what are you babbling about. Ultraduplicate is going to have a short and miserable life, and you know it.
diablo basically took the first iteration of Ultraduplicate added more bottle necks, and adopted it to ddr4. That might make it twice as fast as the original. Cache lines are painfully slow when you involve a continuous interface with NAND.
On the other hand, Netlist's IP can allow DRAM to entirely do the work of short term storage without all of those long, slow cumbersome cache lines continuously wearing that limited lifed NAND out. It will only write to short term NAND storage during shut down or system failure, The IP is so good that DDR3 Hvault will blow DDR4 Ultraduplicate away by a factor 100 to 200, and have a much longer module life expectancy. 48 nano seconds was fast last summer. Just wait until next spring, or sooner
There's very little difference conceptually. DDR playing the role of NAND until system shut down or power interruption, then being written to NAND while being powered by a super cap. very affective, durable, and faster by a factor of 500, opposed to using NAND only.
The largest part of HV'S concept is already proven with the NV product. Its mostly matter of scaling it up adopting it to DDR4, adding a couple of new features, and a lot more NAND.
The hat came up empty after passing it around to raise funds to send you through "Econ 101" for the fourth time. So, here's my last try explaining to you.
Samsung could be setting a trend by building their own DDR4 fab. MU, Hynix, and others will be forced to stabilize supplies, and lower prices, in order to prevent other manufacturers like IBM, or HP building their own fabs. That will benefit all DDR4 customers, even if Samsung doesn't do one outside sale. The added world wide DDR capacity will allow new DDR4 markets, other than "main system memory" ,to open. MCS is a prime candidate to be a major DDR4 market when Netlist's design is adopted. diablo surely saw the cost of DDR4 as an obstacle when they began their piracy over 5 years ago. Jean leFoote, (aka bad alone) is too committed to his current course to make a quick tack, and he's headed for the rocks.
eventually, Samsung will supply some portion of Apple's and all of Samsung's dram. get it yet?
Who manufactures the lions share of the iphones electronic components, Its not Apple?
Does everything have to be explained to you? Currently, Samsung is the largest user of DRAM in the world. They use most of the DDR4 in mobile devices. Where are Samsung's ex-suppliers going to sell that supply when they get cut off? The resulting over capacity should moderate prices, and open up boarder markets that will include MCS. The Ultraduplicate was engineered with prohibitive DDR prices forecasted. Too bad.
You could be right. It took industry over 10 years to move ddr4 from concept to main stream in server applications. Wait. DDR4 isn't mean stream in servers yet. By the way, you should get on Samsung's website and warn them against building the multi-billion dollar DDR4 fab and wasting all of that capital in an attempt to bring their cost down.
The price point of ddr4 wont be a big factor when you look at the price of Ultraduplicate verses the characteristics of Hypervault. Samsung's fab will have a downward effect on the price of ddr4.
and is a weak attempt to mask Netlist's original MCS IP. Ultraduplicate has memory regions that functions at different speeds as a result. Algorithms attempt to minimize this affect That dictates that any system using it must have software and firmware optimized in order to use all of its potential, which doesn't come near Netlist's proposed Hypervault. That would be a whole lotta software revisions, and it wouldn't always be smooth sailing.
In contrast, Hypervault may have the ram doing the work of NAND, allowing up to 500 times the speed of Ultraduplicate. without infringing on anyone's IP. Don't worry about the price of DRAM. Samsung's new DDR4 fab plant will de-commoditize the price of Dram by 2016, making it feasible to construct Hypervault with maybe 64 gigs of dram functioning the way Nvault currently works, with the exception of using some portion of the dram as short term storage to reduce to R\Ws to NAND thereby greatly increasing the reliability, and life expectancy of the module, only writing to short term storage NAND in the case of back up. Long term storage will use maybe 500 gig of NAND as a SSD on the same module, with the exception that it's located in the memory channel, thanks to the collaboration with Intel. It may be possible that current operating systems, and applications wont have to be updated to get the full affect of Hypervault. Netlist has been making and selling the elements for MCS for years. That's why its not a stretch that they can put a superior solution together on relatively short notice.
If Netlist's patents are so generic, why are google, and diablo referencing Netlist's patents in their own applications?
Typical day trader. You gotta have it now. MCS will be around for a long time with NLST collecting fees. No need to set a depressed starting fee that will reduce revenue by millions over the lifetime of the technology.
MCS is here to stay, and NLST will be collecting fees all the way. Why are you worried about a couple of quarters?
NLST will set IP licensing fees once it has maximum leverage. You have zero business or stock trading sense.
At lease you admit that a PO large enough to require big time capital is coming. Only a matter of time.