From the IT press It is clear that me that Apple are making processors. I was sent the following Bloomburg article by Dave8370 for comment. I thought I'd share my thoughts more widely given a recent intention to contiue a theme I picked up on.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-26/apple-said-to-plan-dedicated-chip-to-power-ai-on-devices

I've been thinking back to that period in the first half of 2015, when rumour control had it that Apple Engineers were visiting GT at Stoors.  I would remind you that whether or not you like these rumours you still have to explain PTI'S rather odd behaviour at that time which eventually led to the new CEO swivelling strategy in September 2015. One should also be aware of the fact that Apple, like other large Information Technology  ompanies, spend significant time and resources keeping pace with technical developments and emerging technologies outside of their own companies. As such contact is highly likely between GT and Apple, and other companies for that matter, was likely given the interesting developments going on at POETS laboratory at Stoors and PCs attempts to 'sell' our IP, so no surprised thee really.

You will remember that PTI'S  technical milestones had in 2014 prioritised PET'S development over POET, yet by 2015 we were being told that 'customer'  priorities were directing work priorities.  This was rather TRAB in nature to my mind, bearing in mind that the Technical Roadmap Advisory Board was announced inn March2015, which coincides with the seid visits by Apple engineers to Stoors.

 http://www.poet-technologies.com/news/poet-technologies-announces-the-signing-of-a-collaboration-agreement-with-bae-systems-and-corporate-updates.html

Say what you like about the TRAB but I believe it to be the biggest clue as to who 'the customer ' was,  despite rumour controls diversions .  Announcing the TRAB, a materiel fact, was in fact the only way PC was allowed to communicate (SHOUT) this significant event to shareholders.   In passing, I would say that that it was  customers' presence at that time and the state of their contact that explains why PC got rather ahead of himself with thoughts of NASDAQ in June 15.  The nature of the deal, if any. was not what he imagined would happen at that time and he looks to many as if he has egg on his face.  But was it Champagne stains?

Lets examine one particular changed technical priority that emerged from this time of quirky behaviour.  It was that PTI were asked to produce what effectively was an optical clock by 'the customer' directing their work. This was not on the technical timeline at the time but whilst I'm sure that the work proceeded, we did not learn whether or not  it was done despite GT assurances that it could be.   In my books one of the purposes of this particular gismo is to drive a processor at very high speeds.  Speed in fact that are  far beyond CMOS silicon ability which are limited by the associated heat issues.   We should remember also the recent patents on logic gates that I believe were applicationstem from about that time,  which again are essential for processors. 

From the above we could reasonably theorise that a customer seeking a quantum leap forward in performance of its products  and, unbeknown to us at the time, hoaving a desire to acutally build processors, one could reasonable ask where or who else was there at this time other than  PTI to go for a solution that offered such a unique potential leap forward as PTI 'there is only one POET' holding the IP for developing an integrated chip by a unique process  method not only by building a small form set monolithically but one offering  exceptional performance parameters and resilience relatively cheaply .   

Remember too that this was at a time when CMOS Silicon was approaching its limits, being far too expensive to develop further and in any case too hot.  If an alternative processor was being sought then  surely PET and GaAs that was being offered by PC and GT gave high in potential solution for firms like Apple with large technical resources and a penchant for leading edge technology.  Thus there was strong motivation for firms to take over the development path of PET whilst also maintaining a  future interest in whatever POET optical development products could offer is a neat solution. 

The argument above  I feel is part of the logic for the strategy swivel.  With PET taken over for development the focus on POET development was far more feasible and the path to optical engines described by SV or new CEO in Setember 2015 was a no brainer.. Take the financial situation, we can now be absolutely certain that it was simply not financially feasible for PTI to develop both PET and POET at the same tim, as with the benefit of hind sight we have all seen how difficult it has been to get a POET product to market.  Given the  impossibility of an in house Parallel development it  made sense to partner with an entity to take on one side of the development inorder to focus on the more obtainable low fruit of the burgeoning datacentre market for optics.  A wies choice I feel.  

Further more I ask does it make logical sense that all the hard work completed on PET was allowed to whither on the vine in 2015 I think not as we were told that PDK using Synopsys were completed this says 1. that PET was completed as far as PTI could take it and 2. that as the completed  PDK were the method to be used by ' the customer'  to design PET products then surely they were completed for a known customer.  This deal may well be the PC legacy and the desired 40 engineer deal. I have not been able to identify any payment for Synopsys work, I may be wrong, but if so who did?

The alternative is that this all fell through I don’t think so but iIts difficult to know for certain due to NDA but I remain confident that  PET in some form was taken forward by someone with lots of engineers and not dropped and allowed to wither on the vine  as the less feasible development path.  If that was the case then surely it would have been a material fact which the company would have to state it.  Instead PET was wrapped in NDA silence and mystery that leave us guessing.

Is it then a far fetched fantasy to imagine that POET may be an element of Apple's desire to build processors and a means for Apple to gain a quantum leap forward in its products.   Again I think back to the company leterature and web site at the time and remember those diagrams showing how POET allowed so many components to be integrated. in PCs and Smart Phones, and what were all those curious adverts about - was it PTI showing they were serious about buiding processors.  rather hazy this but typical of the times.

I regularly and with some  justification get shot at for some my suppositions.  But for me this is a being part of the fun of being a PTI long .  I'm not betting on the Apple Juice tasting nice but on POET s great technology being made into great products by whoever.   Please  feel happy to shoot the theory apart but with rational dissemblement of my arguments rather than derisive comment please  nor give me ' the no speculation here argument' ,  as surely everything we say here is laced with speculation, including investing in PTK in the first place. 

This is too long and whilst I accept much of what I say is repetition it is the particular context of Apple developing processors that may or may not contain POET IP that I'm examining.  I hope by establishing that there was common interest and opportunity and mutual benefits between the two firms at an appropriate time the notion is feasible.

Sula