Which one is Liz Truss ?Here's a mountain of iceberg lettuces. Will that help?
View attachment 40485
PS: I'm a bit worried that Fact Finder's post might break the internet like Kim Kardashian's tooshie did!
Which one is Liz Truss ?Here's a mountain of iceberg lettuces. Will that help?
View attachment 40485
PS: I'm a bit worried that Fact Finder's post might break the internet like Kim Kardashian's tooshie did!
Again “How you doin”Hi JD
Your post brought me here much sooner than I anticipated but so be it. The following I believe destroys any ill-conceived notion that those you are addressing might attempt to promulgate that AKD1000 was a failure. If it was a failure then Brainchip would not exist as it is built from the same neural fabric which is the underpinnings of all AKIDA technology.
Kind regards
Fact Finder.
MY QUESTION:
"Hi Tony - 26.4.23
I perhaps jumped the gun on one part of my criticisms having received an email this morning advertising the podcast.
As a result of the answer Sean gave regarding the AKIDA 2nd Gen the manipulators have been out in force relying upon his answer to claim AKD1000 has been a dud.
I am not concerned about this but perhaps this is something to keep in mind for further presentations.
After all AKD1000 achieved the only IP sales in the history of Brainchip to Renesas and MegaChips not to mention the EAP customer engagements.
One clarification I have is around the neural fabric used in AKD1000, AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen.
My understanding was/is that the neural fabric was/is the same across all three. Is this correct?
If so then essentially the only difference is the additions to or the takeaways from, such as removing the CPU from AKD1500?
Also I have assumed that this being the case it is open to potential customers to purchase more or less nodes of AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen as Renesas did of AKD1000?
Regards
FF
THE ANSWER:
Hi .....,
Tony Dawe <tdawe@brainchip.com>
Wed, Apr 26, 12:58 PM
to me
I referred your question on technology to Peter van der Made.
Peter has replied below.
“The neural fabric is the same across all three chips, with minor modifications to allow for new functions. The AI market is a fast moving field, with new network technologies that appear every few months. We cannot afford to stand still. We are aiming the 2nd generation of Akida ahead of a moving target.
We took away the CPU from the AKD1500 to provide clients with a neuromorphic processor that is smaller and has a lower power consumption. This was the result of customer interactions because MCUs have their own CPU. The onboard CPU in AKD1000 makes sense for a stand-alone chip. Our IP is integrated within an MCU, so they do not need the CPU.
The AKD1000 is not superseded and remains part of our offering as a single-chip solution.”
I hope Peter’s response addresses your question.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
Again “How you doin”
Great to see you are "Not back" yet FFHi JD
Your post brought me here much sooner than I anticipated but so be it. The following I believe destroys any ill-conceived notion that those you are addressing might attempt to promulgate that AKD1000 was a failure. If it was a failure then Brainchip would not exist as it is built from the same neural fabric which is the underpinnings of all AKIDA technology.
Kind regards
Fact Finder.
MY QUESTION:
"Hi Tony - 26.4.23
I perhaps jumped the gun on one part of my criticisms having received an email this morning advertising the podcast.
As a result of the answer Sean gave regarding the AKIDA 2nd Gen the manipulators have been out in force relying upon his answer to claim AKD1000 has been a dud.
I am not concerned about this but perhaps this is something to keep in mind for further presentations.
After all AKD1000 achieved the only IP sales in the history of Brainchip to Renesas and MegaChips not to mention the EAP customer engagements.
One clarification I have is around the neural fabric used in AKD1000, AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen.
My understanding was/is that the neural fabric was/is the same across all three. Is this correct?
If so then essentially the only difference is the additions to or the takeaways from, such as removing the CPU from AKD1500?
Also I have assumed that this being the case it is open to potential customers to purchase more or less nodes of AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen as Renesas did of AKD1000?
Regards
FF
THE ANSWER:
Hi .....,
Tony Dawe <tdawe@brainchip.com>
Wed, Apr 26, 12:58 PM
to me
I referred your question on technology to Peter van der Made.
Peter has replied below.
“The neural fabric is the same across all three chips, with minor modifications to allow for new functions. The AI market is a fast moving field, with new network technologies that appear every few months. We cannot afford to stand still. We are aiming the 2nd generation of Akida ahead of a moving target.
We took away the CPU from the AKD1500 to provide clients with a neuromorphic processor that is smaller and has a lower power consumption. This was the result of customer interactions because MCUs have their own CPU. The onboard CPU in AKD1000 makes sense for a stand-alone chip. Our IP is integrated within an MCU, so they do not need the CPU.
The AKD1000 is not superseded and remains part of our offering as a single-chip solution.”
I hope Peter’s response addresses your question.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
I must get out more ...Here's a mountain of iceberg lettuces. Will that help?
View attachment 40485
PS: I'm a bit worried that Fact Finder's post might break the internet like Kim Kardashian's tooshie did!
He could always try taking up journalism?I wonder if Mickleboro has another career lined up, or is he being paid enough to retire, because, I suspect his journalistic/financial credibility may be impaired when BrainChip launches.
Let us not get caraway and mangle my penny's worth or you'll be sorrell and turnip in the pea soup.Here's a mountain of iceberg lettuces. Will that help?
View attachment 40485
PS: I'm a bit worried that Fact Finder's post might break the internet like Kim Kardashian's tooshie did!
Welcome back FF (hopefully) you can contribute more.I am not back, but may post again, if I think the issue is of sufficient interest to genuine shareholders.
I have over many weeks been engaged in the process of putting together a list of Brainchip engagements based upon my own criteria that the company concerned has:
Why did I adopt this approach? For one very simple reason. I did not want a situation where my list contained a company which might be the subject of absolute secrecy. To maintain this secrecy Brainchip’s likely response would have been to ignore my request completely.
- been announced on the ASX by Brainchip, and/or
- been announced by use of a Press Release from Brainchip, and/or
- been acknowledged by an employee or Board member of Brainchip orally in a presentation that forms some type of permanent public record and/or
- been acknowledged by the company concerned in again some type of permanent public record and this has been adopted by Brainchip in a written communication or other permanent public record, and/or
- been formerly included on the Brainchip website
So reproduced below is my request and the two replies I received from Mr. Tony Dawe Director Global Investor Relations at Brainchip.
The request (27.6.23):
Dear Mr. Dawe
The following is a list of entities which Brainchip has by various means communicated they have had some form of engagement.
As we are about to enter the new financial year with a recession being predicted, an extremely low share price and claims in the media that Brainchip has lost out to Nvidia in the race to the Edge would you please confirm if any of these relationships should no longer be considered as a focus of interest for shareholders:
1. FORD
2. VALEO
3. RENESAS
4. NASA
5. TATA Consulting Services
6. MEGACHIPS
7. MOSCHIP
8. SOCIONEXT
9. PROPHESEE
10. VVDN
11. TEKSUN
12. Ai LABS
13. NVISO
14. EMOTION 3D
15. ARM
16. EDGE IMPULSE
17. INTEL
18. GLOBAL FOUNDRIES
19. BLUE RIDGE ENVISIONEERING
20. MERCEDES BENZ
21. ANT 61
22. QUANTUM VENTURA
23. INFORMATION SYSTEM LABORATORIES
24. INTELLISENSE SYSTEMS
25. CVEDIA
26. LORSER INDUSTRIES
27. SiFIVE
28. IPRO
29. SALESLINK
30. NUMEN
31. VORAGO
32. NANOSE
33. BIOTOME
34. OCULI
35. University of Oklahoma
36. Arizona State University
37. Carnegie Mellon University
38. Rochester Institute of Technology
39. Drexel University
Kind regards
Fact Finder
The first response (3.7.23):
Hi ……,
Thank you for your email.
I have referred your email to my colleagues in the US to ensure when I responded to you I did so with accurate information.
I have not yet received a reply from Ken Scarince as he was away on his annual vacation last week.
When I have his reply, I will respond directly to your email.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743
The final response received (18.7.23):
“Hi …..,
To the best of my knowledge, BrainChip continues to have relationships with all the companies mentioned on your list.
As I have previously stated, BrainChip does not comment on the nature of these relationships nor do we provide status reports.
Regards
Tony Dawe Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743”
As my request predated the reveal of IniVation as a partner by Nadan Nayampally Chief Marketing Officer and the latest press release regarding GMAC Intelligence it already is out of date such is the speed of progress being made by Brainchip. I do however believe that the very recent nature of the announcements should not require any further confirmation and I would therefore confidently add:
40. IniVation
41. GMAC Intelligence
The bottom line for any genuine shareholder in Brainchip is that speculation as to which companies Brainchip is engaged with should not include these 41. named entities as they are not in doubt.
Kind regards
Fact Finder
That's what my discussion with Peter was about at the back end of 2022 ... Peter was very adamant that AKD1000 "Will not be superseded" with the introduction of the new 'Akida Family chips' they all have their own uses for different applications! ......AKD1000 is not a dud!!!!! it is actually the 'first born' of the AKD family and was the chip that started this 'Revolutionising Technology'Hi JD
Your post brought me here much sooner than I anticipated but so be it. The following I believe destroys any ill-conceived notion that those you are addressing might attempt to promulgate that AKD1000 was a failure. If it was a failure then Brainchip would not exist as it is built from the same neural fabric which is the underpinnings of all AKIDA technology.
Kind regards
Fact Finder.
MY QUESTION:
"Hi Tony - 26.4.23
I perhaps jumped the gun on one part of my criticisms having received an email this morning advertising the podcast.
As a result of the answer Sean gave regarding the AKIDA 2nd Gen the manipulators have been out in force relying upon his answer to claim AKD1000 has been a dud.
I am not concerned about this but perhaps this is something to keep in mind for further presentations.
After all AKD1000 achieved the only IP sales in the history of Brainchip to Renesas and MegaChips not to mention the EAP customer engagements.
One clarification I have is around the neural fabric used in AKD1000, AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen.
My understanding was/is that the neural fabric was/is the same across all three. Is this correct?
If so then essentially the only difference is the additions to or the takeaways from, such as removing the CPU from AKD1500?
Also I have assumed that this being the case it is open to potential customers to purchase more or less nodes of AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen as Renesas did of AKD1000?
Regards
FF
THE ANSWER:
Hi .....,
Tony Dawe <tdawe@brainchip.com>
Wed, Apr 26, 12:58 PM
to me
I referred your question on technology to Peter van der Made.
Peter has replied below.
“The neural fabric is the same across all three chips, with minor modifications to allow for new functions. The AI market is a fast moving field, with new network technologies that appear every few months. We cannot afford to stand still. We are aiming the 2nd generation of Akida ahead of a moving target.
We took away the CPU from the AKD1500 to provide clients with a neuromorphic processor that is smaller and has a lower power consumption. This was the result of customer interactions because MCUs have their own CPU. The onboard CPU in AKD1000 makes sense for a stand-alone chip. Our IP is integrated within an MCU, so they do not need the CPU.
The AKD1000 is not superseded and remains part of our offering as a single-chip solution.”
I hope Peter’s response addresses your question.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
According to the Investor Presentations in April'23 conducted by Sean BRN is miles ahead of NVIDIA and other competition.I am not back, but may post again, if I think the issue is of sufficient interest to genuine shareholders.
I have over many weeks been engaged in the process of putting together a list of Brainchip engagements based upon my own criteria that the company concerned has:
Why did I adopt this approach? For one very simple reason. I did not want a situation where my list contained a company which might be the subject of absolute secrecy. To maintain this secrecy Brainchip’s likely response would have been to ignore my request completely.
- been announced on the ASX by Brainchip, and/or
- been announced by use of a Press Release from Brainchip, and/or
- been acknowledged by an employee or Board member of Brainchip orally in a presentation that forms some type of permanent public record and/or
- been acknowledged by the company concerned in again some type of permanent public record and this has been adopted by Brainchip in a written communication or other permanent public record, and/or
- been formerly included on the Brainchip website
So reproduced below is my request and the two replies I received from Mr. Tony Dawe Director Global Investor Relations at Brainchip.
The request (27.6.23):
Dear Mr. Dawe
The following is a list of entities which Brainchip has by various means communicated they have had some form of engagement.
As we are about to enter the new financial year with a recession being predicted, an extremely low share price and claims in the media that Brainchip has lost out to Nvidia in the race to the Edge would you please confirm if any of these relationships should no longer be considered as a focus of interest for shareholders:
1. FORD
2. VALEO
3. RENESAS
4. NASA
5. TATA Consulting Services
6. MEGACHIPS
7. MOSCHIP
8. SOCIONEXT
9. PROPHESEE
10. VVDN
11. TEKSUN
12. Ai LABS
13. NVISO
14. EMOTION 3D
15. ARM
16. EDGE IMPULSE
17. INTEL
18. GLOBAL FOUNDRIES
19. BLUE RIDGE ENVISIONEERING
20. MERCEDES BENZ
21. ANT 61
22. QUANTUM VENTURA
23. INFORMATION SYSTEM LABORATORIES
24. INTELLISENSE SYSTEMS
25. CVEDIA
26. LORSER INDUSTRIES
27. SiFIVE
28. IPRO
29. SALESLINK
30. NUMEN
31. VORAGO
32. NANOSE
33. BIOTOME
34. OCULI
35. University of Oklahoma
36. Arizona State University
37. Carnegie Mellon University
38. Rochester Institute of Technology
39. Drexel University
Kind regards
Fact Finder
The first response (3.7.23):
Hi ……,
Thank you for your email.
I have referred your email to my colleagues in the US to ensure when I responded to you I did so with accurate information.
I have not yet received a reply from Ken Scarince as he was away on his annual vacation last week.
When I have his reply, I will respond directly to your email.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743
The final response received (18.7.23):
“Hi …..,
To the best of my knowledge, BrainChip continues to have relationships with all the companies mentioned on your list.
As I have previously stated, BrainChip does not comment on the nature of these relationships nor do we provide status reports.
Regards
Tony Dawe Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743”
As my request predated the reveal of IniVation as a partner by Nadan Nayampally Chief Marketing Officer and the latest press release regarding GMAC Intelligence it already is out of date such is the speed of progress being made by Brainchip. I do however believe that the very recent nature of the announcements should not require any further confirmation and I would therefore confidently add:
40. IniVation
41. GMAC Intelligence
The bottom line for any genuine shareholder in Brainchip is that speculation as to which companies Brainchip is engaged with should not include these 41. named entities as they are not in doubt.
Kind regards
Fact Finder
The new software, designed for Mobileye’s EyeQ platform, has been certified for use in all 27 EU countries as well as Israel, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. The EyeQ4 and EyeQ6-based ISA system allows OEMs whose vehicles already integrate these chips to meet the new standards merely by updating the EyeQ’s existing software, without any new hardware requirements.“This is a major accomplishment for Mobileye, because we’ve proven to the industry not only that achieving GSR-compatible vision-only ISA is possible, but also that it performs better than traditional map-based solutions”
This is the best moment for me to read your post again! Appreciate all your contribution.I am not back, but may post again, if I think the issue is of sufficient interest to genuine shareholders.
I have over many weeks been engaged in the process of putting together a list of Brainchip engagements based upon my own criteria that the company concerned has:
Why did I adopt this approach? For one very simple reason. I did not want a situation where my list contained a company which might be the subject of absolute secrecy. To maintain this secrecy Brainchip’s likely response would have been to ignore my request completely.
- been announced on the ASX by Brainchip, and/or
- been announced by use of a Press Release from Brainchip, and/or
- been acknowledged by an employee or Board member of Brainchip orally in a presentation that forms some type of permanent public record and/or
- been acknowledged by the company concerned in again some type of permanent public record and this has been adopted by Brainchip in a written communication or other permanent public record, and/or
- been formerly included on the Brainchip website
So reproduced below is my request and the two replies I received from Mr. Tony Dawe Director Global Investor Relations at Brainchip.
The request (27.6.23):
Dear Mr. Dawe
The following is a list of entities which Brainchip has by various means communicated they have had some form of engagement.
As we are about to enter the new financial year with a recession being predicted, an extremely low share price and claims in the media that Brainchip has lost out to Nvidia in the race to the Edge would you please confirm if any of these relationships should no longer be considered as a focus of interest for shareholders:
1. FORD
2. VALEO
3. RENESAS
4. NASA
5. TATA Consulting Services
6. MEGACHIPS
7. MOSCHIP
8. SOCIONEXT
9. PROPHESEE
10. VVDN
11. TEKSUN
12. Ai LABS
13. NVISO
14. EMOTION 3D
15. ARM
16. EDGE IMPULSE
17. INTEL
18. GLOBAL FOUNDRIES
19. BLUE RIDGE ENVISIONEERING
20. MERCEDES BENZ
21. ANT 61
22. QUANTUM VENTURA
23. INFORMATION SYSTEM LABORATORIES
24. INTELLISENSE SYSTEMS
25. CVEDIA
26. LORSER INDUSTRIES
27. SiFIVE
28. IPRO
29. SALESLINK
30. NUMEN
31. VORAGO
32. NANOSE
33. BIOTOME
34. OCULI
35. University of Oklahoma
36. Arizona State University
37. Carnegie Mellon University
38. Rochester Institute of Technology
39. Drexel University
Kind regards
Fact Finder
The first response (3.7.23):
Hi ……,
Thank you for your email.
I have referred your email to my colleagues in the US to ensure when I responded to you I did so with accurate information.
I have not yet received a reply from Ken Scarince as he was away on his annual vacation last week.
When I have his reply, I will respond directly to your email.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743
The final response received (18.7.23):
“Hi …..,
To the best of my knowledge, BrainChip continues to have relationships with all the companies mentioned on your list.
As I have previously stated, BrainChip does not comment on the nature of these relationships nor do we provide status reports.
Regards
Tony Dawe Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743”
As my request predated the reveal of IniVation as a partner by Nadan Nayampally Chief Marketing Officer and the latest press release regarding GMAC Intelligence it already is out of date such is the speed of progress being made by Brainchip. I do however believe that the very recent nature of the announcements should not require any further confirmation and I would therefore confidently add:
40. IniVation
41. GMAC Intelligence
The bottom line for any genuine shareholder in Brainchip is that speculation as to which companies Brainchip is engaged with should not include these 41. named entities as they are not in doubt.
Kind regards
Fact Finder
Legend as always FF.I am not back, but may post again, if I think the issue is of sufficient interest to genuine shareholders.
I have over many weeks been engaged in the process of putting together a list of Brainchip engagements based upon my own criteria that the company concerned has:
Why did I adopt this approach? For one very simple reason. I did not want a situation where my list contained a company which might be the subject of absolute secrecy. To maintain this secrecy Brainchip’s likely response would have been to ignore my request completely.
- been announced on the ASX by Brainchip, and/or
- been announced by use of a Press Release from Brainchip, and/or
- been acknowledged by an employee or Board member of Brainchip orally in a presentation that forms some type of permanent public record and/or
- been acknowledged by the company concerned in again some type of permanent public record and this has been adopted by Brainchip in a written communication or other permanent public record, and/or
- been formerly included on the Brainchip website
So reproduced below is my request and the two replies I received from Mr. Tony Dawe Director Global Investor Relations at Brainchip.
The request (27.6.23):
Dear Mr. Dawe
The following is a list of entities which Brainchip has by various means communicated they have had some form of engagement.
As we are about to enter the new financial year with a recession being predicted, an extremely low share price and claims in the media that Brainchip has lost out to Nvidia in the race to the Edge would you please confirm if any of these relationships should no longer be considered as a focus of interest for shareholders:
1. FORD
2. VALEO
3. RENESAS
4. NASA
5. TATA Consulting Services
6. MEGACHIPS
7. MOSCHIP
8. SOCIONEXT
9. PROPHESEE
10. VVDN
11. TEKSUN
12. Ai LABS
13. NVISO
14. EMOTION 3D
15. ARM
16. EDGE IMPULSE
17. INTEL
18. GLOBAL FOUNDRIES
19. BLUE RIDGE ENVISIONEERING
20. MERCEDES BENZ
21. ANT 61
22. QUANTUM VENTURA
23. INFORMATION SYSTEM LABORATORIES
24. INTELLISENSE SYSTEMS
25. CVEDIA
26. LORSER INDUSTRIES
27. SiFIVE
28. IPRO
29. SALESLINK
30. NUMEN
31. VORAGO
32. NANOSE
33. BIOTOME
34. OCULI
35. University of Oklahoma
36. Arizona State University
37. Carnegie Mellon University
38. Rochester Institute of Technology
39. Drexel University
Kind regards
Fact Finder
The first response (3.7.23):
Hi ……,
Thank you for your email.
I have referred your email to my colleagues in the US to ensure when I responded to you I did so with accurate information.
I have not yet received a reply from Ken Scarince as he was away on his annual vacation last week.
When I have his reply, I will respond directly to your email.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743
The final response received (18.7.23):
“Hi …..,
To the best of my knowledge, BrainChip continues to have relationships with all the companies mentioned on your list.
As I have previously stated, BrainChip does not comment on the nature of these relationships nor do we provide status reports.
Regards
Tony Dawe Director, Global Investor Relations
+61 (0)405 989 743”
As my request predated the reveal of IniVation as a partner by Nadan Nayampally Chief Marketing Officer and the latest press release regarding GMAC Intelligence it already is out of date such is the speed of progress being made by Brainchip. I do however believe that the very recent nature of the announcements should not require any further confirmation and I would therefore confidently add:
40. IniVation
41. GMAC Intelligence
The bottom line for any genuine shareholder in Brainchip is that speculation as to which companies Brainchip is engaged with should not include these 41. named entities as they are not in doubt.
Kind regards
Fact Finder
Great to hear from you again FF.Hi JD
Your post brought me here much sooner than I anticipated but so be it. The following I believe destroys any ill-conceived notion that those you are addressing might attempt to promulgate that AKD1000 was a failure. If it was a failure then Brainchip would not exist as it is built from the same neural fabric which is the underpinnings of all AKIDA technology.
Kind regards
Fact Finder.
MY QUESTION:
"Hi Tony - 26.4.23
I perhaps jumped the gun on one part of my criticisms having received an email this morning advertising the podcast.
As a result of the answer Sean gave regarding the AKIDA 2nd Gen the manipulators have been out in force relying upon his answer to claim AKD1000 has been a dud.
I am not concerned about this but perhaps this is something to keep in mind for further presentations.
After all AKD1000 achieved the only IP sales in the history of Brainchip to Renesas and MegaChips not to mention the EAP customer engagements.
One clarification I have is around the neural fabric used in AKD1000, AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen.
My understanding was/is that the neural fabric was/is the same across all three. Is this correct?
If so then essentially the only difference is the additions to or the takeaways from, such as removing the CPU from AKD1500?
Also I have assumed that this being the case it is open to potential customers to purchase more or less nodes of AKD1500 and AKIDA 2nd Gen as Renesas did of AKD1000?
Regards
FF
THE ANSWER:
Hi .....,
Tony Dawe <tdawe@brainchip.com>
Wed, Apr 26, 12:58 PM
to me
I referred your question on technology to Peter van der Made.
Peter has replied below.
“The neural fabric is the same across all three chips, with minor modifications to allow for new functions. The AI market is a fast moving field, with new network technologies that appear every few months. We cannot afford to stand still. We are aiming the 2nd generation of Akida ahead of a moving target.
We took away the CPU from the AKD1500 to provide clients with a neuromorphic processor that is smaller and has a lower power consumption. This was the result of customer interactions because MCUs have their own CPU. The onboard CPU in AKD1000 makes sense for a stand-alone chip. Our IP is integrated within an MCU, so they do not need the CPU.
The AKD1000 is not superseded and remains part of our offering as a single-chip solution.”
I hope Peter’s response addresses your question.
Regards
Tony Dawe
Director, Global Investor Relations
Do we have a link / dot to Mobileye? I can’t rememberMobileye Launches the First Camera-Only Intelligent Speed Assist to Meet New EU Standards
TECHNOLOGYNEWS
By Business Wire On Jul 20, 2023
Share
Mobileye has introduced the world’s first vision-only Intelligent Speed Assist (ISA) solution for automakers, following testing and certification across Europe. The camera-only solution, launching in production vehicles this year, helps global automakers meet new European Union (EU) General Safety Regulation (GSR) standards requiring automatic sensing of speed limits in all new vehicle models, without the need to rely on third-party map and GPS data.
AiThority Interview Insights: How to Get Started with Prompt Engineering in Generative AI Projects
The new software, designed for Mobileye’s EyeQ platform, has been certified for use in all 27 EU countries as well as Israel, Norway, Switzerland, and Turkey. The EyeQ4 and EyeQ6-based ISA system allows OEMs whose vehicles already integrate these chips to meet the new standards merely by updating the EyeQ’s existing software, without any new hardware requirements.
The Mobileye ISA system is expected to be integrated by a major global auto group into two vehicle brands for models going on sale in Europe later this year, with three other global automakers following close behind in 2024 and beyond.
“This is a major accomplishment for Mobileye, because we’ve proven to the industry not only that achieving GSR-compatible vision-only ISA is possible, but also that it performs better than traditional map-based solutions,” said Dr. Gaby Hayon, Executive Vice President of Research and Development at Mobileye.
The certified solution, resulting from more than two years of work building on Mobileye’s two decades of experience in computer vision and machine learning, is the industry’s first of its kind. Current alternatives rely on a combination of cameras and low-resolution maps to meet the EU standards, a solution that typically brings higher cost with complexity and integration efforts, while providing less reliable performance.