hcl64 (mario.smarq@gmail.com) on 4/30/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 4/30/12 wrote:
>---------------------------
>
>>That makes no sense. SOITEC talks up their technology >because they need to convince
>>companies to use it. Frankly, they have a poor history of >doing so. There was a
>>huge hyping of PD-SOI (and ZRAM). Neither of which panned >out really. PD-SOI is a niche technology, and
>

Actually the problem might not be SOITEC at all, and or PD-SOI being a niche technology. The problem is that PD-SOI might have *required*(PD-SOI will be gone soon to) some peculiarities to be the best at some particular node size... and the BEST most developed SOI process is IBM, which licenses its fab tech to others.

It may take a considerable amount of time even for a company like Intel, to develop SOI to be as effective as IBM, but by going around IBM patents. It could simply destroy their time-to-market strategies.

And i'm not seeing a company like Intel, licensing from others techs so crucial to make their chips, least of all under the current CEO...

I think Otellini had prefered to jump out off a tall building to see his company pay licenses in such crucial issue... least of all to a potential very dangerous competitor, that has been a great deal responsible for the failure of IA_64 and Itanic, at the market sectors Intel was pointing it to.