Explain this technology

[JS80]

I'm doing some due diligence on this company but their business description totally flew over my head. Can someone explain:

MathStar, Inc., a fabless semiconductor company, engages in the design, development, and marketing of semiconductor integrated circuit or chip, known as field programmable object arrays (FPOAs), in the United States. FPOAs are reprogrammable integrated circuits based on its silicon object technology. An FPOA consists of predesigned computing and data storage elements, or silicon objects arranged in a grid pattern, along with internal and external memory and data input and output channels.


Is this special?

 

[clamum]

Sounds to me like they design, development, and market integrated circuits

 

[LeiZaK]

They design, develop, and market FPOAs... but do not do the manufacturing.

 

[Xyo II]

MathStar, Inc, a computer chip company, designs, develops, and markets silicon chips. They are reprogrammable due to how they were made.

 

[nakedfrog]

Huh?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Even given a wiki-level knowledge of their business, you won't understand the strength of their competitors, their place in the market, the quality of their management, or the feasibility of their business plan.

If you received an insider tip on them, odds are high that it's a pump-and-dump scam.

Stick with stock-index based mutual funds.

 

[Xyo II]

Nice, nakedfrog. :laugh:

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Huh?

:thumbsup: yes very nice I'm buying 1,000 shares of HUHX today!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Even given a wiki-level knowledge of their business, you won't understand the strength of their competitors, their place in the market, the quality of their management, or the feasibility of their business plan.

If you received an insider tip on them, odds are high that it's a pump-and-dump scam.

Stick with stock-index based mutual funds.

Not an "insider tip" or some stock newsletter. I looking through a pitchbook from the #1 tech IPO managing Investment Bank and this company was mentioned in it.

And no, I am not going to use my trading account to invest in index funds. Don't assume you're talking to some investment nub.

 

[BigB10293]

Looks like this company is losing money.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: BigB10293
Looks like this company is losing money.

It only had $15,000 in revenues last quarter and they lost $11 million. Yet it's market cap is almost $100 million. I want to know wtf this techology is and how's it's so special that it's giving the company a $100 million valuation!

 

[BigB10293]

They make FPOAs which are different than FPGAs in that they are "sometimes" faster and cheaper. The difference is they're not programmed in the industry standard verilog, but rather systemC. From what I can gather though, no claim is made on size of device that can be created compared to similar size FPGA. So.. basically companies will need to rewrite all of their present code to take advantage of this and it then won't be portable to do place and route for an ASIC.

At least that's what I can decipher from their web page.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: BigB10293
They make FPOAs which are different than FPGAs in that they are "sometimes" faster and cheaper. The difference is they're not programmed in the industry standard verilog, but rather systemC. From what I can gather though, no claim is made on size of device that can be created compared to similar size FPGA. So.. basically companies will need to rewrite all of their present code to take advantage of this and it then won't be portable to do place and route for an ASIC.

At least that's what I can decipher from their web page.

Obviously you're a man who understands this. Do you think this technology is worth $90 million?

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: BigB10293
They make FPOAs which are different than FPGAs in that they are "sometimes" faster and cheaper. The difference is they're not programmed in the industry standard verilog, but rather systemC. From what I can gather though, no claim is made on size of device that can be created compared to similar size FPGA. So.. basically companies will need to rewrite all of their present code to take advantage of this and it then won't be portable to do place and route for an ASIC.

At least that's what I can decipher from their web page.

Obviously you're a man who understands this. Do you think this technology is worth $90 million?

Crystal ball says...... NO!

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: BigB10293
They make FPOAs which are different than FPGAs in that they are "sometimes" faster and cheaper. The difference is they're not programmed in the industry standard verilog, but rather systemC. From what I can gather though, no claim is made on size of device that can be created compared to similar size FPGA. So.. basically companies will need to rewrite all of their present code to take advantage of this and it then won't be portable to do place and route for an ASIC.

At least that's what I can decipher from their web page.

Obviously you're a man who understands this. Do you think this technology is worth $90 million?

Crystal ball says...... NO!

But WHY?

 

[JS80]

bump

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: JS80
I'm doing some due diligence on this company...

That's debatable.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: BigB10293
They make FPOAs which are different than FPGAs in that they are "sometimes" faster and cheaper. The difference is they're not programmed in the industry standard verilog, but rather systemC. From what I can gather though, no claim is made on size of device that can be created compared to similar size FPGA. So.. basically companies will need to rewrite all of their present code to take advantage of this and it then won't be portable to do place and route for an ASIC.

At least that's what I can decipher from their web page.

Obviously you're a man who understands this. Do you think this technology is worth $90 million?

Crystal ball says...... NO!

My magic 8 ball says.....YES!

 

[BigB10293]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: BigB10293
They make FPOAs which are different than FPGAs in that they are "sometimes" faster and cheaper. The difference is they're not programmed in the industry standard verilog, but rather systemC. From what I can gather though, no claim is made on size of device that can be created compared to similar size FPGA. So.. basically companies will need to rewrite all of their present code to take advantage of this and it then won't be portable to do place and route for an ASIC.

At least that's what I can decipher from their web page.

Obviously you're a man who understands this. Do you think this technology is worth $90 million?

I don't know. I'm not into the whole business side of this industry. It sounds like it could be a reasonable approach but may not ever reach the critical mass needed for industry adoption. FPGAs are pretty entrenched and I don't see that much of an advantage. Of course, I don't have any detailed info about the technology as all I can go by is the website.

Sorry... don't take any of this for advice. It is NOT meant for that.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
Huh?

I'm expecting to see this somewhere:

"This company owned and operated by the Dogbert Consulting Agency."

 

[Mark R]

It looks like they're targetting a niche market of very high performance computing - presumably they're marketing their product as a higher performance, possibly simpler to design for, alternative to FPGAs.

They've got their work cut out though. FPGAs are very firmly established - lots of experience, lots of trained engineers, lots of suppliers, industry standards for design, etc.

If they can maintain a significant performance advantage of FPGA, or a significantly simplified design stage, then they could have a marketable product. Perhaps, they may be even better placed for the smaller, low-volume specialised market - things like defence, medical scanners - where performance is everything, and quicker design times save costs, even if parts are more expensive.

Interesting technology, certainly. But it's not 'disruptive' technology.