Peter you are in the Catbird Seat, what about a formal request to Samsung to clarify the situation with respect to these phones and findings.
The pcbs in the tear down appear to have Samsung ID on them and as far as it is possible to determine from the photographs there is no clear sign of rework on the pcb. If so that would suggest to me that Samsung actually fabricated the phones.
The worrying question is if Samsung are seriously trying to get PCM design wins why would Samsung not shout from the rooftops, we have made the commitment to PCM, proved the point, it's now your turn.
I did write to Samsung asking for clarification on the status of their 1G-bit-so far no reply
Much time is spent after the first unsuccessful use of PCM, and by that time Flash Memory has traveled a successful trip virtually in most of the portable devices, even Samsung is also try to come with Flash bases HDDs. Looking at this it will be really very hard time to prove PCM.
Given the vagaries of the global supply chain, even if we knew when the phones were bought, I don't believe we could be clear as to whether PCM usage is increasing or has been stopped. The only people that know that are in Samsung.
Is the population of PCM in Samsung phones actually increasing? The original Chipworks report indicated that they had purchased six phones and only one contained PCM. In this latest report they purchased a few and "some of the phones" had PCM. This would appear to mean the PCM population is now at least two in a "few". Now providing the "few" is not greater than 12 it suggests the probability of finding a phone with a PCM is increasing!
It would be nice to know the details of exactly where the phones were purchased so that the experiment could be repeated. The only information in that regard is a source of unlocked phones.
The Samsung-produced PRAM deployed in a Samsung GSM phone is NOT A COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT of PRAM, and PRAM has shown absolutely no promise as a potential replacement for flash non-volatile memory technology.
As it was explained to you, Samsung's GT-E2550 did in fact originally have K571229ACM in the bill of materials as of Spring 2010. However, the chip was almost immediately replaced with a regular NOR MCP due to power consumption issues. I do possess a GT-E2550 handset, and it has NOR instead of PRAM. You don't believe me? Go ahead and purchase a GT-E2550 unit. You will see!
Slicing dead, non-functioning chips from fake, non-commercial handsets manufactured a year ago only proves Samsung's utter failure to commercialize PRAM.
PRAM is not used in any product on market today. Period.
Numonyx is not developing any 1-Gbit phase-change memory in a 45-nm process.
The PCM/PRAM techno-Ponzi scheme is nearly over.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.