BRN Discussion Ongoing

M_C

Founding Member
Screenshot_20231117_192629_LinkedIn.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 17 users

SERA2g

Founding Member
The only reason Sean (The Ceo) now wants to talk to Shareholders is because we are getting close to the next AGM.
Is that a question or an answer?

If it's a questions then I don't have an answer for you. If it's an answer then I don't remember asking the question.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 23 users

GazDix

Regular
Does anyone know if @Realinfo got an invite after his or his mate's fair dinkum tirade in the last AGM???

Whatever. Thank you FF for sharing the info from the meeting.

I am used to not being invited to events and I would've peed off Sean anyway I am sure with questions he wouldn't like😏
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Thinking
Reactions: 8 users
Just as with many things that I think receive too much attention, the optics look bad. I'm only venturing a guess here, but I would assume that the CEO made a stop to make an appearance in Australia on his way to South Korea and, during the process, took some time to meet with these analysts, professional investors, and retail investors.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would like to think that the retail investors invited were those in the vicinity and didn't have to travel too far. Additionally, these were probably retail investors who attended meetings, workshops, shows, or communicated with Investor Relations on multiple occasions. Of course, any retail investors outside of Australia that were invited would invalidate that theory. I did not receive an invite.

New investors would have been shown the same horse and pony show BrainChip presents at its investor conferences. I believe it would be illegal for the company to share any insider information with new or existing investors; I don't think that a company that has reached this stage in its commercialization efforts would jeopardize things by doing such a thing.

If anything, I would imagine that the company would probably want to get some feedback from existing investors on how they are holding up their end of the bargain about communications, as they said this would improve as of the last AGM.

I certainly don't believe there was anything nefarious behind this, and whatever was shared was not anything that any potential investor couldn't acquire through contacting the company directly. While researching investors being contacted by company executives, I ran across an article from early 2019 that suggested that a director's engagement with shareholders is not uncommon.
So tell me why so many large organisations are the top shareholders of Brainchip if it's going down the drain
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Thinking
Reactions: 4 users
Just as with many things that I think receive too much attention, the optics look bad. I'm only venturing a guess here, but I would assume that the CEO made a stop to make an appearance in Australia on his way to South Korea and, during the process, took some time to meet with these analysts, professional investors, and retail investors.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I would like to think that the retail investors invited were those in the vicinity and didn't have to travel too far. Additionally, these were probably retail investors who attended meetings, workshops, shows, or communicated with Investor Relations on multiple occasions. Of course, any retail investors outside of Australia that were invited would invalidate that theory. I did not receive an invite.

New investors would have been shown the same horse and pony show BrainChip presents at its investor conferences. I believe it would be illegal for the company to share any insider information with new or existing investors; I don't think that a company that has reached this stage in its commercialization efforts would jeopardize things by doing such a thing.

If anything, I would imagine that the company would probably want to get some feedback from existing investors on how they are holding up their end of the bargain about communications, as they said this would improve as of the last AGM.

I certainly don't believe there was anything nefarious behind this, and whatever was shared was not anything that any potential investor couldn't acquire through contacting the company directly. While researching investors being contacted by company executives, I ran across an article from early 2019 that suggested that a director's engagement with shareholders is not uncommon.
Pretty simple mate the CEO needs to bring some I.P announcements,
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Makeme 2020

Regular
Is that a question or an answer?

If it's a questions then I don't have an answer for you. If it's an answer then I don't remember asking the question.
Ask wilzy123.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users

raybot

Member
Unless Sean pu

Unless one of the biggest rabbit tricks are pulled out of his hat he is gone for all money and won’t be back next AGM,we had the numbers for strike 1 and now with more shareholders pissed with management and the directors all looking like strike 2 will be a forgone conclusion. As besides you select few who get access should,not get,at least 70 percent of shareholders are pissed,why question and speak to happy investors it’s the unhappy that will vote with their feet.
‘At least 70% of shareholders are pissed’ - prove it
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: 8 users

Xhosa12345

Regular
What I find most interesting is how transparent you and the other manipulators are but I should not be surprised given the proven depths of human depravity.

Personal attacks, threats of spills, pompous claims of self importance and financial sophistication.

Uninformed claims that a spill will remove a CEO.

The ignorance and misinformation rains down like a river.

Go and read the Rules a spill has no implications for the Chairman or the CEO particularly when the spill is led by disgruntled retail shareholders who manage to cobble together 25% on two occasions. The existing Board simply nominates again and are elected because they don’t even have to get 50% of the possible vote at the spill meeting.

The only one’s who win from a spill are the shorts, the manipulators and the trolls.

Retail shareholders will always loose.

Sharing publicly available information has not and will not ever be a cause for concern however ignorance and sinister intent will always be a trigger to be careful as the purveyor is someone not to be trusted.

Those who might be influenced by these flawed individuals should ask why has not one of these individuals challenged or unpicked the information that is contained in my earlier post?

Why have they not identified the untruths?

Why have they not identified and laid bare the price sensitive insider information that they seek to rage against?

Can they not find it?

Why have they not considered that the CEO and Board of a publicly listed company randomly sampling the views of a group of shareholders to understand their concerns beyond the simplicity of the day to day share price might be a good thing?

It was clear that the shareholders who attended in Sydney cut across age, social circumstance and were not selected based on the size of their wallet or shareholding.

Or dare I say what institution they worked at or what broker they break bread with on the weekend.

They gave all the outward appearance of a random selection and not an elite group of so called sophisticated or institutional investors.

Does this failure to only speak with the so called elites offend their collective sense of entitlement?

Do they fear their position as controllers of wealth and hence power may be undermined?

Real people with real concerns such as wives, husbands, children, retirement plans, fixed incomes, mortgages, relatives and friends who had invested on their advice in other words real people who only had one thing in common they have invested their hard earned in Brainchip and had concerns like the genuine shareholders who post here.

While the attacks have been directed at me these warriors of all that is disgusting about the ASX and social media are at the same time denigrating all the other real shareholders who took up this first in their lifetime opportunity to have a voice and be heard by those in charge of the company they have invested in.

Who among this group here would if offered the same opportunity to be heard not accept with a virtuous heart?

It is clear what the individuals who have played the man instead of the ball are about and it is not ensuring that an investment in Brainchip pays off for all shareholders.

My opinion only DYOR though Blind Freddie says their intent is obvious.

Regards
Fact Finder

Glad you are back ff...

Balls out time, when do you think the revenue will realistically start hitting, and in what amounts?

Im sure many of us would love to hear your shot at the stumps on the same.

Also obviously ok if you decline as half the knobs on here will crucify you if you get it wrong, so all good either way mate.

Have a good weekend everyone, hope you are all well and valuing whats truly important in life.... (fyi its time if you didnt know)
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 10 users

Diogenese

Top 20
‘At least 70% of shareholders are pissed’ - prove it
... well at this time on Friday night ... res ipsa loquitur.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Fire
Reactions: 13 users

Learning

Learning to the Top 🕵‍♂️

Learning 🪴
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 6 users
Not a bad free webscraper for a lot of news / info semiconductor related.

We even make the list of the sites they monitor :)




IMG_20231117_205350.jpg
Screenshot_2023-11-17-20-54-32-87_4641ebc0df1485bf6b47ebd018b5ee76.jpg
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 15 users

Learning 🪴
Only read it cause they didn't add the word "anyway" :LOL:

It does highlight one the bigger hurdles that we need to get over and we can see that "big push" as they put it, going on this past year and continuing with things like the Uni programs.

Getting this bedded down from an industry view will help BRN no end imo.


NO BENCHMARKS OR STANDARDIZATION​

Because neuromorphic computing is still a relatively new technology, there are no standard benchmarks for this technology, making it difficult to assess its performance and prove its efficacy outside of a research lab. And the lack of standardized architectures and software interfaces for neuromorphic computing can make it difficult to share applications and results. But Danielescu said there is a “big push” among academic and industry leaders to change this.
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Haha
Reactions: 13 users

MDhere

Top 20
BrainChip did what other companies also do ... invite influencers. They have to make sure that investors will not vote against BrainChip's management during the next annual meeting. So they probably only invited very active and positive BrainChip supporters who do not criticize the management. My guess.
Incorrect they didn't invite me or maybe they did and i didn't see the email and im positve. But all in all if i have a question i seek the answer. I may have more shares then some of those that were invited so i found it a little odd but am i going to lose sleep over it? And the answer is No. I too along with a few others on here fly for the past couple years to the agm. And will be doing this again this year.
All the company needs to do is do their job and if it also means to talk to key promoters snd influencers that's all part of the job and i don't think any of us small inverstors even up to 3mil were mission it was more the top 20 and key article writers. They later released a investor podcast and i had the privilege of listening to it. Ive effectively saved my pennies to fly next year to the agm. All in my opinion just like yrs but i did want to give you my take on it in this instance.
Happy Saturday fellow brners im an early riser for work. Oneday i won't need to be 😀
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 24 users

SERA2g

Founding Member
Good morning,

Despite what someone recently posted about Pia Turcinov being next to useless, questioning why she is even on our BOD and has she
actually brought anything to date to the Brainchip Holdings Ltd table, whilst receiving an NED's fee.

I found that a rather harsh view, having met Pia she came across to me as a very strong business minded lady, who I know Peter has a lot
of respect for, she has numerous contacts who can open up doors, becoming the first female to enter Brainchip's Board, having the founders
blessing I would have thought was enough.

Who got the WA Minister for Emergency Services; Innovation and the Digital Economy; Medical Research; Stephen Dawson to come to
visit our Perth Research Innovation Centre, I'm pretty sure it was Pia, but happy to be corrected by Tony if wrong.

It's all about teamwork, and Perth has a very solid team, I can't state as a fact, but I'd strongly suggest Pia has already opened up channels
that may have not at this stage been possible, mainly based around Peter's and the Perth teams already heavy workload.

Whatever the actual figure and/or bonus shares she receives, I personally believe it will pay off over the next 3 year period, if the Board
decides to part ways with Pia, I'm sure it will be mutual if it ever eventuates.

Have a great day ahead....Tech
Hi Tech

Great post mate and I mean that.

Why didn't you respond to my post directly
instead of referring to it indirectly via another post several days later? You seem to have a habit of doing that.

If you had of responded to my post directly then everyone reading your post would see exactly what I had said, which is:

The only person I don't want to see re-elected at the next AGM is Pia. Loan, Antonio etc all come with significant semi-conductor industry experience and expertise. They've been there and have done it and consequently have great networks to leverage. Pia has none of that. Pia has very good board level experience and would be suitable for other listed companies, but not Brainchip. I am also annoyed by the fact she heavily promotes events, groups and other ideas on her LinkedIn, but never Brainchip, yet she is paid a significant sum for her seat at the table. Perhaps she does a lot behind the scenes. In that case the company needs to do a better job in showing the value added.

In response to your passive aggressive post:

  1. I did not say Pia was useless at all, i actually gave her a compliment by saying she has very good board level experience.
  2. I think the points I made about her lack of semiconductor industry experience are important as those networks create a DIRECT pathway to the company's that are most likely to sign licensing agreements.
  3. I also think her lack of sharing on LinkedIn is a fair comment. You may not have, but I did scroll back through 12 months of her LinkedIn feed, which took quite a while as she posts ALOT, and from memory she had shared one post of Anil Mankar's in which he had shared a Brainchip post. She also hasn't liked any brainchip content from memory. Her reshare of Anil's post and lack of engagement on Brainchip content made me wonder if she's even following our social media channels at all
Additionally, I have also highlighted a section of my post above which is probably the most important part of the Pia related paragraph, as it serves as a disclaimer for the very rare "constructive criticism" of the company that I have given.

It seems you have missed that disclaimer altogether, or perhaps you did read it which may be the reason why you didn't respond to me directly as then it would be easy for me and everyone else to call bullshit. In any case, your passive aggressive post has proven my final point in that paragraph correct:

Pia does do positive things behind the scenes and therefore brainchip could do a better job of showing the value she adds.

I am now wondering how you know Stephen Dawson visited the research institute, I think I missed that. Also keen to hear more about your strong views on channels that she has opened up, or are these points coming from private emails with Peter? If that's the case then the value Pia is adding is being ring fenced and should instead be advertised a little more widely, which again comes back to my disclaimer.

For what it's worth, you have posted about me in a passive aggressive manner on multiple occasions now. Please don't do that. If I say things you disagree with then call me out, let's openly discuss differing opinions, that is what the forum is for. I think by now you will know that I am a strong and positive supporter of Brainchip. We are on the same team.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Love
Reactions: 69 users

IloveLamp

Top 20
  • Like
  • Thinking
  • Love
Reactions: 5 users

MDhere

Top 20
Hi Tech

Great post mate and I mean that.

Why didn't you respond to my post directly
instead of referring to it indirectly via another post several days later? You seem to have a habit of doing that.

If you had of responded to my post directly then everyone reading your post would see exactly what I had said, which is:

The only person I don't want to see re-elected at the next AGM is Pia. Loan, Antonio etc all come with significant semi-conductor industry experience and expertise. They've been there and have done it and consequently have great networks to leverage. Pia has none of that. Pia has very good board level experience and would be suitable for other listed companies, but not Brainchip. I am also annoyed by the fact she heavily promotes events, groups and other ideas on her LinkedIn, but never Brainchip, yet she is paid a significant sum for her seat at the table. Perhaps she does a lot behind the scenes. In that case the company needs to do a better job in showing the value added.

In response to your passive aggressive post:

  1. I did not say Pia was useless at all, i actually gave her a compliment by saying she has very good board level experience.
  2. I think the points I made about her lack of semiconductor industry experience are important as those networks create a DIRECT pathway to the company's that are most likely to sign licensing agreements.
  3. I also think her lack of sharing on LinkedIn is a fair comment. You may not have, but I did scroll back through 12 months of her LinkedIn feed, which took quite a while as she posts ALOT, and from memory she had shared one post of Anil Mankar's in which he had shared a Brainchip post. She also hasn't liked any brainchip content from memory. Her reshare of Anil's post and lack of engagement on Brainchip content made me wonder if she's even following our social media channels at all
Additionally, I have also highlighted a section of my post above which is probably the most important part of the Pia related paragraph, as it serves as a disclaimer for the very rare "constructive criticism" of the company that I have given.

It seems you have missed that disclaimer altogether, or perhaps you did read it which may be the reason why you didn't respond to me directly as then it would be easy for me and everyone else to call bullshit. In any case, your passive aggressive post has proven my final point in that paragraph correct:

Pia does do positive things behind the scenes and therefore brainchip could do a better job of showing the value she adds.

I am now wondering how you know Stephen Dawson visited the research institute, I think I missed that. Also keen to hear more about your strong views on channels that she has opened up, or are these points coming from private emails with Peter? If that's the case then the value Pia is adding is being ring fenced and should instead be advertised a little more widely, which again comes back to my disclaimer.

For what it's worth, you have posted about me in a passive aggressive manner on multiple occasions now. Please don't do that. If I say things you disagree with then call me out, let's openly discuss differing opinions, that is what the forum is for. I think by now you will know that I am a strong and positive supporter of Brainchip. We are on the same team.

Cheers
Hi Sera, i like and value yr contributions but i don't get what seems a person attack on Pia? Brainchip are not stupid and there is obviously a strategic move of having Pia on board. May i suggest that you come to the next AGM where Pia attends (check first) and you can have a face to face discussion with Pia. It might answer all your concerns as im sure scanning thru linkedin activity is not a measure of ones ability. Please don't take offence that im just giving my view on this and directly replying to you.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 11 users

cosors

👀
Hi Tech

Great post mate and I mean that.

Why didn't you respond to my post directly
instead of referring to it indirectly via another post several days later? You seem to have a habit of doing that.

If you had of responded to my post directly then everyone reading your post would see exactly what I had said, which is:

The only person I don't want to see re-elected at the next AGM is Pia. Loan, Antonio etc all come with significant semi-conductor industry experience and expertise. They've been there and have done it and consequently have great networks to leverage. Pia has none of that. Pia has very good board level experience and would be suitable for other listed companies, but not Brainchip. I am also annoyed by the fact she heavily promotes events, groups and other ideas on her LinkedIn, but never Brainchip, yet she is paid a significant sum for her seat at the table. Perhaps she does a lot behind the scenes. In that case the company needs to do a better job in showing the value added.

In response to your passive aggressive post:

  1. I did not say Pia was useless at all, i actually gave her a compliment by saying she has very good board level experience.
  2. I think the points I made about her lack of semiconductor industry experience are important as those networks create a DIRECT pathway to the company's that are most likely to sign licensing agreements.
  3. I also think her lack of sharing on LinkedIn is a fair comment. You may not have, but I did scroll back through 12 months of her LinkedIn feed, which took quite a while as she posts ALOT, and from memory she had shared one post of Anil Mankar's in which he had shared a Brainchip post. She also hasn't liked any brainchip content from memory. Her reshare of Anil's post and lack of engagement on Brainchip content made me wonder if she's even following our social media channels at all
Additionally, I have also highlighted a section of my post above which is probably the most important part of the Pia related paragraph, as it serves as a disclaimer for the very rare "constructive criticism" of the company that I have given.

It seems you have missed that disclaimer altogether, or perhaps you did read it which may be the reason why you didn't respond to me directly as then it would be easy for me and everyone else to call bullshit. In any case, your passive aggressive post has proven my final point in that paragraph correct:

Pia does do positive things behind the scenes and therefore brainchip could do a better job of showing the value she adds.

I am now wondering how you know Stephen Dawson visited the research institute, I think I missed that. Also keen to hear more about your strong views on channels that she has opened up, or are these points coming from private emails with Peter? If that's the case then the value Pia is adding is being ring fenced and should instead be advertised a little more widely, which again comes back to my disclaimer.

For what it's worth, you have posted about me in a passive aggressive manner on multiple occasions now. Please don't do that. If I say things you disagree with then call me out, let's openly discuss differing opinions, that is what the forum is for. I think by now you will know that I am a strong and positive supporter of Brainchip. We are on the same team.

Cheers
Thank you for your words! You both are among others my ~cornerstones and my ~bulwark. That sounds strange. But that's what I mean. You have to stick together. Different opinions with substance enrich our/my group. Avatars don't have to love each other like friends in real life. You're like the pillars of a chair (or the pillars under a house in Venice) and I'm just the felt pad under one of them so as not to scratch the floor. So what do I do when the pillars go against each other? Debating is enriching and it's a question of how to do it. So thank you again for your sincere, open and honest manner.
Then it will be better for all of us and of great value.
That's what the forum was founded for, in my view.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 10 users

jtardif999

Regular
OUTSIDE THE BOX

Opinion: PCs and cars are the future for this giant but little-known chip-designer

Growth opportunities for Arm Holdings look strong despite stiff headwinds

One of the world’s most important technology companies is also one of the least discussed. Arm Holdings ARM is a U.K.-based company founded in 1990 that has been the silent leader in the expansion of computing outside the world of servers and PCs. If you have a smartphone, a connected appliance, a smart TV, or digital home assistant, your personal technology has Arm at its core.

Arm has an interesting business history. It was purchased by the Japanese conglomerate SoftBank Group JP:9984 in 2016, had an acquisition attempt in 2020 from Nvidia NVDA that failed regulatory hurdles, and finally went back to being a publicly traded company on Nasdaq last Septmber. Arm just announced its first quarterly earnings report after its IPO, with the market generally pleased with the past three months of revenue but wary of the guidance given for the next quarter.

In my view, there are good reasons to believe that Arm has great years ahead of it with expansion into new markets and new revenue streams, but also a few headwinds that put long-term growth at risk.

Arm is most often associated with the explosion of the smartphone market, and for good reason. With few exceptions, at the heart of every smartphone today is a chip based on Arm technology, including those from Apple AAPL and Samsung KR:005930. While the handset space has been problematic for companies recently with the softness of sales in China, indications are that the region is picking back up, with a note from Qualcomm QCOM in its latest earnings to underscore that point. A reinvigorated smartphone market, with the help of on-device AI adoption, will improve the outlook where the company’s largest revenue stream is tied.

There are many areas of growth for Arm outside of the smartphone market. The PC space is getting active, as Qualcomm announced a new Snapdragon processor last month that’s meant to displace Intel INTC and AMD AMD. Qualcomm’s new Oryon core powering the chip is based on Arm architecture. And recent rumors of Nvidia and AMD entering into the Windows-on-Arm chip market gives Arm yet another avenue.

As the automotive market becomes more about computing and assisted driving, Arm-based products are going to be at the heart of that transition. Qualcomm is one of the leaders in this space as well, mostly utilizing Arm technology. But other Arm partners including NXP Semiconductors NXPI, Renesas Electronics JP:6723 and Cadence Design Systems CDNS are involved in the rollout of automotive technologies from advanced driver-assistance systems to digital cockpits, and all are integrating Arm processors of some kind. This segment is expected to grow at close to a 10% CAGR for at least the next five years and offers a significant revenue opportunity.

Crucially, Arm has also made progress in the data center segment with its Neoverse family of IP that is targeted at powering cloud- and edge server infrastructure. As more data centers look to find ways to improve or maintain performance while lowering fixed costs of power and space, the advantages that Arm CPUs have in efficiency and scalability shine. And while the data center segment has a been a target for Arm since before the AI revolution, its significant partnership with Nvidia, the clear leader in the enterprise AI race, means that Arm-based products like the Nvidia Grace CPU will drive revenue and relevancy.

Read: Big tech is battling to put AI on your PC, laptop and smartphone

In its most recent earnings report, Arm said that more than 7.1 billion devices had shipped this past quarter with Arm technology inside them. That’s a stunning number and one that tells you how deeply embedded and how pervasive the Arm architecture is in our connected world. We aren’t just talking about companies like Apple, Qualcomm, and Samsung, but also Toshiba JP:6502, NXP, and Tata Communications IN:500483. Even Intel and AMD are utilizing Arm designs for some portion of their product lines.

Moreover, Arm CEO Rene Haas mentioned in a recent interview with CNBC’s Jim Cramer that the strong increase in licensing revenue that Arm saw in this quarter’s earnings report is a “strong indicator for R&D investment.” This is good news for Arm — the more product development that is happening today on its IP means that future products released to market will be based on that R&D work, cycling back to more revenue and market share for Arm.

Risks to the bullish case

Perhaps the biggest risk to Arm is competition. Not from the world of x86 processors that are trying to not be displaced by Arm designs, but by another low power architecture. RISC-V (pronounced “risk five”) is a competing instruction set architecture (ISA). That basically means it is based on a different set of computer microinstructions, not compatible with either Arm or x86 designs.

RISC-V is an “open” design, meaning that, at least in theory, it is free to utilize for both academic and commercial use cases. This is obviously an advantage over the Arm architecture, where companies must pay a licensing or royalty fee to design their own Arm CPU or to use one of the cores designed by Arm itself. This openness also means that companies and the RISC-V community are encouraged to share best practices for designs, improving performance and time-to-market.

Many tech companies are already using RISC-V for some of their platforms. For example, Qualcomm’s Lu Dai sits on the RISC-V board, as does Nvidia’s Frans Sijstermans. Qualcomm announced a RISC-V based wearable platform, and Alphabet’s Google GOOGL announced OS support for it.

How big is this existential risk to Arm? The truth is that migrating or building a RISC-V core is a very heavy engineering lift. Though I don’t have specifics on pricing, if a customer is going to license a core based on RISC-V from a company like SiFive, one of the primary advantages over Arm (cost) seems to fall away.

Arm should take this risk to its business model seriously, and it appears to be doing so. There have been shifts in programs offered by the company including a “flexible access” model that offers no-cost access to Arm IP for companies that are in the startup stage, clearly targeting many potential customers of the RISC-V ecosystem.

The other big risk for Arm is finding a way to get credit and recognition for its value in the tech space. Much better-known companies such as Intel, AMD, and Qualcomm themselves struggle to maintain brand recognition and brand value as a component company in the products and services that people use every day. Qualcomm makes the modem in almost every flagship smartphone today, and Intel powers 75%+ of the laptops sold each year, but few consumers recognize that fact or even care.

Arm is even one more step removed from that; its designs, for example, power the Snapdragon processors that enable flagship Samsung handsets. Getting credit for that enabling work, from the investor market as well as the consumer (and to some degree a share of wallet) is a difficult task.


These headwinds aside, the next five years and beyond for Arm look strong. Its leadership in the smartphone market likely will not be challenged and the areas of growth, from PCs to AI to cars, offer significant revenue upside.
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 12 users

cosors

👀
Hi Sera, i like and value yr contributions but i don't get what seems a person attack on Pia? Brainchip are not stupid and there is obviously a strategic move of having Pia on board. May i suggest that you come to the next AGM where Pia attends (check first) and you can have a face to face discussion with Pia. It might answer all your concerns as im sure scanning thru linkedin activity is not a measure of ones ability. Please don't take offence that im just giving my view on this and directly replying to you.
I don't like it when people ~'attack' (angehen) someone who can't defend themselves (here at TSE). If against a person then not behind their back the scenes and in their face. That's how I see it. You Some of you are much closer to the board than many of us are. I don't like it with Sean either, because for me as a person far away it's difficult to understand the pro and con arguments, another example. I'm used to the fact for me that there's almost never black and white. So at least an open debate is important if someone wants to express their opinion directly against or in favour of a person. That creates transparency.
As long as a person doesn't make a demonstrable mistake or does something demonstrably outstanding criticism in an anonymous forum, whether negative or positive, is not particularly helpful. Just my opinion as an observer.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Top Bottom