So, to be concise, it seems that your answer is "No - the pv 2005 does not physically exist as described in the parkervision webpage, but they are working on it." Seems like Dr F. was correct on that one too!
What I said was clear, no wordplay - read it again. Even so, if you want me to guess, I will: "actually fabbed" encompasses many stages when you are fabless - the fab produces your initial IC's for demonstrating and testing with FPGA's, shrinks them several times as each component move toward integration into eval boards, then sample phones, then modules or monolithic transceivers for mass production. So I would guess the PV 2005 is to the stage of at least demonstrating what it will do with over 90% confidence, and that the componants are probably made up of FPGA's and IC's at various stages, with the Tx being further along than the Rx, but, again, that is just a guess. Also, I don't think it qualifies as vaporeware, because they are clearly showing signficant progress on a roadmap and that is the standard for non-vaporeware in a fabless product. Btw, where is any such evidence over the last 27 months of GCT's announced 3g/3.5g transceiver?
>you're "weasel wording" again rounder - "real" means the implementation, as described on the website, physically exists and works. We all know that if they actually fabbed any, they would have quite a few.
you're "weasel wording" again rounder - "real" means the implementation, as described on the website, physically exists and works. We all know that if they actually fabbed any, they would have quite a few.
what I'm trying to get across is that Farmwald excels at taking the ordinary, fabless production roadmap PV is working its way through and making each step sound as though they are puffing more than everyone else out there in the RF world and moving pathetically slow. Many think that on this board because of one, or some combination of the following:
1) they have not looked at the practices of comparable fabless companies trying to launch niche technology into the emerging 3g world. So that is their decision when to "announce" products and how much to disclose about them.
2) they don't understand that Farmwald is making each step of the production roadmap sound nefarious by conflating them: initial and all the many subsequent preliminary IC runs, FPGA's and what can in fact be very accurately modeled from them, evaluation boards, sample phones, the difference between performance of a entire Tx vs. just the PA, etc., etc.
So the answer to your question is I'm pretty sure we would have heard if the PV 2005 was in a shipping phone. Also, at a fabless company, there are not bins of PV 2005's waiting to be ordered like DRAMs. Furthermore, if you look at the experience of other companies, like GCT, "real" means working in collaboration with vendors to the big ODM's and OEM's to incorporate your designs into chips, eval boards, sample phones and only then final designs that are actually purchased. So the PV 2005 is very likely not to that final step, but I do not read that as a lack of progress on the other steps, or the announcement and website diagrams as in any way misleading - in fact they demonstrate much more transparency than is typical in this industry.
more real than this:
>Rounder - do you believe the PV-2005 is a real existing product as implied by the website or vaporware? >>>
I challenge any of you hypocrites to find and post a link to any public web page other than PV's that gives you more detailed specs, diagrams, white papers, performance results, etc. for either a transmitter or transceiver (not a PA) in combination with a PA or even without one.
For years you guys endlessly pilloried Parkervision for failing to provide enough of these and now they more transparent with regard to a proprietary approach to 3g radios than any other company out there, and what do we get: nonsense flaming, and not a word from any of you attempting to credibly debunk what they have put forth for all the world to see on their website.
I think that companies trying desperately to raise money to continue operations are not required to make such disclosures.
Nasty jokes aside, do you see any performance data at all? Nearly all of the competition has at some rudimentary performance data - at the very least PAE (power added efficiency).
You present a good case at first glance, but I do see a notable difference between the two announcements: From the first announcement, they have bench tested the circuitry of phone in a lab...here the phone is not assembled apart from the connection of the vital chips on a test fixture. In the second announcement, the sample phone has actually been fabricated and is ready for distribution. Why would it take 11 months from the bench to realizable phone? Reasonable question. As a possible answer, in the attempt to realize a smaller phone, unexpected problems may have occurred (e.g. signal integrity issues, on board parasitics) that would not have been observed on the open bench and would have to be addressed. Also, I seem to recall JP saying something about a design change by the unnamed customer... that would have pushed things out for sure.
Your analysis is plausible, but it is not confirmed by conversations with Via and with handset companies who have been approached by PRKR. All of my sources tell me that the D2P "solution" is still in a prototype form and is definitely not ready for shipping. It is more advanced tha the earlier board - i.e. it appears that they have had multi-chip modules built with the same chips as before - thus resulting in a smaller form factor but with the same cost, test and other problems of the first prototype. Jeff Parker is promising (to potential customers) that they (PRKR) could be ready by 2010/2011 with an actual "shippable" module. In addition, neither PRKR nor Via has done any of the regulatory testing required to actually ship phones. I was told that some early lab testing was done, but the regulatory and reliability testing is expensive. PRKR can't afford it and Via is not sufficiently interested to pay for it without customer interest.
In addition the *projected* cost (for delivery 1-2 years from now) of the D2P solution is about 3x what handsets makers are willing to pay (i.e. it's 3x what current, shipping solutions cost), and the power efficiency numbers (from PRKR's own numbers) are not good at all - about 1/2 the efficiency of what Anadigics has been shipping for 3 years (which other PA companies are now catching up to). Finally, the current "solution" in single band (and single mode?) - a total nonstarter. Of course, PRKR promises to fix this "in the future".
I'm not sure what "exceeding expectations" means in Jeff's mind, but I certainly don't see D2P exceeding (or meeting) any of Jeff's promises from 2005-2008.