Due to the timezone difference I saw none of the deleted posts, so I cannot really judge on this matter. From my European and personal perspective the situation looks like this:

EileenTeahon made some extremly positive posts concerning a) the growth of the company POET Technology and b) the fast and global recognition of it through social media.

You know that I (not only as vice president of the $70+ club) am very long and strong for POET and wished Eileen would be right. Still I'd like to dampen the mania somewhat and try to keep an eye on the "buts".

ScaryRacoon rightfully pointed out that the POET technology is not a product but a manufacturing process. I might add that, provided the PET/TDK becomes available as planned, first end customer products will appear at CeBIT 2016 at earliest and might become available later that year. Whether such a first device "powered by POET" will deliver all the POET advantages to the end customer at full scale is another question. A first product might not even be a consumer product but some gadget for a specialized market – thus failing to reach the masses via social media. We simply don't know until partners, customers or applications are announced.

Derekwpg highlighted that there might be productions bottlenecks since the fabs might not be able to satisfy the demand as fast as needed.

Regarding EileenTeahon's numbers, the problem is that we don't have any clue how they came into existence except for Eileen's own statement that they used some proprietary procedure. Hm. We don't know which assumptions were made or whether and how the above mentioned or other issues have been taken into account. I won't say that Eileen's numbers are impossible and outright hype, but: We don't know. Since we neither know anything about that proprietary procedure nor are we able to reproduce it, I am afraid I have to call the numbers unsubstatiated and therefore falling under Agoracom's Rule Number Five.

Andrea ("Powered by POET")