Yoda
Regular
Thanks Diogenese, that's a great post with a lot of insight.Hmmmm ...
What we need to take into consideration is the crucial fact that the product has been in a state of ongoing development for quite a while and this would have played a major part in management's selection of the business model.
For more than 2 years, the company was aware that Akida 2 with TeNNs was in the pipeline, and they would have understood that this would influence the EAPs. The company would have been anxious not to lumber the EAPs with large numbers of "superceded" chips, or at least to give them the choice.
While TeNNs is still not available in silicon, simulation software would have been available for EAPs from the time the patent application was filed, and that would have been undergoing continual improvement. Our partner EAPs would have been in on the secret. EAPs like Valeo and Mercedes have competitive pressures which would have weighed against waiting for Akida 2 SoC, which is one of the reasons why I suspect they have gone ahead with the simulation software as an interim measure. The software was immediately available and readily adaptable as product development progressed.
The development must have been finished, or at least reached a set benchmark, when Anil announced tapeout (about 6 months ago?), but this was then superceded by an overriding announcement that a masked stranger was about to do us a power of good and take over the chip production - since then, not a sausage.
So my Hail Mary speculation is that we are running a parallel software licensing program in parallel with, or in advance of the IP licensing program. Given that this would be in the context of joint developments, the details would be commercial-in-confidence.
All this is derived from my reading of the tea leaves (the crystal ball is being fitted with Gen AI LLMs as we speak).
The Edge Box has sold out, so, with the hindsight of the development of TeNNs, I am reluctant to call it a mistake, or even a tactical error, but it would have been nice to have had more chips for sale.
Gosh - I didn't know I knew that many words!
I think another way of viewing the situation is that perhaps the company had no practical choice but to pursue an IP model (because of all the factors you have identified and one additional factor I would add - the capital required to produce the chips) .
The idea of a 'parallel software licensing program' has also occurred to me too. It seems unlikely that we are providing the software to partners without protections around the IP. Some may recall I asked Tony some time ago if there is a partnership agreement in place for these partnerships and he said yes. I'd be surprised if there weren't terms in the agreements effectively licensing, and at least regulating, the use of the IP. We can only hope that these arrangements turn into profitable ones in due course. I've always viewed these partnerships as JV's to develop the product.
Yours Yoda