Editing Openai/69109937-2170-8005-9304-da49840bb5b9 (section)

==== - Positive side: POET has secured credible partners and design-wins (Luxshare, FIT, Mentech, BFYY). That suggests their coupling efficiency and overall optical engine performance are “good enough” for these customers to proceed. If coupling were badly deficient versus incumbents, these partners would likely balk or require fallback options. ====
* But: “Good enough” is a relative term. These announcements rarely disclose the exact coupling losses or spread, nor compare side-by-side with incumbents under full environmental stress. So there’s an assumption that the coupling losses are within acceptable limits (e.g., <1 dB for the critical interface) and that production variation will stay tight.
* Risk/counterargument: If in production the coupling efficiency suffers (e.g., larger spread, thermal drift, misalignment over time), then the cost/power advantages may diminish. For these customers, the coupling efficiency must hold over volume production, not just early samples — and that is not yet fully proven publicly.

If you like, I can attempt to estimate (based on public data) what coupling loss budget POET’s customers might be working with (e.g., for an 800G module) and compare that to typical incumbents — to see how much headroom they likely have. Would you like me to do that?