イスラエル/サンフランシスコ拠点のOakが、AIネイティブな「アイデンティティ運用基盤」の構築に向けて6000万ドルのシード資金を調達した(https://www[.]prnewswire[.]com/news-releases/oak-raises-60m-in-seed-funding-to-build-the-ai-native-identity-operating-system-302826349.html)。ラウンドはAccel、Greylock Partners、CRVが共同主導し、Hetz VenturesやAlphaDrive Venturesも参加している。 「アイデンティティ管理」とは、人間の社員だけでなく機械やAIエージェントまで含め「誰が何にアクセスできるか」を一元的に把握・制御する仕組みのこと。企業への主要な攻撃経路になっている一方、既存ツールは人間中心の静的な環境向けに設計されており、AIエージェントの急増に追いついていない。Gartnerは2028年までにCISO(最高情報セキュリティ責任者)の70%がこの可視化・分析機能を導入すると予測している。 Oakのアプローチは、既存ツールにAIを後付けするのではなく最初からAIネイティブで設計し直す点にある。オンプレミス、クラウド、SaaS、自社開発システムを問わず数ヶ月でなく数時間で接続でき、生のアクセス記録から組織内の全アイデンティティとその関係を可視化するデータ構造(いわゆるアイデンティティグラフ)を構築する。付与された権限と実際の使用状況を突き合わせ、リスク判定から根本原因の是正までAIが自動化するという。製品はすでに一般提供中で、複数の企業顧客に導入済みだ。 CEOのShai Morag氏は連続起業家で、Integrity-Project(2014年にNVIDIA傘下のMellanoxが買収)、Secdo(2018年にPalo Alto Networksが買収)、Ermetic(2023年にTenableが買収、買収後は同社CPOを歴任)と3社を売却してきた経歴を持つ。共同創業者兼CPOのTal Marom氏はTenableとSalesforceで製品部門を率いた。両氏は100人以上のCISOやIAM(アイデンティティ・アクセス管理)責任者に取材し、「ツールが多すぎて連携できていない」「AIエージェントを統治する手段がない」という共通課題を確認したうえで、クラウドセキュリティの断片化をCNAPP(クラウドネイティブアプリケーション保護基盤)が統合したのと同じ転換点に、今アイデンティティ管理があると見ている。

AIで「合成ユーザー」を作り出すSimileが、非公開の「ステルスモード」を解除してからわずか5か月で2億ドル超のシリーズBを調達し、評価額20億ドルに達した(https://techcrunch[.]com/2026/07/30/synthetic-user-startup-simile-raises-200m-at-2b-valuation-5-months-after-100m-series-a/)。Simile自身は「シミュレーション企業」を名乗り、人間の行動そのものを再現することを事業の軸に据えています。 今回のラウンドはGreenoaksとIndex Venturesが共同でリードし、Hanabi、Bain Capital Ventures、A*、Factory、CVS Health Ventures、Definitionが参加しました(同社発表による)。Index Venturesは前回のシリーズA(1億ドル)もリードした投資家です。 Simileによると、この5か月で売上は5倍に伸び、Fortune100企業(米フォーチュン誌が選ぶ売上上位100社)向けに数千万件規模のシミュレーションを実行できる基盤モデルを構築し、各シミュレーションの精度を予測する「confidence model」(同社いわく世界初)も訓練したといいます。本拠地だった米パロアルトの小さなオフィスから、従業員50人超のグローバルチームに拡大しました。CVS Health、Wealthfront、Deloitte、Gallupといった企業が、製品発表の戦略立案や顧客体験の最適化、新市場への参入にすでに活用しているそうです。 創業者のJoon Sung Park氏はスタンフォード大学で博士号を取得しており、在学中には、AIエージェントが人間のように暮らしパーティーまで開く「Smallville」という研究プロジェクトを手がけていました。Simileは「地球上の80億人全員を正確かつ誠実に再現する」ことを掲げていますが、TechCrunchはこのミッションを荒唐無稽だと評しつつ、人間は感情と理性の両方に左右され予測不能だからこそ市場調査が必要だという前提を踏まえてもなお、合成ユーザーによるリサーチ自体は有望な領域であり、プロダクトのモックアップ作りにおける「vibe coding」(直感を頼りにAIへコードを書かせる開発スタイル)のような立ち位置だと評しています。 同分野では2025年12月にシリーズAで巨額の評価額10億ドルを付けたAaruという競合も登場しており、投資熱の高さがうかがえます。

Breaking down TSMC's glass core substrate slide On June 11, at JPCA Show 2026 in Japan, TSMC gave a roughly 40-slide presentation titled "Advanced Packaging Technology Essential to the Evolution of AI" (AIの進化に不可欠な先端パッケージング技術). One slide from the deck, titled "Glass Substrate Development for CoWoS," has since leaked online and widespread attention. Here's a closer read of that slide (see attached image). I'll skip the technical background that is already widely available. One thing to flag: the "COP" on the slide does not stand for Chip-on-Package. It means Coplanarity. ▌ Key conclusions: 1. TSMC has officially announced a partnership with Ibiden and Innolux to develop a glass core substrate. The structure is a three-layer design, a glass core sandwiched between two ABF build-up layers. This is the "oS" in CoPoS. 2. The market underestimates how important the glass core substrate is. It's a must-have capability for TSMC. In other words, within CoPoS the "oS" matters more than the "CoP", which is also why, when it was tested, it was paired with the existing CoW rather than with CoP. 3. The glass core substrate costs several times more per unit than existing ABF substrates. The glass processed by Innolux is very expensive per unit and is the single most critical material. Besides Nvidia, two US-based customers have also expressed strong interest. ▌ Industry checks tied to this slide: 1. The glass core substrate shown on the slide is cut from a full-size 250×250mm one. The ABF build-up layers mainly use Ajinomoto's GL107, mixed with ABF-GCP, and were tested at 24–28 layers, which is the mainstream ABF spec for AI chips in 2027–2028. 2. The CoW used in TSMC's experiment is a test vehicle. It is sufficient to validate the most challenging mechanical-structure issues that arise when working with composite materials. Good results mean TSMC, Ibiden, and Innolux have together broken through the critical technical bottleneck. 3. Ibiden currently handles cutting the 250×250mm glass core substrate. When the 510×515mm format is used for pre-mass-production simulation in 2H27, if Ibiden still wants to reduce production complexity to protect its ultra-high gross margins, it may hand the cutting over to Innolux, which is more familiar with the properties of glass. ▌ The leaked slide shows the validation results of pairing CoW with the "oS" in CoPoS, i.e., the glass core substrate (labeled "glass-SBT" on the slide). This addresses the "Substrate mechanical and electrical Dilemma" raised on the previous slide, and it strongly underscores how important the "oS" is within CoPoS. 1. Within CoPoS, what CoP solves is production efficiency / cutting economics, which ties to cost and price. What the oS solves is warpage and durability, which determines whether the chip can be made at all, and whether it can work. 2. CoP and oS complement each other well when integrated, but looking out over the next few years their technical roles still differ. CoP is a very-nice-to-have optimization, and going without it simply means a more expensive chip. But the oS is a must-have. Without it, even being able to make a usable chip is in doubt. 3. Comparing their roles isn't about elevating oS at the expense of CoP. It comes down to the practical question of which technical piece customers are willing to pay for. Details below. ▌ The real gold here is the power integrity (PI) improvement shown on the slide. This matters a great deal to customers, and it means that once glass core substrate production stabilizes, TSMC's profitability and competitive edge should rise in tandem. 1. How it works: the glass core substrate is thin → the vertical conduction path through TGV (through-glass vias) is short → conduction-path resistance (R) and loop inductance (L) both drop → PI improves. 2. Why it matters to customers: better PI → more stable power delivery → frees up power headroom → room to integrate more transistors, or to push clock speeds higher → more AI compute. 3. For customers, production efficiency is TSMC's basic responsibility, so they won't pay extra for it. But gains in AI compute translate directly into the customer's own competitiveness and profit, so customers are willing to pay for that. This is why Nvidia is so positive on the glass core substrate. 4. For TSMC, the glass core substrate raises yield and lowers cost while also boosting both the compute and the selling price of AI chips. It's both a cost-cutting tool and a pricing lever, a plus for profitability and competitiveness alike. 5. Substrate cost currently accounts for a low single-digit percentage of an AI chip's BOM, while losses from packaging yield run roughly 5–10× the substrate cost. So even if the glass core substrate ends up costing several times more than today's, its share of the BOM stays low, and it can cut the losses from packaging yield. The high unit price is therefore not expected to dampen customers' willingness to adopt it. ▌ In the Q&A after the presentation, an audience member asked about TGV details for the glass core substrate. TSMC declined to answer on the spot, because TGV is the key technology behind the glass core substrate, and the core know-how currently sits with TSMC and Innolux. By contrast, when another attendee asked about integrating IVR, eDTC, and LSI, TSMC answered at length. ▌ According to industry checks, if all goes well, TSMC is aiming to start mass production of the glass core substrate in 4Q28–1Q29, to match the cadence of Nvidia's AI chip iterations. As a side note: the Ibiden earnings presentation slide that many people have been circulating lists the glass core substrate timeline as CY30. My read is this: Ibiden, which has always been conservative and cautious in public, has now formally put the glass core substrate on its roadmap, which further confirms the long-term trend for this technology. That said, some other details on Ibiden's slide don't fully line up with what's known in the market. For example, its reticle timeline is off from TSMC's public claims by about a generation, and the Rubin Ultra substrate size is clearly larger than the 90×90 it marked for CY26–27. It's a reminder to always cross-check across multiple sources when forecasting the future.