Buy Side, page-43

Ok, where do get this stuff from? For starters, I have no beef with 4DS, I would be an investor if I had funds currently, the tech looks good to me.

BUT, can you:
1. point out please where there is evidence of this statement "process at speeds comparable to DRAM"? I cannot find a single reference to write speed in 4DS material, I may have missed it, but it would be useful. I see plenty of references to "access", which is read speed, but all reram companies are claiming big improvements in read performance. Nothing says 4DS is claiming a quantum leap over competing technologies there either. If its closer to DRAM great, I believe there is room to tackle nearer to DRAM storage and replace NAND Flash as well.

2. I do understand that conceptually, 4DS have some excellent technology that in theory may present better reram. The non-filamentary aspect, potentially highly scalable etc. BUT, transcribing good theory or lab level working material to production is the bane of all new technologies. For instance, hardware transactional memory is a REALLY REALLY good idea. Of all companies working at the bleeding edge, Sun Microsystems had the capability to deliver it and they were aiming to in the ROCK SPARC chip. That they failed was one of the key issues that led to the company being sold off for a song to Oracle. It worked in software emulations, they couldnt transcribe it to hardware.

3. 4DS is ahead of Weebit? Weebit have silicon at 40nm 1MB chip level and claim good commercial quality yield at that. They are in the optimising stage now. I thought 4DS are due for 1st wafer at end of September. How is having tangible, working chips, "science stage"?

4. I dont get 4DS model, where they will aim to produce one or a bunch of how-to "recipes" for someone to execute off. I have been told they wond do an optimise stage, that this will be up to the buyers. Fair enough, but that leaves open the question to the buyer of how far can the optimisation take the chips forward. You can get a working chip off a wafer, and prove the design "works", but if yield off the wafer is low, or the chip doesnt perform, a potential buyer will need to do a LOT of work to improve both characteristics. That would potentially lessen the value against something that is completely "fab production scale ready".

5. I dont want to get into a who's is better fight here. I really dont care, there is enough room for all players but there is a fiction materialising here on both techs that needs to be addressed. People think coming off first fabrication to a major tech sale is a doddle. It isnt necessarily. WBT have already claimed suitable yield and reasonable performance in their first cut. 4DS I suspect will also be able to do that, BUT you imply its risk free and basically a cakewalk. 4DS tech is newer in concept that WBT's, somewhat more lateral, with more, not less, to prove. If it comes off great. Until we see tangible silicon out, its all completely theoretical.

Anyway, please address your claims in a way that backs them up. Happy to listen, as I said I am entirely open to real evidence here.