Oops thanks. Sad thing is that error was the only thing even keeping it "close".
Updated post.
Electricity would have to be $.47 per kilowatt for the C200 to overtake the Rig Box in five years. Or, it would take 24 years at $.10 per kilowatt for the C200 to overtake the Rig Box. Either scenario is not very likely. I am completely lost with LargeCoin's strategy. They know the demand will greatly exceed 25, only if they wouldn't limit the initial run to 25 thus pushing the price way up.
There are many foundries that offer multi-project wafer runs, for instance
http://www.globalfoundries.com/services/global_shuttle.aspx, and you receive anywhere from a few dozen to a few hundred chips.
So, maybe that's all they [will] have: A few hundred chips, enough for 25 boxes (each containing, say, 10 chips).
Then don't use ASICs OR use the 25 units as loss leaders to show the product is viable and secure large enough order to get full wafer production run of 10,000 chips.
ASIC simply doesn't make sense in small runs. It never has and it never will. This is the entire reason or economic basis for developing FPGA. In large runs FPGA get destroyed by ASICS but lots of products don't require tens of thousands of hundreds of thousands of chips per year. That is where FPGA shine. It allows a lower NRE and thus makes it more economical in small runs.
So
ASIC - high fixed cost & low per unit cost
FPGA - low fixed cost & high per unit cost
Obviously if you graphed these two options (total unit cost vs # of units) they will intersection as some # of units. Where depends a lot on a lot of variables but generally speaking it in the thousands of units.
Simplistically:
Intend to sell <1000 units - don't use ASIC
Intend to sell 1000+ units - don't use FPGA
Usually those small run multi-project wafers are not used for retail products. They are used to provide real silicon prototypes so you can catch bugs, improve designs, perfect layouts BEFORE running off 10,000 potentially sub optimal chips.
