“Artikle sez $11m spent development. “
Spent on what? The article doesn’t say.
You’re arguing from silence. Classic fallacy.
It is a ridiculous assumption to think that someone spends $11m out of $20m committed this technology and to portray it as wine, women and song.
At this point, it takes $20M just to get into the game, to have the RIGHT to develop the technology. That is what the article says.