RE:Interestingark88 wrote: Amazing that now we get the fuller picture on what happened. One has to ask why now?
There's an element of contrition in this letter. Why?
POETs advantage, admittedly only by management, has always been about Scalability, Cost and Performance Advantages......one thing never alluded to but finally noted in this letter is ADOPTABILITY.
We see now that POET doesn't have revenue because its having difficulty getting the industry to adopt its technology. The only path forward was a JV with SPX in China. Even this path would lead to limited adoption by only "niche" players, as noted in the letter. Moreover, it had no future beyond the 100, 200 and 400G optical engines.
So what now? Suresh in order to be relevant going forward, POET needs to modify and adapt to EMLs which is the industry standard. POET uses DMLs for the 100, 200 and 400G engines but it turns out EML are better suited for higher speeds, 800G and beyond. Doesn't this remind everyone of the GaAs fiasco.
So this begs the question, what are the issues here as they pursue the 800G+ market? What happens to POETs advantages, Scalability, Cost and Performance advantages? How quickly can they modify the POET interposer?
Its as if we are now back to square one, with all the inherent risks and unknowns.
This letter is like a revelation of the risks associated with holding this investment. An I told you so letter, in case things may not work out. IMHO
The entire industry that POET belongs to functions with big players taking a stake in small players that show promise. One can see why POET is an outlier in this regard. It has failed to achieve broad industry adoption. Now it has no other option than to chase what the competitors in the industry are doing. Competing against companies that are far better funded and supported by end users. Thats a tall bar to overcome.