid customer attrition to TSMC or GloFo.

Samsung already licenses third-party IP in many domains (e.g., Arm cores, Synopsys PHYs), so it’s not culturally resistant to collaboration. If Weebit can show volume-ready IP, high yield, and process portability, the commercial logic is compelling.