Andreas,
I think before I can give meaningful input, I need a clearer idea about where Adapteva is headed as a business and whether the success of Parallella has changed the prior business direction.
As I understood Adapteva's business goal early on, it was to focus on IP licensing of Epiphany for those of us potentially interested in embedding Epiphany in our own silicon. Parallella was a very slick way to get a development platform for Epiphany evaluators way, way down in cost. However, if the success of Parallella has Adapteva considering a move from IP only to IP and system PCB design/manufacturing, that's a different landscape entirely that requires a broader view on product line, entry points, etc. It also has ramifications for types of employees hired, funding strategic vendor partnering, ...
So the $64,000 question is, "What does Adapteva want to be when I grows up?" Is Adapteva an Epiphany company, a Parallella company, both or TBD. I assume that since you recently took Series B funding, those questions have been considered to some degree.
In either case, I'd encourage Adapteva to avoid letting Parallella's success impede further improvement of the Epiphany Architecture (beyond just growing the core count). As valuable as getting feedback on what future generations of a Parallella board should have, I hope you'll be getting feedback from those undertaking analysis and design of Epiphany based/enhanced products. For example, the RISC principle's guiding the architecture are solid for general purpose use; however the type of applications in which Epiphany could have a very substantial impact are double word FP today and moving to quad word soon. The less computationally intensive work that Epiphany passes on, the less relevant it becomes for real world parallel computing needs.
Please don't take the above as criticism. I'm an Epiphany fanboy. With clarification on the business goal, I can gather up some feedback.
Mike.