No name no location, page-2

I think if nobody asked who the fab is, then your points are absolutely correct.

I can understand AKP wanting to keep that confidential for commercial reasons in the short term, but surely the attendees could have at least asked! Not that I can talk as I did not attend.

What I would want to know is how they are developing their own manufacturing process without being a manufacturer - are they working closely with one fab to develop the process steps (and paying them for this) or are they still using whatever spare time they can get at a range of sites? How genuinely transferrable are process steps between fabs which may have different equipment? There's a lot of things one could ask about the changes and it is all very interesting.

My view is the company's progress is positive but it is a shame so much time was lost with the hopes pinned to the EM deal which has not yielded results - the investment funds never came through and only the first generation chips were successfully produced. This was always a risk and one that was correctly pointed out by several here including yourself Plooto. But if anything, the move to North American fabs is positive - less fraud, less risk of IP theft, common spoken language - all of which is positive for outlook provided the chip can be manufactured cheaply in volume (a BIG if - even if individual chips are successfully made, it is useless if the yield is low and the cost too high).

The move to North America is also great for credibility of the board and company. Hopefully they soon announce to the market more details of their new fab/process design partners.