@dylan.mcgrath: The companies have very little to gain from techno-Ponzis in the long run. In the short run, however, the motivation is stealing investor money. For example, Intel got investor money and bank loans for the money-losing Numonyx by hyping PCM. Samsung tried to mask its failure to gain market share in the NOR business by lying about PCM in its 2004 investor presentation. BAE was gunning for military/space contracts. IBM was losing share in the storage market and had to come up with some fairy tale. ECD and Ovonyx have been complete frauds from the get go. But really, the motivation combo is universal - ego/money. Take Mr. Lai of Intel, for example. He had done good work on NOR, but totally missed NAND and the fact that Flash can scale, so he had to hype PCM for almost 10 years to deflect attention from his failure and keep his job. The motivation for the other individuals is similar (the details vary a bit, though).
I understand that PCM has its share of detractors and that it has been one of those technologies that has for a very long time always seemed to be just a few years away. I know plenty of people feel as you do that it will never be commercialized in volume, and for all I know you may well be right about that. But what would companies like Intel, Samsung, IBM, etc. have to gain by throwing precious R&D dollars at a technology that they know is not viable? How do the orchestrators benefit from the alleged "techno-Ponzi scheme" as you see it?
Well, Mr. Clarke, Fusion-io's SLC Flash drive is 640GB. To replicate such a storage capacity, one needs about 40,000 128Mbit PCM chips, which will be good enough to cook a few meals (and, no, even the huge heat sinks won't be able to help). And, of course, nobody would be able to afford it, given that each PCM chip sells for about $4 a piece. Good luck with that!
@dylan.mcgrath: I have been following the PCM "developments" over the years. I can prove that most of the key "players" (corporations and individuals) in the PCM "space" have consistently deceived the public and investors regarding the performance, commercialization status, and market demand for PCM virtually since its "invention" in the late 60s, early 70s. That evidence covers actions and statements by Intel, Numonyx, Samsung, STM, BAE, IBM, Ovonyx, and ECD, and their officers and employees. In short, PCM is the longest-running techno-Ponzi I am aware of - the scammers drain R&D and investor money with promises that the commercialization (in volume) is just around the corner (typically, the drain lasts 10 years, after which they take a break of a few years and start again).
PCM will never be commercialized in volume. It is simply too slow and power-hungry in write, unstable, costly, and lacks density and scalability (and, again, note that it was invented before the first DRAM or Flash went on the market). You may want to read Mr. Neale's series of articles in EETimes Design to understand why PCM cannot scale.
Old news--Intel beat them to the punch. "Intel Corp. and STMicroelectronics reached a key industry milestone today as they began shipping prototype samples of a future product using a new, innovative memory technology called Phase Change Memory (PCM)." http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-products/other/4101982/Intel-and-STMicroelectronics-Phase-change-memory-is-now-sampling
Oh, wait, that article is from EETimes, 2/12/2008.
How many articles can this magazine post that make similar claims about PCM but with different casts of characters?
The team of students and researchers from the UCSD are either woefully clueless or they are simply aspiring fraudsters. Commercial Flash SSDs (such as Fusion-io's) can write and read at 1.5 gigabytes per second, something that the PCM-based Moneta can't match (it can get only to 1.1 gigabytes per second read, best case, and less than 500 megabytes per second write, best case). PCM sucks as a server storage memory - it is too slow and too power-hungry in write, has horrible density, tolerates higher temperatures poorly (note the huge sinks in the Moneta "device"), is too expensive, and cannot scale. PCM will never be commercialized in volume, in any application. It is a techno-Ponzi scheme that has run its course.
Mr. Clarke, of course, knew all that, yet he continues to perpetuate the techno-Ponzi. Great job, EETimes!
A fundamental problem with PCM is its performance including retention is very sensitive to temperature.
I would be curious how this group would interface the PCM. Is it still like Flash, with page- or block-based access?
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, the Micron product is a NOR drop-in, so it would suggest a NOR Flash could also be the basis of SSD.
As we unveil EE Times’ 2015 Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. Panelists Dan Armbrust (investment firm Silicon Catalyst), Andrew Kau (venture capital firm Walden International), and Stan Boland (successful serial entrepreneur, former CEO of Neul, Icera) join in the live debate.