Yep, you are right Innatera appear to be aiming at the low hanging fruit. Probably a much cheaper chip and does the job where 'Brainchip style on chip learning' is not required eg doorbells and basic wearables and IOT.I'm not doubting that our technology is superior Manny, but when it comes to the low end applications that Pulsar is aimed at, that doesn't really matter.
They are going for the "low hanging fruit" something BrainChip has never really been focused on.
We've always been looking at the Big End of Town.
We now have the AKIDA E and Pico (although AKIDA 1.0 IP was always available with a minimum of "Nodes" Renesas only licenced 2 or something?)
But that requires more investment and commitment from an OEM (and more time) to design in "tape out" a chip etc, than Innatera is offering, with an OTSC.
Actual performance comparisons, or some extra features such as on chip learning (which probably aren't as necessary for low end applications) don't really mean much at that end, when you are looking at the investment and commitment differences for the OEMs.
I'm heavily invested here and am on BrainChip's and your "side" I'm just being impartial and honest about this.
We don't have any idea of how much commercial progress Innatera is having with Pulsar.
They may be facing as many or more market penetration issues and acceptance than us.
And if that's the case, it may end up being a big mistake for them to be mass producing their chips.
Agree, we are the obvious choice for serious health, space, DOD and cybersecurity etc. On chip learning 'Brainchip style' is a big part of that.
IMO on chip learning is a big part of the future of AI and we have it.