> that sounds about the right date.

You mean that Applied Micro rejected your NDA request just before you told me here on MorphZone, i.e. in late June or very early July?

> not only did their reps claim that their partners were testing the first
> Titan based processors.

Which I believe was the truth, judging from all information we have to date.

> The reasoning (as presented to me) for not accepting my request for an NDA
> is that they preferred to work (initially) with the small group of qualified partners
> they were already working with.

That sounds somewhat reasonable. But didn't you say before that it was the odd requirement to maintain a website?

> that logic sounded a lot like IBM logic (which made sense considering AMCC's origins).

AMCC was founded in 1979. They acquired IBM's PPC4xx processor business (including some 70 engineers, but no management people) only in 2004, which I think is much too little connection between the two companies to draw such a conclusion. So I think this same pattern you experienced is rather coincidence.

> you tie together all these statements that don't agree with each other.

I'd rather say I contrast them with each other.

> What other conclusion is there other than that Applied Micro concealed
> that it was not moving forward with the long touted Titan core and was
> instead moving to a backup plan?

Whatever answer I'd give to this question it wouldn't explain the Linley Group even adding to the confusion by making claims (that Titan and the first CPU to be based on it were scrapped *before* that CPU was publically announced) that contradict both Applied Micro's story as presented to the public and what probably really happened. I don't think that the Linley Group's recent claim, which even challenges an older statement from them (presenting Apple's Intrinsity acquirement in April 2010 as reason), stands unchallenged.

> I do feel deceived.

Now imagine how their investors and share holders will feel as soon as they find out (or did they already?) ;-)