MicroVision, Inc. (MVIS) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

How's everyone doing? How is the morning so far. Good. Any like highlights? You want to like to shout out favorite things so far? Those are the best. Awesome. We're really excited to move into the next part of the agenda. We're going to have the town hall. So Sumit and Anubhav are going to come up in just a couple of minutes and make a couple of quick remarks and then open the floor to questions. A couple of things just to keep in mind as we go through this. Lunch is going to be coming in at 11:45. There's box lunches that are going to be at the back. So if you're hungry and you want to grab something, feel free to just pop up and grab some lunch, bring it back to your seat. And as we get into the Q&A, we just want to encourage people to be mindful of the size of the audience here. We've got 50 people, many people who have come from a long way. So we want to ensure everybody gets an opportunity to ask their questions and have their voice heard. So when you get the mic, please be thoughtful of other folks. And be sure to kind of cede the floor when you've had an opportunity to ask your questions. We've got the guys for a considerable amount of time. So we should be able to loop back around and see people a couple of times, if you have follow-up questions. So please just keep that in mind as we get into the Q&A. Jeff, any other remarks to make before we invite the guys up.

Yes. I do have a couple of remarks. I am Jeff Christensen. I work with the team on Investor Relations, and thank you for coming, and thank you for being a MicroVision shareholder. We've got several people that traveled a long distance to be here. And I wanted to -- those of you raise your hand if you came from outside of the State of Washington. So a lot of interest, as Jeff said, the people have a lot of questions. The thing I'd add to the what he said about the Q&A portion is be mindful of the number of questions you ask. There is going to be an opportunity to -- once we get -- everybody gets a chance to ask questions, we'll circle back, and you may be able to ask more questions at that time. So wanted to -- a couple of things. You've all heard her voice on the earnings conference call. And I wanted to introduce you to let you make sure you saw Drew Markham. She's our General Counsel. And -- so, wanted to touch base on a couple of things. When you -- on the Q&A session, when you have a question, raise your hand. We are going to bring a mic to you. We are going to be recording the session. So what we wanted to do is start off with your name and then ask your question. And let them get a chance to respond to it and then you can ask more. You can continue to ask follow-up questions at that time. The -- what I'd ask you to do is if you have -- if you can address your question to either Sumit or Anubhav. That will be helpful. And that's -- those are the main things I want to mention to you. We talked about lunch. We're not going to take a definitive break. So the lunch as I said it's going to be put in the back. You're welcome to get up and go get it and it will not be distractive. Also, if -- though anyone has not taken a ride so far, -- you're welcome to sign up and go for a ride. We're running that ride and continue to run those rides. And one last thing I want to mention about the Q&A is that if you have a question, you don't feel comfortable to asking it yourself, you can write it down and hand it to Jeff [ Padway ] or myself or the other -- there's another team that's going to come in and hand you the mic. And then we can ask the question for you. But if you could put your name and the question on the piece of paper. So any questions about that? So with that, I wanted to now turn it over to management. And thanks again for coming.

Great to see everyone. Thank you for joining. I wanted to just start off with just a few comments. I think, first of all, I just want to tell everybody that it really means a lot that you guys all came. MicroVision used to do this event back in 2018, pre-COVID and it was a smaller event. We used to do further up the road. And it kind of fell off because of COVID, but we intend to do this at least once a year, just to get back into the cadence of it. Just so you know, we have a very large investor base. I think it's important for you guys to come and touch and feel and see the things that we're doing instead of just the videos and the other ways of communicating. So certainly, I know how hard like the entire team works on things. And personally, I was just telling the team outside that it means a lot that you guys care so much about it. So sometimes in the busyness of life, we're all moving at different paces. Sometimes we don't get a chance to tell you how much we appreciate it. But I can tell you that the attention, positive or negative, right, is appreciated because it's good that somebody is noticing all the hard work people are doing. So, thank you. So I think with that, I think we'll just jump in. I think this is like a typical town hall meeting. If anybody has been to a city council meeting, they can turn into a [ shitshow ] but that's the goal here. But the point is, it is a conversation. Anubhav and I are both here. We're talking about the business we're building for you and all the investors. We certainly can talk about technology, but we certainly want to also describe to you the business and the fundamentals that he's talked about, so we want to have a broad discussion and just think about it as a casual conversation and just ask away. Okay. So I'll turn it over.

Chuck Young, local investor [indiscernible]. And my question is regarding -- I don't know what all you can share. But my question is regarding out of the RFQs that you answered and responded to, would any of them, if awarded pull the trigger on developing an ASIC.

So for us, what's unique about our product is the one-box solution, the words that everybody is doing, that's all as a MicroVision, everything we've done for anybody. So the analog and digital ASIC has been part of custom development we always do. Some of our competitors may have analog ASIC from a company that makes analog ASIC. So they say they have a ASIC, but they don't say if that's their custom ASIC. So to get the lower cost and to get the real advantage of the technology we develop our own. Actually, Chris Adkins, who's here, his team here has been doing that in Redmond for several generations of ASIC. For us, we intend to launch, as we said, the analog ASIC this year and the digital ASIC soon after that. I mean, the work has already started on the digital ASIC, but we intend to focus on these RFQs to close it out to make sure if there's some custom feature that somebody needs. Once ASIC is done, it is hardwired. It's in the silicon. You want to get the features in. So of course, we want to make sure that we listen to all our customers. And if there's something that we can put inside it, that gives them an advantage over somebody else, we'll do that. But the intention is that very soon after that, the digital ASIC will start.

The next question is over there. Yes.

Hi, Sumit. Adam Jones. So you said something back there, that's the first time I ever heard it, which is dynamic view lidar is in every RFQ. So you are inside the process. And you said you showed that in 2019, So I don't know, we have in 2019, and that solves my problem. I guess my question then, well, when can I have it? So I guess what I'm -- as you're inside the process, we're outside the process. The market, in general, I don't think knows how to value the lidar sector in any way, shape or form because there's so much conflicting information. So I guess, lasering to the point, you've obviously been building these bridges since 2019. People told you what they needed. I guess in one succinct form, what is that? And how do we value it and how do we place it in context with everyone else in the sector?

So if you think about -- this comes up often as in our competitors have a feature, a spec, why don't you talk about the specs more, because it's really difficult to describe to people that are not deeply into the technology. It gets too nuance but as investors, let me just -- I mean just as people think about it this way. Some of our competitors, when they would have a product, they would have a wide field of view. When you're very near that point, all the points are close by. So they're symmetrically distributor across that wedge, let's say. But as you go further and further out, that same point to just keep away from each other. So what happens is if you build a wide field of view with static pixels like flash-based lidar is. If you look at the flash-based lidar video back there, near the sensor, there's lots of lines, lots of points. But the further away you go, there's bigger holes that appear in the point cloud. Okay? To combat that, what you really need is a dynamic view lidar. And what that is, is that in different fields of view, which is different distances away from the car that the field of view changes. So the resolution is maintained to the entire thing. So instead of thinking about the field of view as like a wedge, as a piece of a pie, now you think about it as like 3 different rose pedals. So effectively, you have taken the road and you're not firing lasers off into buildings that are off the road. And this way, you take the field of view collapse it down and you maintain the high resolution, the area of interest where you're driving. So it's all about resolution. The more points you have on target. So if you have a small object in the middle of the road, you want more and more points there. But if you have a wide field of view where you have these big holes in the point cloud, it would be hard to detect things. So the technique that our team had developed. This is very, very innovative. It allows you to use 905-nanometer laser, driving sunlight, which you guys did some people that I have. I mean distance is not a problem on a sunny day. And you also have a very high resolution with a dynamic view that allows to small objects in the road far away. So that's what dynamic view is. So every RFQ effectively is asking for multiple fields of view in a single box solution. So if you have a sensor like the flash-based, you would need 1 of those for near, 1 of those for far, 1 of those for somewhere in the middle, 93 of those and a one-box solution would be massive. So that technology is not the right tool for that problem.

Is that new to this RFQ cycle?

It is new to the last couple of years RFQ cycle, yes.

Is that something we've been driving in terms of innovation?

I had never seen it until we showed it. So I mean I can't comment on like how people think about it, but everything before that did not have it. Yes.

So Back to the RFQ. So ideally, you feel confident we're going to get 1 accomplished. We're going to complete an RFQ and have a win. What is the process post win in an RFQ like what happens next? What do we look for? What milestones or achievements along the way, time lines, things investors can look at to ascertain value within the context of the RFQ once it's announced.

I think I'll give the answer for about what happens after the RFQ, and I'm going to have Anubhav give the comment about like milestones as in like business milestones and technical milestones. We want to make a distinction for that. Let's say you have an RFQ win then you are actually doing a custom development for them. When I say custom, it's not really ground up custom. The inner guts, the MEMS, the optics, the lasers, the electronics, ASICs, all the same but they have a different package, how it fits inside, different connectors, some other key other requirements, what fields of view they want. That's all development that has to be done and has to be done with respect to the automotive process, which is slow because it goes to the process of qualifying. Target dates for those launches are going to be '26 -- 2026 in that time range. And it's not because the technology takes that long to develop. It's qualification, is a very methodical process that you have to be in. So post any kind of deal, you are part of the process now that you have to develop, and they're developing a vehicle and you're developing a sensor. So they have their milestones, they have to hit because they have qualification for their vehicle. Your sensor is part of a battery pack and tires and windshield and crash testing. I mean, they have a whole process of qualifying every vehicle. So this is a big time qualification right now. So -- but it's not like it doesn't take a decade, but it is several years, absolutely going to see sample. But definitely want, Anubhav talk a little bit about how we think about. Go ahead.

Just before -- just back to the process. So you mentioned you had dynamic, you've demonstrated dynamic view lidar in 2019. So this is a process that's been several years in the making. Is our product little more highly evolved than a lot of products out there. Have you had the benefit of OEM feedback early enough in the process that you were able to take to circumvent some of the design process work. Obviously, it still needs to be qualified, needs to be validated. But is there anything you feel you have to jump on.

Adam, if you look at the product we have, it's built not like a prototype in the back of the room, right? It is pretty solid. It has got a lot of things that can get qualified. And certainly, I feel confident that our MEMS are going to be well beyond the life of a car, right? But that's many, many years worth to work. But when you're thinking about these customers, you're talking about these OEM customers, they're very conservative. It does not matter where you are. You're still going to go through the churn. You still have to go through the milestones because you are new to them. The only way you go through that, you could have 5 customers, you've done it for, but you got to do it their way, right? Because they take the liability to deliver a product, a full blown power qualified to consumer. So they have huge liability. So regardless of what we think about, right, the way to think about it, it gives us confidence that we're going to get qualification done. That's how I look at it, right? So I worry about a lot of things. I don't worry about that because, yes, I mean I'm an engineer. So when I look at the stuff these guys have developed, it's pretty unbelievable the level of maturity that's there. Like if I was a customer, I know that I'm going to go through that process, but I'm like, wow, this is really good. These guys really know what they're doing. It just gives you confidence that if you pick them, they know how the work has to get done. And with the acquisition of IBEO, they've actually got the qualification for their product that actually went all the way to the C sample before the insolvency happens. So I think both companies combined, both things combined when it comes to MAVIN, when it comes to MOVIA, certainly, they know how to qualify. So that's the thing that investors should be confident about.

And they're seeing maturity in the product even at this stage.

Absolutely.

With -- in comparison to peers, which maybe you can or can't answer or.

No, I can answer that. I mean that's an opinion. I mean that's just public data, right? We're in A sample, but I would say that the components inside are significantly more mature than what our typical A sample would be. I would say people that are showing B&C samples. Some of the problems I hear at CES and other places just out in the public that they're having with other people's technology. I would say that is not a true B sample even, right? Because the key components are getting changed. In our case, the key component performance is being tweaked. New manufacturing partners are being qualified. Supply chains are being developed, right? But the design is not changing, design is the same. So I would say, yes, we are more mature. But I just want to be very, very clear with everybody that's here and who's going to listen to this event. That you still have to go through the process, right? So there is no shortcuts in life when it comes to that industry, which is safety related. Okay. Anubhav, do you want to talk a little bit about the business milestones?

Yes. So I'm going to tie this question up with what is my confidence or our confidence in the runway of the company until the middle of next year. Why? Because what does design wins will entail is especially as Sumit mentioned, if there's going to be a custom feature that the OEMs will need in their product, we would be obviously going forward an [ NRE ] that will be funding that development cycle. So obviously, that's what we expect to also help the company from a cash flow standpoint. The whole idea at the end of the day, boils down to the milestones of this process has to be set from a business perspective because at the end of the day, a cool technology is only good enough, but it's how you build a business around it. A business, which is based on a foundation of what the revenue streams are going to be? And how do you go from point A to that point until when this car starts coming out of the production facility from the OEM. So I think this is what's very important to understand that, that's how we're thinking about the business and that's how we are going to approach this design wins because at the end of the day, the whole idea is between design win and the day the car start coming out of the production facility, how does the company achieve those steps.

Alex [indiscernible]. I actually want to kind of go back to about 3 years ago when you became CEO, the expectation, obviously, it's very different now than before. But one of the things that we -- when you first joined was talking about strategic alternatives, whether it be a licensing deal for certain verticals. And we -- as investors, that's what we kind of banked on. And that's why this -- we supported MicroVision, getting it over $1, that's the whole process. And after about a year, that kind as of just stopped. And if we are truly best in class, you would think that there would be suitors, whether it be from chip companies, automotive companies, whatever it may be. And as investors, I've only been invested since 2018, we have people here from 1998. Yes, it's a different company now. You're at 19 or whatever it was.

It was 25.

25 at that time. We are tired investors and it's the same story. But obviously, it's different. We hope.

So it's not the same then.

It's not the same. So we hope we -- everyone is here because, look, we think that there's huge potential here. Our stock is at $2.12 today. When and how soon can we change that perspective instead of -- what we're hearing now is 100 million shares of dilution.

Yes. So your question has so much stuff mashed in and I'm going to break it apart. Okay. All right. Let's start with strategic alternatives. When I took over, the company was looking at no capital, delisting, looking at insolvency within 7 months. So company when there is strategic alternatives, there is only one thing. Sell it as a whole or sell it as a part. That was my job, Absolutely, right? The first time the products came up, the investors rejected it. And I will tell you on the record for the first time, I'm not going to name the company, but $1 trillion company offered single-digit million dollar for the entire thing. And the thing that was thrown to me was, well, you guys are going to be out of business, your investor don't support you like I'm getting worked up just telling you this right now. That's what happened. So whatever you think is your experience, you got to take a first time CEO, you think my career, I wanted to do that. I put my life into it, that happens. So strategic alternatives, there should be no misunderstanding. We ran a process as best as possible, okay? So I think like I get it, right? Investors get tired. But you know what, the reality is that companies that have more money, more power, they're opportunistic. Why would they pay what is fair, if they can get it for less, that's what happened. That's exactly what happened, okay? Then I focused the company where I actually believed it was going to be successful. And it did work out. Didn't it? I mean the stock did peak. Stock has gone down. So some of you must have extracted some of those things. Management did not take any money out of it, certainly, right? So effectively, the business direction we picked was the right one, Alex. Now what has happened in 30 years? I mean, there is only things I can answer that I'm dealing with right now that Anubhav is dealing with right now, that Drew is dealing with right now. So clearly, what we're telling you is, okay, the market is going through a cycle where the stock price is now versus it was 18 months ago, that's like really not out of our -- it's out of our control, actually. It's not like we're the only one that have gone down. If anything else, Anubhav always reminds us of the proportions that our competitors have gone down compared to us. And certainly, we're in better position because we manage our cash better. We communicate much better. So yes, you're saying that it's same as before, but it not really is, by our own vision, it's a different company completely. The last 3 years has been different. And the journey for that did not start just with me. The journey was starting. Our board was involved. They were trying to find a solution. But what we realized was you have this amazing technology, but you do a deal with Microsoft or Sony or Pioneer or the military, the markets are not big enough. You have this amazing technology that can solve so many problems, but yet none of those markets were big enough for the amount of OpEx that is. So we have actually focused ourselves to creating a good business, a business that's sustainable at the right level and get to market as fast as possible and get revenues, right? As the things that we're saying are going to happen is how the company is going to be successful. I mean that's plain and simple. And the cycles of that, I mean, I'm that transparent. I mean you guys have heard me talk about it, and it's always the same fluid answer. You're in it for a while now because that's exactly what the people, your target market is going to do. But at least you know for a fact is there's multiple customer -- target customers that are looking for it, they're talking publicly that they're going to do something. You have multiple companies you're competing against, whereas any of those other projects that you may have invested for, how many people actually were successful in that and how much market was developed for that. I mean, Microsoft is right up the street. We did the work for them. I mean this is a record. So nothing new there. How big did that get? I mean it's an amazing company, really smart people, great software things. So imagine what it takes to actually create the market. Now, for the first time in the history of the company, we're not trying to create a market, we're already in a market that's been created and has got multiple players in it. So I think it's a completely different company. The MicroVision name is still the same. The logo color may have changed. There has no hidden secret in there, by the way. I know if you guys [indiscernible] Nothing. It was just -- it's a red laser or IR laser. So it's red color. That's it. That's about it. There's no controversy there. But the point was, why did we change the color? It is a different company. right? It's the same thing, but all the investments you guys have done. It is a labor and love for us, but it's also a labor and love for yourself. It enabled engineers like some engineers have been here for 17 years, they've been working on this tech. They have actually poured more than all of us that have put money into the company, I can assure you that I would see that's real love, right? But they finally feel more excited because they know there's a market for their stuff. Before, it was just sort of like this amazing thing that nobody could have going to understand how amazing it would be because nobody would give us the opportunity to make a product. So it is a different company, right? And I get -- I'm patient enough to understand that I get that people just want the results, right? Because that's -- again, your investors, you want to trade up and you want to see what other opportunities you can create for yourself. But we're being very honest about, this is the cadence of the company. This is the industry we're in. There's huge revenues in the future. There's competition. We are best-in-class in the lidar. I've never said we're best-in-class in anything else. I believe that we are best-in-class in the AR, but it's hard for me to claim that when there's nobody there. I'm the only ones, of course, by nature of it is there. So I pick my words very carefully. But in the lidar, I'm absolutely confident there's not a single thing somebody will do. That won't surprise us. We're way ahead of everybody there. right? And the benefit we have, we built a good business. We built something with the inners of it for many, many, many years of project, we don't have to do a redesign. We can still meet their requirements for many cycles. So at least -- I mean, the biggest risk in any business is if we develop a new product. So we've derisked that. So it's a different company, right? I think like we're different, we're a different focus. We are I think I was a lot more transparent about what we believe good or bad, what the future is going to be like. So I think I just want people to judge us for who we are. I think we're authentic as a company in our filings, we're pretty authentic and in our communication we are pretty authentic. So you just have to evaluate if you believe what management is saying or doing or not, and you'll make your bet, right? I said this before. Some people wake up in the morning, they choose to be long and some people wake up in the morning that chose to be short. That's a personal choice. But all I can do, what Anubhav can do is that we can represent the company for what's really happening, and you have to value the company for that. Okay?

Mike Wilkin. With 2023 being the year of RFQs and design wins, it's critical that we name names at that time that they're announced. We recognize that the OEMs are largely in control of that, as you've communicated. And I can only speak for myself, but any investment that the company would need to make to assure that will happen would be resources well spent. Validation is critical at this point to investors and potential investors who are looking for that validation. What are your thoughts on that?

I think, again, going back to Alex's question. The history of the company is, there's a certain experience you guys have had, where the company would not mention partnerships in different ways. But again, we were in a different position, way back when with those OEMs that we were dealing with. They were much more controlling. In this case, now where we are, we have something that they want as well. And as is demonstrated those OEMs are very open to working with companies and talking about the partnership because for them to get access to our technology, that's going to be there. So I believe that, that's something that the investors should be patient about, not be concerned about because, of course, we want to provide the validation. If we're going to be a partner for a decade for somebody or more than a decade for somebody, it's important to know who we work with. And I think as far as whatever is required legally for us to disclose publicly, I think Drew is here. I mean the first thing that happened when she joined was she and I worked together to make sure that April 2017 announcement was happening. And it was not because somebody -- I'm not going to name who it was, did the breakdown, it had nothing to do with that. It was already in the works because Drew and I started working on it right away. But again, she's an attorney, she understood how to do that. So again, the company is changing, right? I think like these are very talented individuals. They could be very successful anywhere else. We're lucky to have them. And yes, I think I'm absolutely certain that we're going to find every opportunity to make sure their shareholders understand who our partners are. But I acknowledge what you're saying is -- and I agree with that sentiment. If -- we got the best product, best technology. We can demonstrate to them. They have the best business that's going to be around for a long time to support their needs, important. But if there are some other thoughts in mind about if they need -- if somebody else is about to undercut us to try to take the project away or something, we will use whatever tools are given to us to make sure that we're successful. Absolutely. We tend to be -- we've been -- make something innovative. Let me just tell you something as an engineer to make something innovative. You have to be very aggressive. You don't just sit around and flow through it. You have to be very aggressive and work very hard. So our guys have done, our team has done great to create that technology, right? We intend to be very aggressive on business as well to make sure we get the right deals for us.

Good. Because there may be resources, including shares that may have to be provided to be able to name a name, but.

You noticed us, right? We don't do flashy $5 million CS events. We don't do -- like we think of money, it's a resource, it's limited, right? And we have gotten the best deal for shareholders in everything we've done right, including if you think about -- the IBEO team is significantly more valuable than you can imagine, right? We just happened to be in insolvency and it was a lot of hard work over a very long period of time to get that done, right? And I mean they feel like family now, but it was a labor and love. But we tend to do that with everything, Mike. So what I'm saying is like absolutely acknowledge that's what we tend to be aggressive, whatever is necessary to win, we're going to win.

Excellent. One other question. You've announced that ZF will be your Tier 1 manufacturing partner for MAVIN. At that time, you said you anticipated a deepening relationship with ZF. Moving forward can you expand on how the company is deepening that relationship.

Let me correct a few things, that I think Jeff advised me of this one, and you guys got it wrong.

All right.

ZF, it is a German company. ZF was a partner for IBEO. They are the manufacturing partner for the lidar you see back there. There's a whole production line that produces that. With ZF, we still work with them for that lidar. But for MAVIN, it depends on the OEM. We are open to anything possible. So the statement you said that we're going to partner with them. We can partner with them. We can partner with anybody. But it all depends on what the OEM wants, what their strategy is. If they make cars in the area that ZF does not have a factory that would be cumbersome for us. So for us, as management and shareholders, all you have to think about, forget about those names, I know you guys were flipping around who got shares of this. Nobody got any shares, we would have set things. ZF is a Tier 1 partner that IBEO work with. They're great. That's a beautiful factory. But we're going to work and listen to the OEMs again of what they want and what strategy they want us to deliver to them. Delivering technology is one thing, delivering partnership is another thing and we're going to deliver what they want.

But haven't you committed to ZF on the manufacturing of MAVIN?

No. If we did, we would tell you. We haven't -- you always talk about like what like if you're ZF, I will say, yes, absolutely. Let's work on it, let's take about it. But there's nothing signed. If there was something signed, we would disclose it. If something was signed like a supply agreement was signed, well, why would I sign that if I don't know that what the OEM says, well, I want to go to this country and they don't have a footprint there, and I don't want you to spend money shipping it from point A to point B. Can you find somebody over there? MicroVision will actually put the resources in place to put where the OEM needs it. Our customers are the OEM. We may ship our lidar to a Tier 1 that ships to the OEM or the go-to-market strategy. But the OEMs are our customer, we go directly to them with our technology.

Very good.

Mike, if I may just add one more thing to it. Because I think -- because we were talking flipping back and forth between history and now, right? Because this is the first time, as Sumit said, we're in an industry which is already there. And this time, we're not beholden to one. This time, there are many players. There are many Tier 1s that every OEM has a favorite, so that's why the whole point was why would you want to be married to one. And I think the whole point is, this time, the company has a product which has applications, which has customers in geographies, not just here, but even in European Union, right? So that's why it makes all the more sense to not have just one egg in one basket but have eggs spread out because that's what diversifies our strategy as a company.

So think about it like you are investor in a company that has the technology that's going to enable things for many, many years to come. Others that want to manufacture, that's all they're bringing manufacturing supply chain value, right? It is our job on your behalf to get the best deal possible. So the name is incidental, right? Anybody that can do the deal that makes the company whole and significantly stronger footing, that's where we should all demand. Okay Yes. Just go ahead.

My name is Lucas. A quick question with the FKA consortium info that came out this morning. As far as that process goes, can you guys have any comments as far as what value or insights that whole journey gave you guys? And then what should we expect?

I think -- did you do a demo drive yet? So I think you see it running. I think this is what OEMs see running. There's data sheets and RFQs and there's all these other concepts and other work that we do to describe to them. If you think about the consortium, it's important part of those consortiums because OEMs it's not about 1 technology. They want a unified way, how they want to evaluate a group of technologies, right? So the value there as you hear of how those standards will set for the future. But it does not change your path of what you have to do because the OEMs also give you a spec saying hey, all of you guys, if you want to be a microtechnology road map, you have to be able to achieve this, and that's something we do directly with them. So it informs us of how things will be evaluated. Like for example, I think somebody said that they saw 270 meters in the lidar today. Bright sunny day out, right? So you yourself saw today that when people make claims that can you see more than 160 meters or whatever the numbers are, I forget. You saw with your own eyes what it's running. So what the consortium does is people that mince the SPACs like we don't like pretty plain what you see. But if there was anybody out there that's mincing their SPACs to say something, but the product does not conform the right way. They're coming up with a unified way to test everybody's technology. That's the way to think about it. Right? But as far as why would I personally not be that involved in that one, just be monitoring it because I'd rather work with the engineers because get the technology right. We know what we have to build. The hard work is the building of it, not just knowing how to be evaluated because what you saw running meets and exceeds of how even a human will perform. So therefore, Yes, it's important to know how that will all work out, but it's not driving force.

Jeff [indiscernible]. This question centers around the supply chain, just getting clarity around that design. When you think about plan volumes, sourcing componentry, manufacturer, assembly test and ultimately the delivery. What does that look like now, for MicroVision and as volumes ramp up, does that fundamentally change to more of an in-source model or outsource model? Just any color around that?

Yes. So I think in A sample, Jeff, because it was COVID. I think in the public records, we bought all the components that we were going to need to make all the A samples because it was unclear back in 2020, what was going to happen to the Chinese supply chain, if you recall. So right after we got a little bit more capital, we started buying components for the A sample, right? But that's typical of A sample because you want to control your own destiny, you're figuring out how to make parts. As you go towards B and C sample, you're going to have a manufacturing partner, you're going to have supply chain internally through all these key commodities. You want to know what the price is out there. You don't want to rely on somebody else giving you a piece price variance on top of what it cost because there's just a manufacturer. But ultimately, the supply chain is it's going to be outsourced. I mean, the entire product design, the process map and the control plan is ours. That is also IP, by the way. It's not just the patent be filed. That is part of our intellectual property. But we give those designs to somebody to manufacture to our requirements. And then as volumes come in, of course, part of the value added they have is they source all those components. So you want to create a company that is you need capital in the company, but for things that you do. I'm not the manufacturer at the end of the day. I develop the designs, I get the acceptance done. I'm involved in getting the qualification done. But then, yes, somebody else turns the crank for that and they sell through us and that's how we, of course, monetize ourselves, right? So think about a more contract manufacturing model. This is also true of our competitor in Israel. Recently, I was watching something on LinkedIn actually. That was a video from Magna, and they talked about all the technologies they have, but then said but we only manufacture this lidar. They could not even say the name of that. Because they don't -- it's not their design, they're a manufacturer, so they actually admit it, right? So in this case, Tier 1s are manufacturing partners. And yes, managing supply chain is why you go to them, right? But you have to identify the supply chain. So you do need talent to say, what do I need? And can this person actually make my product long term. So we do that evaluation. We will have supplier development engineers that go out there, do the qualification. We own yield. So when we think about a line that gets qualified, we want to make sure role first pass yield is at a certain level. That's how we know profitability. And we leave the factory with that processes plan, a control plan and every process map and equipment, and then they have to maintain that yield and they give us a certain price on that yield, right? So that's what they manage. So it's a more predictable model. We're not going to reinvent this thing.

[ Salman Khan ]. This question for you, Anubhav. I know when you onboarded as CFO, one of your main goals was to get more analyst coverage. How is that process going? And is it on the critical path to discussions with institutional investors? Or is the company kind of doing that in parallel?

Yes. So that's a great question. So yes, so I think one of the first things set when I came onboard was the objective to get us in front of the investors, right? Because obviously, we have a huge retail following. But I think I wanted to get the story out there to be known to banks, investment banks, institutional investors, hedge funds, mutual funds. The reason why is because we are the only public company, which is not a SPAC. And that is a huge advantage. Why? Because obviously, we have over 2 decades of SEC filings. We do not have any overhang of the stock -- overhang of the SPAC that the other competitors have. Now what happened with even IBEO, there were some analysts or institutional investors who were watching or following IBEO. So ultimately, we have started to get way more traction at this point with institutional investors. And guess what, I think I'm pretty sure one of you will have this question so I'm even anticipating it because I think at the end of the day, what is the company doing also in terms of reducing the short interest loan. At the end of the day, what a company, we as a management team is doing is building a business brick by brick as a traditional public company. How do you do that, build credibility. Do everything what you say, execute on that and demonstrate that you have done this already. And I think that's sort of why when we recently announced our Q1 preliminary revenue guidance, the whole idea is to sort of build up the anticipation. And hopefully, we will be able to beat all our expectations as a company. And I think that's what establishes credibility in analysts. Now one thing as you can imagine, what has happened is a lot of these analysts started covering a bunch of our peers as part of the IPO. And guess what, they got burned. Why? Because they had stock price targets, which were multiples of $10 because that's what the typical IPO price of a SPAC is, they got burnt. Why? Because, again, these SPACs were based on lofty projections, never met them. And now these SPACs are down 95% from their original IPO value. Now what this does is, is the analyst need to be a lot more conservative and the analysts are now looking for companies like us who will not be giving out projections that they cannot meet. So I think as a management, what you will hear from us is we are -- we want to do things which we can deliver and execute, and that's how you build up trust inch by inch, brick by brick in this whole investment community. Because at the end of the day, what we believe is -- and this was one of the reasons why I actually chose MicroVision as well because of the DNA, right? Because you can make a quick flip. Of course, we have all seen what happened in 2021 and 2022. The era of free money or free market, right? Obviously, as things settle down because I think as industry becomes more cognizant and more geared towards businesses that are generating revenue and profit in the near term rather than focusing on something, which will be of value will be prioritized, will be given or ascribe more value than the others. We have seen that happen. Again, you've seen Argo. You've seen examples of a lot more companies which are focused on fully autonomous driving sort of market realizing that, hey, the monetizable opportunity is now in L2 and L3. And I think the whole point is that's what we are building, and that's what we are trying to create in the investor community and the analyst community as well. Because if you demonstrate these earnings estimates and beat them, that's how you build credibility, and that's what we plan to do in the next 12 to 18 months as well as we deliver on our targets that we have announced this year.

[indiscernible] long time investor in MicroVision. I rode the ups and downs and passed up a big profit when I got to 25, but I had more future lots of -- keep owning this company. My question is how -- and I haven't done the right yet, but how did it come that you teamed up and put it in a Jeep or was there a help from that corporation to marry your system into it? Or did you just do all that on your own?

No, I think the Jeep is incidental. There's nothing hidden in there. I think we wanted a demo vehicle -- it was developed by a team. Our team worked very hard to identify a partner that had the platform we needed, what they were going to do development on. The team in Germany, of course, have Mercedes and Tiguans and others, right? So there's nothing. It's about our team looked at companies that were available that we can work to get that platform built out. That's it.

So you installed it without the help of Jeep or was there...

No, I think they just buy the Jeep and the company we work with modifies the Jeep to what we need. So it's -- and then they, of course, they deliver that to us. But it's like they probably just go to a dealership and buy a Jeep.

You were saying OEMs are looking at 2026 model cars, how early would they have to get their hands on it, to get it in that car. Like when would that deal be made if that was...

That's the RFQs right now. So 2026 qualifications. They now start ramping up in 2027. So yes, decision right now, so you can get a qualified part, and that is not an easy -- like 3 years is a long time as investors, if you think about , I can tell you how many earnings calls are going to happen in the case we're going to file. But can you imagine like for them, that's like an unbelievable pace. And the team, the IBEO team that's here, they've gone through it, they can tell you, there is not a easy day, so it is a very hard pace to get the qualification done.

Right. That was my point. I am an engineer and getting -- I don't know how early they need to have that sensor when the deal needs to be inked in order to get a 2026 model.

I think as you said, right, our focus is on 2023 RFQ design wins. I think the answer is in there.

Any other questions?

By the way, lunch has arrived. So if anybody is hungry, grab it and come back. So it's not disruptive at all.

Jonathan [indiscernible], you had answered a question earlier pertaining to RFQs. And I'm going to paraphrase here. You mentioned that there are a lot of things that keep you up at night and this was one of them. So I'll ask you, what does keep you up at night?

I think, again, like as Alex mentioned, right, there's a 3-year history of the company but there's also all of us that have been in this space for a long time. We've been in technology. I'll probably sleep, probably never sleep with this job as much as I want. It's because there's always something to grow at. But right now, even if you think you have something locked in, for me personally done is done. I think my team knows I use that, and I know them a lot when I keep telling them like -- you will know when it's done because there's nothing more left to do, right? So as you think about building a business out, there's a bunch of things to do. We've done a great job building the technology, we're building the business out there is, again, brick-by-brick establishing it, right? Those things are not trickle either. I think like as engineers, sometimes we get excited about technology, but we forget companies that are successful, that had both -- they had both muscles. They had the technology muscle and they had the business muscle as well. So what keeps me up at night is get the adoption done, get the -- 3 years is a long time, no hiccups can ever happen. Think about the April 2017 customer. How many times do we have some delay that was caused by whatever happened. It was not that big in the consequential, but you know what, that is a problem. And you're in an industry where none of those things can happen. You want to get launched on time. And again, once you've had one, you don't just sit around like our competition, they've had 1 or 2 and they haven't really done much with it. Our intention would be stay aggressive on the business side and increase the velocity of adoption. If you created something that's the right price, does the right thing, has perception, how do you actually go, get more customers faster than anybody ever has. So those are the kind of things build the business that will essentially accelerate after that. Some of you here may say, you know what, it's time to spike the football after you've done with one. That is not a successful business actually. Because you already know what happens with the company that do that. There are other companies that went to public through the [ dSPAC ] So we're going to have to really build the business to say, how do you accelerate because what you want to do is you want to be 80%, 90% market share of the entire segment. I mean that's what Mobileye did. They accelerated everything. I mean, it's a great business. They're focused on it. Maniacally focused on building a very strong business globally and to accelerate adoption, not just the 1 or 2 or 3 or 4, whatever the first few happen, you want to say there are 60 OEMs out there. How do I get into every program as fast as possible. And then my long-term cost to customer acquisition goes down because when I enter an RFQ, I'm like really don't have to put so much effort in because it costs a lot of money to do an RFQ. There's a lot of talent here to put behind it and accelerate that. So those are the kind of things. Building a business is still something that we have to focus on and add as a muscle as a company.

I think we're going to go to the back next, and then we'll come to you.

My name is Ashwin. I spoke to Anubhav earlier over here, and he did a great job of explaining to me how the company decided to pursue the auto industry as the place of maximum revenue and return on investment for the dollar that you spend. And I fully understand that logic, and I see its reflection in the stock market as well. But in the next 2, 3 years, you're entering this matured phase where you will have a 7-figure dollar income coming in. And at that point, you now hopefully don't have to make a choice of having to spend just the singular dollar, but have an ability to choose where to reinvest that money coming in. So for the long-term investor, are you thinking of reinvesting it back into the lidar space? Or do you have any thoughts on derisking out of the auto industry or out of the auto -- or sorry, out of the lidar space and maybe into a direct-to-consumer or an AR vertical or basically, I'm asking for thoughts on where you're reinvesting.

That's a good question. It's a very fair question. I think I kind of started answering it with this one. What all of us as investors want is to actually take whatever money comes back in, invest it back into the business and get faster like companies that are very successful, what do they do? They enter a market, there's lots of people. They get their foot in and then they accelerate past everybody else, okay? And then they own 60%, 80% of the market share of that segment. And then you really get to scale and you get to dictate. So you have to manically focus till you get to that point, you set your prices, you set the features, you have your partnerships. Once you get to those points, and you have free cash flow coming from that business, then you can think about, well, you're suggesting is like hey, should we go back to AR, maybe like you guys can give me a hard time I know a lot about AR. I have a feeling for it. I'm just saying that at some point when it comes in, maybe that's the right time that happens because we have actually won this market, and now you have a reputation, but it will be premature to start going into the next shiny thing. If there was a big market, I will be the first 1 setting in front of you guys saying, hey, we have to raise more capital and we have to put a team together and focus on the market. But all the public market data tells you AR is not that big right now. It will be someday. Companies like Apple and Samsung are talking about it. But what if it takes a decade. How do you fund the company then, right? So we have something and when the money comes in, you're better off perfecting what you have, accelerate your path of acceptance within the industry you're in and just dominate the segment. If you build a best-in-class technology and you build a really strong business, you should win.

And Ashwin, if I can just add to that because I think at the end of the day, auto is the biggest price that the company has. But I think what differentiates us is bridging the gap between now and then. And that's why non-auto applications or the industrial applications, I think you all saw how the sensor is used for agricultural purposes -- that's what we're going after. The validation software that you saw as a demonstration, that's what gives us the high contribution margin revenue, which falls to the bottom line as profit again, something that we got strategically from the IBEO acquisition. In my mind, this is actually a very good strategy to derisk and bridge the gap between now and then while we are focused on the automotive. And I think that's what the stock market and the markets in general are expecting, right? Again, the -- to go after something what he described as AR, which is down the road, of course, when the company has enough capital and enough resources, we will deploy anything to fire on all cylinders to pursue growth because how do you get valuations higher? You build a business, which is high tech, high growth with cash flows. That's what Mobileye demonstrated. And I think this is sort of a line has been drawn in the sand. History repeats itself, right? At the end of the day, this was an example set by a company which was developing something which was not popular or commercially available at that time, and they scale the business and look what happened in 2015, 2016. I think that's sort of what sets a benchmark for any company which is aspiring to build a model, to build a business, which is going to be highly valuable. So that's sort of why we're focused on our resources, what we believe is going to generate revenue and potential, that's what we are focused on today.

Going back to the front here. Do you still have that follow-up? Sorry, we're coming here next.

Alex here again. Actually, I have some few short questions. Regarding IBEO, there was an announcement regarding SCALA1 order. Some question related to that was, it's been -- that's an old generation. So MicroVision is now getting money for that. But how about like SCALA2 and SCALA3, do we get any royalties on that? Second question.

Maybe do it one at a time. I think I'll have another answer, but we haven't talked about this on our earnings call yet. So as you remember, this event is about nothing public, anything new yet. So I think in the next earnings call, perhaps we'll talk about.

Okay. Will there be -- regarding the IBEO acquisition, I know when you acquire private companies. Sometimes they will actually file an 8-K with some historical financial information for IBEO. Are we going to be filing that anytime soon?

Absolutely, we will.

When do you think that will be?

That will be any time soon.

Okay. And third one would be...

That was a good answer.

The Sharp contract, I know that was extended. Now can you talk more about that? Was it for HUD? I know that Sharp is somewhere in the -- the thing about Sharp is they do a lot of things, but one thing they just invest -- made an investment in a laser beam scanning company start up in -- I think it was a $20 million investment with other people. I think, look, every one of us invested in MicroVision, or most of us anyway. Because of the AR business, and we know that it's not anytime soon, but we want to make sure that we are still going to be dominant decades into the future. And what we're seeing with Sharp investment is that, oh, maybe we're not going to be dominating.

How much was the investment in Sharp made?

I don't know how much it was, but the investment round was like $20 million.

What was our OpEx in the past? You can't even run the company for one year based on what they made investments is my point. But I'm not trying to be cheeky right? I think let's talk about the sharp investment. It was really for the -- when we did interactive display. The non-interactive is just the projection display for voice control, it was for that engine for that design, right, using our analog ASICs and the digital ASICs, new digital ASIC was developed for that, that was the past. That was the big one. We carved out some other parts in interactive display there. They could have gone into AR, but they did not -- they were not able to find any customers. There's Sharp with a big business development team global because it was many years of development required, right? I think that it was not just bird in hand. Yes, we have the technology in hand, but to develop that it was going to take a long time. So if somebody is making some incremental investment in different places. Look, just go back and look at what is that they make actually, right? Why would they make that investment, they make beautiful displays, big ones, right? But they have a small business that has lasers. Red lasers and they brought on blue and green lasers, of course, right? So they're trying to do compete with the micro LED space. And there -- certainly, you can do a much more beautiful AR display with a scanning system. We know this, right? We know a lot about it, right? But can I predict for you that long term, 10 years from now will be best-in-class for that. No, I can't predict that right now because nobody knows what the customer wants. So the benefit like some of what you picked up was in 2019, very early, we started understanding what the lidar partners are going to require now. This is like market intelligence you talk about, you can't buy this stuff. You really have to get engaged. Nobody knows and I'm not kidding. Nobody knows what AR people will adopt 10 years from now. Multi-trillion dollar company does not even know that right now. So they would not know what to tell anybody. So the market is all waiting. All these display companies, these micro display companies that are all waiting actually because those big companies have to figure out how am I going to market and monetize these devices with the consumer right now. It's not just software. It's about hardware, what people are going to wear, what the use case is going to be. And that's what it is, right? I mean that's a big part of it. Once that gap fills out, we'll be where we are right now, we're an OEM, when you go talk to them, they know what they want to build. They know how they're going to market it. They know what the price point has to be. They know what they can get asked to be. So no display company has that right now. So in that sense, I don't think we're falling behind. I mean that's an honest and fair answer is like I'm not like slicing it thin for you guys in any way possible, and they say, that's the reality of it.

Just one more regarding the HUD market and for automotive, MicroVision was looking into that 2005, 2006, whatever it may be and kind of fell off the earth. But now we're seeing a lot more vehicles coming with HUD system. Is that going to come back? What are the advantages to LBS compared to the other technologies that are out there? Is this something that has potential or not.

I don't believe it's going to come back. And the reason for that is intra-transistor displays got super cheap and they solve the high-temperature problem fast enough. And what they also figured out was people don't want color displays, what they want is they want the speed and arrows. They don't want Google maps up there, which is if you need Google map, then you come talk to us, right? But what people want is just like left arrow, arrow and speed, they wanted something very simple because it was too distracting for them. So it comes down to like human-machine interaction, but people want it. Those customers realize, hey, this is all that's needed for that display, a thin film, LCD display that is just industrialized for high temperature, is probably all they need. I don't know if you've ever driven a car with that. I recently invented one with it. And it's -- I'm not saying this to be like it's cute, but if it was not there, I would not miss it, right? Whereas if you think about safety, once you buy a car, you buy a car with airbag, 7 airbags, you bought it for safety. It's about the ADAS market, right? It is a necessity. The HD market, right, I mean, what the penetration would have been is unclear. But what is clear to us, even though if you've been an investor for a long time, just or not [indiscernible] 20-plus years, just go back and look at the OpEx that the company always had to sustain just to be relevant, right? I mean this is like operating losses you're talking about. Just look at it. So to create our technology, it is not something as like some 5 or 6 engineers can keep it alive. There's a group of critical mass needed to just keep it alive. Therefore, you have to find a market that is going grow into what it's going to take, how much OpEx is going to be needed to just address it, right? So I don't believe at this point the HD market has taken off that much the automobiles for that reason because not every car has it. There's no regulation for it. There's -- like in the expensive cars, they have it sometimes, and there's other technologies that are nowhere near as sophisticated and vivid as what MicroVision could provide, but people deem it as good enough for now.

Awesome. Yes, we're going to go to this gentleman with the sunglasses. But before you ask your question, we just need to adjust mic, one second.

Guess I can start with you. You talked about...

I'm sorry, your name first.

I'm sorry. My name is John Nelson. You talked about that gap to fill in between where we are now and the place where I believe we can be hugely successful we've made in a few years or long. So there's a gap. There's people who are betting very strongly against this company that are partially dictating the share price, which to Sumit's point, there's very little, if anything, you guys can do about. On the other hand, you're the only guys that can do anything about it in terms of the company building that you talked about and that filling the gap. So I was wondering if you could add any color in terms of that cap space. What exactly you can do to build that value quickly and...

I'll give the emotional answer and then he's going to give the practical answer. Okay. There is so much energy, so much passion that people have in life, you have to choose where to deploy it, right? Anything that has happened with those companies when CEOs go on CNBC and talk up a lot of, right? If you actually look at their stock, it did not make a difference because, unless you sustain that pace, and that's all you do, right? But then you're not working on the business. And the critique that came of that one CEO, I think you're referring to was exactly that. If you just worked on this company, bond better customers, increases margins, things will be much better long term. So that's I mean -- I'm giving that answer because I'm just telling you, like this is it. This is what I work on. This is how I think about it is, work on the tough problem. And the tough problem is not to get on and like yell and scream and flail my arms about how unfair life is. But how do you beat them? Beat them something they cannot do. They can't do what management can do. We can come up with objectives, we can build the business and long term, they're going to lose, right? That's it.

So let me give you how we are sort of killing the shorts if that's the word. I think a lot of the short activity is driven by algorithms, right? These are algo tradings that are constantly trading, feeding on the data that, yes, the company, was this EPS, and it's just a fictitious circle that people create, and that's what they are doing. How to beat that? I think the way to beat that is it's a consistent and sustained process of beating your estimates. That's what all traditional public companies have been built on. That's what the history they had. And I think we started that financially in 2022. We had said that this would be our cash burn. We actually came in much lower than that. Not a lot of be picked up on that. Why? Because this is why in all my meetings with the institutional investors, who have been in some of the other companies, they're like, hey, all other companies are actually over burning cash, not even meeting revenue and estimates. And I think here's this new company, well, not a new company, but a company which actually says what it delivers. So delivers what it says. And I think that's what we want to set a precedent on because we -- if we do that consistently, this is what will kill the algos because, yes, every time I want to be known as a biggest sandbagger, right? Because that's how you kill the shorts. And that's how all public companies, great public companies were built on, consistently executing what you said and delivering on your promises. That's how you build credibility. That's why I keep going back. That's how you -- yes, it requires patience, but that's how you build the business brick by brick and not wait for the spikes in stock prices. So that's why, yes, as much as I get fazed by some of the stock price movement, but I understand that, yes, this needs time and patience because that's how you win. Every day, work at it consistently and build it brick by brick.

I appreciate your answer. One quick followup question for Sumit. I'm just retired a long time, real-time software engineer, working with safety-critical systems. And thinking about your shift to -- from FPGA to ASIC. Are there ways and lines of delineation where you could develop ASICs that might satisfy the requirements for multiple OEMs within a single ASIC. In other words, having the flexibility and features that could be turned on and off that would allow that investment to be [ reaped ] more than once.

This is a really good question. Of all the questions, this is probably means a lot to all of you guys. Let me just tell you why. So the team has created -- when we say the word best in class, that is just a bubble gummy word because you can't describe all the things, Chris, and all the teams have created already. Once we get this digital ASIC, the features that are inside there are beyond what we have in RFQs today. So for a long period of time, these ASICs will survive because there will be features that we will roll them out as customers are open to it, but they will be in the silicon. This is important because ASIC programs are expensive, as you know. Once you get this done, you want to milk this for a long period of time. You'll do another ASIC. We'll definitely do other ASICs. People think about another feature that we can monetize more, but this first one has to last many, many, many years. So therefore, if you think about your overall burn rate long term, you can think about it once you start winning, you got more than anybody needs. You can -- cost, customer attrition goes down because -- relatively speaking, because it still costs whatever it costs to take a project on where you don't have to invent new things every time. You don't have to develop a new ASIC and a new every time. The MEMS, the ASIC, most of them survive for multiple generations. You're hearing about our competitors that are redesigning their product because they missed something. You've not actually heard us say that I do that actually is because these guys have already done an incredible job of designing things above and beyond. We don't talk about resolution and dynamic view lidar as much. Why? It's our secret sauce. There's quite a lot that we have in there that we don't want to talk about. We collected this information from OEMs. This is kind of IP. And these guys have developed features. When it needs to be public, we'll make it public. So we -- I think [ Ty ] gets upset with me because I don't talk too much about it. Why? It is not in our best interest, but it is in the ASIC. That's a really a good question.

David Norvard. This is more like a wishful long-term investor. I heard Mobileye twice tonight, I mean today. And I listened to their CEO. He has a great vision for future. And I was just wondering, like I was wishing that MicroVision could complement with Mobileye in the future. And if you could -- if you have any comment on that would be appreciated, but I really see the synergy between these two companies. They are a great company with a great vision in the future, and what MicroVision could offer them if these two companies come together?

I think I'm not going to comment on like -- look, I think your question is pretty broad, so let me just narrow down a little bit, if you don't mind. I think -- think about our company. So if you think about the bigger problem to solve, ultimately, today, the OEMs, when they buy lidar systems, they are doing fusion. They're taking somebody's camera module. They're taking somebody's radar. They're taking somebody's lidar, and they're going to create this service. So today, we're in the space of lidar. Our next step, as I said to a few folks back there, is sensor fusion, where we're going to take radar, which are commoditized, take the data and fuse that. And so long term, we're again easing the burden for the OEM, which is our true customer at the end of the day, right? Would there be an opportunity for them to think about the camera module base system they're acquiring versus the fuse version they acquired from us or the latter they acquired from us to streamline that further? Absolutely. Do they enable partnerships like that? Absolutely, right? So I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that once we have adoption, you go off and you work with partners. This is actually a very important point for a business model standpoint because if you think about our competitors, they talk a lot as if they're going to reinvent the world, and they don't need to work with anybody and they're going to deliver autonomous driving. We've never said autonomous driving. I've never said it. I've always corrected people. We're going to do ADAS, and now you notice all our competitors are adjusting their tone to ADAS. It's because you can't forget the OEM in the middle. They don't want to give control to anybody. They want to be the ones to say, I'll pick this lidar, this radar and this camera module, and then I'll decide how that gets integrated. That's their value-added. So yes, we're open to working with anybody. We have great technology. They're just starting their lidar path, FMCW, their CTO has talked about it. I think MicroVision is way, way ahead, and I'm not trying to be arrogant about it. I'm just being -- I'm as humble as possible I can be that we are way ahead of what I've seen from anybody so far. They may have the brand name, and we don't have that yet, but that's what we're trying to build brick by brick.

Brian Atchison. I like your [indiscernible] that's good. I wanted to say, first of all, I think your team that you built is excellent. And I think you have zeroed in on the weaknesses of MicroVision in the past. With IP protection and contracts, particularly with finance. And I know your passion with lidar since you got here. That said, a couple of quick questions. Do you see any inflection point at December of this year?

Do I see an inflection point? I think you know what our public comments are on what we expect in 2023. I think we're just focused on that. And I think I've said the words epic, and I really meant that. I mean it took me a long time to write that of like what -- how do I describe what the future looks like. In context of what the company has been through over even 30 years, not just my tenure. I think the things that Anubhav has said about brick by brick, like think about your business goals, we have technical goals, we have other achievements that we're talking about, if all those things happen, which is what were focused on, it would be epic. So I think 2023 has been pretty well laid out, and we're going to hold ourselves responsible with that.

I just meant with the closing of 2023 and then...

I know what you mean.

Okay. Good. I'll leave it at that.

I think -- I'm not being cheeky here. I think we still have to be careful how we saw it publicly, right? I think money we raised from you, we need to develop technology and partnerships, not get sued by some short seller that wants to like do some mischief, right? I think you know what we're focused on. I think you can see that we are very committed to it. What you're seeing and experiencing is real. And that's what you can count on that we're committed to what we have said.

Okay. Last question, are there any Easter Eggs today that we should be aware of?

Do we get the ham and cheese?

Okay, you're paying attention.

I'm just joking.

Thank you very much.

I don't think this gentleman's had a chance to ask a question yet.

My name is Matt Pence. Speaking about working with partners, I've noticed a few times now on the [ Jeep ]. I've seen continental radars. Is there any meaning to that?

No, it's incidental. So for us, when we were thinking about sensor fusion, what you need is a radar that has a certain kind of output. We need raw data. Our engineers needed to develop. I think it's a development kit that had what they needed. NXP could have one, TI could have one. It could have been any radar whenever they gave a development kit and it gives them the data stream that they need. So I would not read anything into that. But the thing to think about is we don't want it to be any specific radar. We want to create something in the future for sensor fusion because all those companies provide radar for the automotive industry, about 147 million radars were sold last year. So you want to create something that is more universal. So the brand names you see there are incidental. The only thing that matters there is our lidar, including the vehicle it's on is also incidental, as I mentioned.

Sumit, it's Jeff again. Regarding the vote...

All right. Go ahead, Jeff. Please go ahead, Jeff.

Yes. Regarding the vote, the 100 million figure. Why 100?

Yes. So I think, look, from our standpoint, we believe these are the tools that this company needs to take this company to the next level and also compete with our peers. And I think what we -- probably what you can see is from the past when we had for 60 until -- even until this date, we have only used, I think, 24 million, 25 million. So one thing that I think what we have demonstrated and I think it's resonating really well with investors, not just retail, but even institutional investors, how disciplined the company has been. Even with this acquisition of 250 more people, our cash burn still remains one of the lowest in the industry. I think that what tells you that why the management has been very disciplined about using the resources that the company has been given. Now coming back to a question, why 100? Because when I was doing a benchmarking of our peers, what is the firepower or the dry powder the company has in order to pursue deals, in order to pursue accelerate revenue growth and customer adoption, I feel this was the number which will put us right in line with what our peers have left on the tank in terms of going forward because keep in mind, the whole idea of building this business is you want to show to the customer that you have this capacity that you can go and expand into and tap into these resources to build a business. That's how we got to this number because it's almost the same as in hindsight, 3 years ago, could we have asked for only 25 million shares, right? But then that gave us the buffer or the one way, right? This is the same logic as this share capital is essentially the toolkit that the company needs at this point to take us to the next level. So hopefully, that puts things in perspective as to why we want to be on a very strong footing when we go against our peers because, again, keep in mind, our peers are well capitalized because of the whole IPO hike. Since we did not go through that, we just want to have the right tools to go against them.

And also, if you think about it, it's not -- we're not using it, the 24 million that we've expected so far to just keep the lights on anymore. That's where the business has changed. Now what we're doing is we're using to fuel growth. If you think about partnership, enabling partnerships and going forward, how do the share price goes up, how do you beat the shorts, you generate growth at the least amount of OpEx, building a good business. So if you think about it in those terms, everything should just be resonating with folks that -- a lot of thought went into it. If you want to be in the middle of everything, you want to look at your competition, you want to look at the market. But yes, our focus is on growth.

Here in the second row.

This is Tapos Kole, from Atlanta, Georgia. I am an investor since 1998. I met you [Indiscernible] I met you. I have a question, one thing that most of the OEMs are embracing lidar. That's a great thing. But the elephant in the room is Elon Musk. He still doesn't believe in lidar. He is going for [indiscernible]. So my question is that, is anything that lidar organization doing with safety or regulatory that make sure that lidar is a regulatory safety tool? And how about that [ drive-by-wire ], we're doing it just like [indiscernible] the gap Tesla has, it's not there in lidar.

Okay. So 2 questions. So let me answer it first, right? Okay. That individual is a genius, right, is a very, very successful industrialist, has accomplished a lot in life, right? That's all right. But nobody on this planet can break physics. Do you understand that? Nobody. Does not matter how smart you are. Okay. So anybody with a software background will tell you what data is needed to actually keep data safe. So ultimately, physics and Mark will decide what's right and what's wrong. The only L3 qualified car is Mercedes with a Valeo sensor that the SCALA team was developed by Ibeo long term ago. That's the only lidar ever shipped, and that's the only car that's actually delivered L3 feature, where the OEM takes responsibility for the any kind of crash that would happen with that. That's the only car delivered. That is so big, you can't even imagine when they actually have announced that, okay, well ahead of regulation. So that's all that actually matters. So that's the first part of the your question, right? Second part is, if I can do the same demo with a car that costs $40,000, why would I spend $100,000, right? So let's not get hung up on those things. That's not how marketing works, right? Build a great product. We're going after OEMs that have big RFQs. There's companies out there that have 10 million vehicles that they make annually, right? A company makes that 0.5 million vehicles, we need to go after the OEMs that have the biggest gravity in this industry. That's how you win, right? So our focus is going to be, if the OEM we're going to that has more volume and we have to use their car for a demo, that's what we're going to do, right? That's where you want to invest your money, right? So it's not like that's more -- I mean, I apologize, I'm not missing in to you, that's vanity, right? If you want to be humble, if you want to be successful, focus on what's important, right, and put the vanity aside. You're not going to convince people by buying their car and putting inside. You can convince people by showing how your technology is actually going to solve their problem faster and cheaper than anything else. That's it.

Thank you. So I look for Mercedes as OEM.

They're all going to be there. We -- I mean these are -- when we bought Ibeo. There's all these cars that we have. Again, that was another thing is there an Easter egg. No. Those are cars that Ibeo already had. So we put it on the one that was available. There's nothing magic about this stuff. There's a bunch of car in the fleet now in the 2 countries. And we have 2 Jeeps and we have a bunch of other cars. And we -- I think there are several cars, like 12 cars that Ibeo had. And there are different cars. You'll see different cars. It means nothing. It just means the fleet that has been invested in and those are the assets that transfer over, and we're not buying new vehicles. So that's -- we're not spending money on that stuff. We're spending it on engineers. That's what's needed to grow the company.

[ Ty Bordner ]. Long-time investor [indiscernible]. Good to see you guys. Thank you for doing this. I really appreciate it. And I think the whole MicroVision team because everything is going great today. So there's always a lot of work behind the scenes when things go smoothly. So as an investor, I think we all probably, to some degree, look at the product, especially in an emerging market, right? What's going to happen? There could be new technology that come along, et cetera. I think there's been some mud-slinging that's going on more and more recently, right? And I think the competition has had a few things that they sort of try to highlight with MicroVision's MAVIN, specifically. And I'll just rattle off a few of them if you could address them. So one is the FOV range is too small, 20 degrees. So I say, the OEMs require, depending on what the number, is 100 degrees or something, but they say it won't work...

Hold on. Let's go step by step because let's not mash it up, okay. That's 20 degrees at far field, 100 degrees in near field. So a company that has no dynamic view lidar can make that. So they don't know what they're talking about, right? Do I get on a press release and talk about that? Why would I give credibility to somebody that's fighting their way to get to where we are already. I have gone on the record to say, every RFQ requires dynamic view lidar, not a single one that is out there that has that. So you deduce whatever you want to -- there's no Easter egg in that one. You deduce whatever you want to deduce is from that comment, right? So anybody that says that, 20 degrees at 200 meters out. That's like a 6-lane highway, 8-lane highway, right? You don't want to fire lasers off, like 500 meters on the either side of it, right? But the dynamic view lidar is something that we do that, they're still working on and it's going to take them years to get there, and we have real patents on it. So I -- that one is just -- like I just rolled my eyes on that one is because that's just a way to confusion, getting on stock with or sometimes some of the other subreddits, right? People have this tendency of trying to confuse the matter, right? The matter is pretty simple. I mean, that's why I wanted to the drive for you guys that the OEMs get. You could be technical, you could be nontechnical, but humans have a reaction when they get in the car. They're like, oh, I get it. Like some of you that get inside, you may have said, well, I get it now. You don't know exactly what you saw. I can tell you what you saw, but you kind of get it, right? Your intuition tells you like I see what the -- I can see exactly like I would see with my eyes and it's actually better and further out, right? So that's why I don't really comment on that is because it's sort of like we're above that. Not in an arrogant way, above as in like, I know that they're working towards this, and that's not what they are. That's a fact. Because you guys have been to their booth at CES, you've seen their demos. If you take -- show a very high resolution, like 40 million points per second that we have, if somebody is actually collecting video in super resolution at 10-hertz and only shows you near-field in Paris and then speeds up the video to 30-hertz to say I have a 30-hertz system. They don't say they have 30-hertz system. They say the video is 30 hertz. So what do I do? Like do I spend all my time to like every press release to talk about how this person doing that? We don't have to do that. They have to catch up to us. So let them waste their time.

Okay. Just a follow-up to that, 20 degree -- so you said it earlier, right, that the point -- the concentration of points at that range is more important than the spread out points at 100...

No, no. It's more than that. It is that lasers heat up, the reliability of the entire lidar industry is going to be dependent upon how you manage lasers. We have significant amount of experience managing lasers. This is a really big thing. It's not just the MEMS, it's not just the other digital part, it's how to manage the laser. The laser module is where analog ASIC goes. It's a very, very important piece, okay? Why would you fire off lasers 0.5 kilometer off the road? You don't want to do that. You want to concentrate it on the road where you're driving. We have that feature. So the dynamic lidar is more important and more valuable than you can imagine.

A follow up on that. So the one thing that I don't fully understand, and maybe it's not all solved yet, I don't know, but when the car is driving down the road and the lidar is pointing 200 meters, 250 meters, and there's a curve in the road, doesn't the lidar need to look down the curve?

No. So when you think about the 20-degree field of view, it's beyond what the -- so you can go online and you can look at how highways are built. So a 3-lane highway that supports a certain velocities can only have a certain curve, all right? So the 20-degree field of view was not just made up. It actually incorporates enough margins. So you can see around the bend. But it's 250 meters out, you have so many seconds to achieve that. So therefore, as you're going to be turning, you have more than enough margin to see what's around the curve. You're not making these sharp turns, right, on the highways. And you think about highways, right? They make turns, but whenever they have sharp turn, they slow down the velocity because it's based on speed. Highways are designed based on a certain maximum speed they can support. So when you go to Germany, when I drive in Germany, you go on the Autobahn, the sections that are like unlimited. They're just like a straight shot. If you have good alignment, you don't even have to use it. But any time there's cars coming, they slow you down. So this is not just us, universally, all over the world, every highway is built this way.

Okay. Another argument. Again, these aren't my arguments. These are competitors arguments, is...

Don't make their arguments for them...

Well, no. To give you an opportunity to respond to this, [indiscernible]. So the MAVIN doesn't deal with black or low reflectivity very well, right?

Okay. That's a statement that somebody is making, but there's no basis for that. Any OEM that's going to evaluate this, they have their targets, 10% reflectance, 5% reflectance, tires, the shape, right? It's going to go through that qualification. That's why the [ FKA ] question is important. Instead of all this hyperbole that other people create about technology, somebody is going to standardize how things are going to get measured. And we're going to have the same exact thing. Our system team is going to work on that. Our optics team is going to work on that. And they're going to provide what's needed, but that statement has no basis in physics. So people can have opinions, but physics is still physics.

And the last one on this sort of area is, and this is a weird one, I think. But you have the dynamic view lidar, and you explained how important that is, the short to medium and long term, and that it's not -- they aren't running at 30 hertz, there are only 10 hertz each.

That is true. That is true. 30-hertz of the system. So if I was to put all 30-hertz in single field of view, then near-field view be like what, Chris, 24 million points or some crazy number like that, right? It just knocks you out, mid and far, but that's the speed of light and how many pulses we can have in flight, okay? So when RFQs happen that have only 2 fields of view, then we'll have 15 and 15. But the overall system is 30, right? So when you think about other people's system, they're not at 30 hertz. So when they have this dynamic view, they could be slower than 10-hertz in each one of those, but we're going to be significantly much higher density. But another way to think about it is, once, let's say, you have data collection happening and somebody, let's say, driving over there and that cluster is identified, then you're tracking them frame to frame, right? So therefore, you can scan, come back, scan, come back and you have to know where they're going to be and predicting and you have to just scan and get back to that point faster. When you have a 30-hertz system, you're able to cycle through that faster. So yes, again, it's people that are slightly informed, but they really haven't really thought about the problem. They don't ask a really important questions. So I appreciate you asking the question. But it is something that you don't have -- like you sat in the car, if you have taken the ride, can you tell the difference, that's a dynamic view lidar that you saw there? Did you see any gaps? It was continuous, wasn't it? And when the car was shifting, the cars shift and the view was happening at the same time. So really, there's no holes, right? So this is just hyperbole.

Okay. One more. MicroVision's [ 0.5 ] is blurry.

Yes? I don't think so. I mean I don't drink by the way, guys. So I see everything sharp. So maybe you see blurry, but I don't see anything blurry in there. I think like think about you processing the point out really fast, the important thing is you can put a bunch of filtering in to reduce the -- you know, make it look at any certain way. But that's a human way to think about it because your eyes is -- but a computer doesn't look at it that way. It needs data as fast as possible. It will most likely take a little bit more noise because if they can get the data faster, they want to control the car. So again, can we make it like perfectly beautiful like that? Yes. You'll see demos that we're going to do that by some time, right? But that's again demo. But I can assure you that when you think about our customers, sometimes they may care about latency, we can go faster, right? So it's not -- again, there's no limitation in the technology. There's no limitation in the physics. It is amount of time we want to spend, but what we have is gives a massive amount of data point cloud, low resolution, very, very fast. I mean it's a massive pipe of data coming out. That's actually important for somebody to write their perception software.

Okay, good. And another question, change in gears here a little bit. What are the -- how are the OEMs reacted to Ibeo acquisition?

Very positively. I think -- so we've been showing MicroVision, showcasing them to a long time. They love the technology, but it's like anything else, you feel more comfortable because the Ibeo team has a lot of experience developing lidar. I mean they're the only ones that have actually developed one and launched one. Nobody else has done that actually, right? So the combination of the 2 teams, it was clear that they're very, very innovative. We're very innovative, the 2 companies combined. As I mentioned in the last earnings call, the RFQ, RFI cycle has completely changed because now we get our few RFI cycles for both flash-based and MEMS. It's the only lidar company that can provide all their lidar needs. So it's a one-stop shop for the first time. No other company has multiple technology nodes. Then we also have perception that we can offer as a part of it. Other companies do different things, but mature perception is what Ibeo had created. So Ibeo team is incredibly productive, work very, very hard. I love these guys. They're really, really good. And all the investors should be very, very excited about the Ibeo team in Hamburg. You guys really should be. They're great. They really are great. But these things have been created, but it's the first time for an OEM all those things are in one place with a silicon strategy and a business strategy that kind of makes sense to them that this company will be around for 10 years because we're building it in a more conservative way, which is what they like. These are very old, very conservative companies. They like high tech, but they don't want the risk of coming up and down. So we have to build a stability around the things that we talked to them. So I think I would say since we've announced the agreement, right, it has accelerated things even just last week, something very, very big came across, which was pretty much clear to us that it was because of the Ibeo-MicroVision combination, our balance sheet, their technology, MAVIN, perception, everything all in one. So it's -- yes, so it's been very, very good.

John McClane. I want to thank you guys for this Investor Day. It's been great so far. I just have a question, actually answered. But I go back to Anubhav's comment on how the shorts and their behavior is based on an algorithm. And I wanted to maybe dig on that just a little bit, especially as we're all looking at the lidar sector, not just MicroVision, but a lot of the companies have just been beaten down pretty heavily with super high short volumes. And I guess I think of it maybe as a game of chess and kind of wondering if -- and by the way, I also want to make one more comment, which is I'm super glad that you guys don't worry about that much and just focus on the execution because you can't really do anything about it. But I'm interested to know if you have people that look or try to understand the ultimate strategy of these hedge funds? Are they trying to sort of narrow the field by running some competitors out of business because they want consolidation? Are they looking at companies that have low cash? So they're trying to get their share price so low that when they do have 100 million shares that come on board, they won't get very much money for them. I'm wondering if MicroVision and not yourselves has the investment banks or the support that tries to think about what these hedge funds are trying to do, so you can think about how MicroVision can have strategy to bridge that gap that we're talking about between now, which is the RFQ year, and 2026, when that revenue starts coming in. Is there thoughts about that or do you have somebody else who is trying to get into the minds of these hedge funds?

Yes, this is my real house. So I think -- so you're right. What has happened is the [ facts ] opened up this window, this huge window for these shorts to actually prey upon companies, they actually walked right into the trap. Promising lofty projections, they knew that they were going to miss it. And I think that's what you're saying. So you're right. We have seen lidar companies falling off the map. So I think you know who I'm talking about. And I think this will happen even in the next 6 to 12 months. Why? Because there are companies like that, that are valued 50% of their cash. That tells you, that's a very telltale sign because that tells you these shorts are betting that these companies really don't have any future, and that's why they are valuing them below the market value of their cash. And I think what this will entail is two things, like how do you sort of -- again, I think I've said this as well, when you are rational and you behave in a traditional public way, a public company way, that's the only way to counter this, right? That's the only way you counter shorts because they know we're going to deliver what we have promised and not the other way around. So obviously, that's how you kill the shorts. And I think what you'll see in the next 6 or 12 months, a bunch of these companies will go off the map because of the same reason because the shorts know that, hey, there's a problem here. The second thing -- the second way to address it is, yes, since the price is still a couple of years out, I keep saying that's how you bridge the gap. The way you bridge the gap is bringing in revenue from the non-auto sector and the high contribution margin validation software because that's what is ultimately differentiating us from the rest of the peers because this is what they don't have. Because I think as Sumit described, we have become this one-stop lidar shop by offering MAVIN, MOVIA and MOSAIK, which is a 3-legged stool, in my mind, which actually derisks the business. And hence, that's the way to answer these shorts. There is no magical wand that I can wave and kill all the shorts tomorrow. But I keep saying that, that's how you do it. Every quarter, we come out with something and beat it. And that's how you say, okay, these guys are going to do. That's how the algorithms will be. That's how you fool the algorithm, right? That's how you break the algos. And I think that's sort of how I feel the industry will transform the lidar industry, in particular, the wheat shall be separated from the chaff.

Adam, you had a question. Can you speak in the mic for the recording, please?

So we're kind of in this mode where anyone can say anything, and it's very confusing. So at some point, in the near term, you're going to have some RFQ wins, we would assume, epic wins, your word. How are we -- how are you positioning the company for growth at that point because we'll be in a different space, we'll be in a different place at that point. So we'll have a win. That win will come with a story. A story from some OEMs, who have seen something in your technology that they didn't see elsewhere. A lot of those things you're keeping close to the best, which is a very difficult position to be in. So at some point, as these wins come in, you're going to be in a very different position. Hopefully, want to talk about what OEMs have seen to crow a little bit about your competitive advantage and take this authorization and move it into areas that spur growth. So I'm just kind of wondering what your perspective is on, at what pivot point in the near term, do we start to focus on growth? And what does that mean? And how does that change your approach and what you say and what you do?

I'll tell you exactly how I'm going to behave and I'm going to have the company behave at that point. This has to be clear to all of us, actually. Nothing really changes. What you have to do is if you accelerate from that, you do not sit back and pop over the champagne and say, hey, look, what we got, you don't crow about it. Get on with the work, which is what there's 60 OEMs out there, how much penetration you can get, how fast. So when you have that -- when you have that validation behind you, you need to accelerate because other people have to realize, but why did this some -- if let's say, was somebody big and powerful or somebody that's really respected as an OEM, different tiers of OEM as well? How much penetration do you get from that news? So sitting around, we didn't have to go through a [ de-SPAC ]. A lot of those guys have to do those kind of deals, you just go through the [ de-SPACing ] process, right? And since then, not a whole lot has happened, right? They're still working on their product, their technology. There's a lot of marketing, but there's nothing of substance. So yes, the stuff goes up, stuff comes down. So if you are a long time investor, you would write it out because the big price comes in when you own 80% of the market, and you did not spend billions and billions and billions of dollars that they may have to raise to get to that point. You know what I mean -- that's a difference, right? So yes, if that day comes in, you're not going to see the company like just go back and start spending $10 million, $20 million of marketing in CES. That's the waste. I think you saw like we're still humble about how much we spend at CES and in Munich. We're going to just accelerate and focus our resources and our passion towards the next win because you need to get to a certain critical mass of those people, those OEM deals and grow the engineering team beyond what we have right now to meet their needs. And now you know you're going to be around for a long period of time, you brought stability to this business and to those OEMs. That's what's going to happen. And -- so yes, we're not going to spend too much on marketing. No, no, we're going to spend money in market. I'm joking, but the point is, I don't want people -- like somebody had actually send me an e-mail on LinkedIn a while back saying, why don't you spend like $10 million, $15 million in marketing. Would that accelerate? I mean like $10 million, $15 million. I mean, I think some of you guys were like, we have a guillotine out there, you probably kill me if I did that.

Well, it was less a marketing question than it was about you're having to sit on a lot of things that you feel are you don't want to give away to your competitors. But once you're in the market, once you have some RFQ wins, those things are...

No, you talk about that. Of course, you talk about like if there is a certain configuration that want it, like it is a certain configuration of dynamic view lidar want it. Yes, you talk about that, right? But the other things that are in there that could be done that nobody has, we will not talk about, because if there's a win specifically, then there'll be a data sheet. Like there's a data sheet for the product there because they want to see sample. It's a static view, a static number of pixels, easy to round data sheet. We can do a lot things with dynamic view. I would like to write a ton of different data sheets, but I'm telling everybody else what my technology can do, which is what they want to know. Now if you think about why am I so excited about the validation software? Well, Anubhav and I have talked about this. Why we're so excited? Yes, it brings margin. Yes, it brings revenue to the company, very, very important. Try to break the algo that way. Great. But the real thing is we know about what future perception needs those OEMs have. We will know well in advance of anybody else of what to build and what not to build, right. Think about that market intelligence, that by itself is worth the deal, right. You will never be surprised. Like if you think about it, if you can be at a company that will not be surprised by the OEM that is a slow-moving industry, what they're going to want, what their demands will be in the future, and you know that years in advance of your competition, that is unbelievable, right? That's a great value.

Well, that's one of the most valuable things I think I've come away with this morning is really understanding that in a way I hadn't understood before.

2019, we got that from MAVIN with the new acquisition, with the perception development, the validation software development. We're going to just know what we have to do years in advance. So we're not going to be talking about a redesign because if you keep the evaluating everything, it looks like, man, we are way ahead of there. So then we can focus our resources to other things to grow the business. You know what I mean? That's an advantage that we have that nobody else has. So I don't have to do a 360-degree lidar or some -- something like that, to get investors excited. I'm saying, like, wait a minute, I got something that what I've invested, we're going to keep winning and let me show you how we're going to win.

Yes. That's important. And to me, that's been a disconnect for me. I don't think investors have seen that really clearly, because there's only so much you can say. You don't want to give it away and get that part. But I think I understand where you're coming from now a little better and way ahead before, but...

Yes. So if I could just add, it's always easier to scale up, right? See, that's the advantage of being having one of the lowest cash burn in the industry. We don't have to scale down because, again, people are spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year in OpEx. We're way below that. And I think the way -- because I think your question is when these wins happen because when it rains, it pours. And I think your question was, if I understood correctly, how can you scale the business at that time. And that's sort of -- I think if you look at this, Ibeo acquisition was a perfect example. We went from 100 to 350 for paying a value, which was way more than what we got from the Ibeo engineers and the talent pool. And I think that's one of the ways as well, like, when there would be times, when you have multiple wins, that's how you scale the business because, again, you're already one of the lowest in the industry. And I think what the OEMs needed is your ability. And I think this goes back to the question of why 100 million, why not 200 million, why not a different number. This is what -- it's the elasticity that the company are evaluating how quickly, how fast can you go from where you are today? And I think that's why we are positioning the company, so that it can move up and down as and when needed.

Do they see your fabulous approach as a benefit as opposed to someone taking capital to go build a factory or a multiple factory scenario? I mean...

Yes. I think like I've been in several meetings where they definitely complement that they strategy kind of makes sense because why would you actually build your own fab. We're willing to work with the traditional Tier 1 or [ OCM ]. We're not saying things that -- incongruent things for them. Like the overall thing we're proposing has lower risk because it's a model that they know, right. Like silicon companies do a better -- really good job processing wafers. My guys do a really good job of actually developing the technology, right? And they work with the fab. We're going to work with manufacturing partners. We're going to work with automation companies. But guess what? Those are not -- those are things we show people how to make the device, but somebody else can manufacture it. So in that sense, we definitely get a lot of complement, not a lot. But like we definitely get acknowledged as and I think that's really good. That really makes sense. And it shows the credibility that we're thinking in line with the way they would want to see the business for a decade. Just don't forget that. We'll have this win. There will be a moment all of you guys will celebrate, we'll celebrate a little bit, but it's not over. But then comes a hard work of being a sustainable company. Now if you think about some of the -- everybody talks about, hey, why doesn't somebody acquire vertical. If you build a strong business, it looks like it's going to be for a long time. That's the value of the company. Then you are valuable. Significantly more than what your revenues would be. You'll have huge multiples, right? You can talk about valuation like you did spotlight last year. You can think about it, right? That's what you have to build out.

Which makes the most sense to me. I haven't looked at strategic alternatives in a while knowing -- understanding what you're trying to accomplish -- and it looks like you're on the purge of it so...

Yes. No, I think I mentioned this in my last thought article on this as well because sinking in capital to become a Tier 1 is an extremely difficult task. It require hundreds of millions of dollars, and it will require qualification from OEMs, which they have been doing forever. So I think that's sort of why we wanted to make sure that when companies are marketing, they are -- we understand as an investor audience, what is the exact difference between being a Tier 1 or partnering with a Tier 1 or being -- or having a manufacturing partner because this triangular relationship is extremely critical because I think at the end of the day, developing or building a facility from scratch will require huge amounts of capital and huge amounts of experience and talent to get to the level of automotive grade qualifications by the OEMs. And I think that's what Sumit's mentioning the acknowledgment of that strategy makes sense because that will sort of make the management not focus on the product, but rather get into the production and the manufacturing business, which has a completely different dynamic than the business that we have. And sorry, I keep going back to Mobileye, I think this is sort of what they demonstrated. Again, it's a comp that has been established in the industry. They have shown that that's how this model works. And I think that sort of is a very good example of how businesses are built when they are really built thoughtfully.

Because there's a cost benefit to using stuff that you can attain very easily, like camera's Mobileye uses or in the lasers, are all the simple things you use. If you had to build a factory, you wouldn't be at $500 a unit, you'd probably at $1,000 a unit.

And your delusion will be significantly higher. So if you went public through a leaseback, you raised a bunch of capital, but it's already been promised for things and then how do you tell an OEM that wants a conservative company that's going to deliver what they say, and you're not able to raise capital on these crazy things. So being very meticulous about how much you spend, what we spend on, show the discipline of a typical company, right. It is actually very important to this equation.

Yes, I think you can see that happening now within other companies in the sector, and you're starting to see evaluations happen based on the actual cost building the unit, which is a first. That hasn't really happened until the past couple of months.

So -- so anybody is saying that it's going to be $1,000 OEMs willing to pay, I can tell you, I mean, without a shadow in a second, that is absolutely not true. They're trying to achieve $1,000, that's not true. And I think one of the analysts, I think I read a report, I think it's somewhere, I forget where it was. And they were saying, that even this analyst was saying for that company, like that is not going to happen. This is an industry that every dollar they spend, they know what the multiple is by the time they deliver to a customer, that is not going to happen. It's been well established what this latter target has. Absolutely, and the one box solution is very, very important.

I get it.

Did everybody got lunch. I think I know some of you haven't moved. We can take a 5-minute pause. We'll stay here, but just please get some lunch. Just want to make sure you guys have enough energy. We have still 1.5 hours to go. So we're not running off anywhere.

We don't want people fainting.

Just -- Sumit, my perception of what you've done over the last few years has been highly incredible, and I think you've predicted somethings in the industry that you talked about a year or 2 before and then they have it, right? I'd like to ask you about your thoughts around this concept that you're doing, which is that one-box, but the perception in the thing. I don't think I've read any other competitors that are going down that path. So I guess I'll ask you, do you think that they will have to accomplish that.

I mean, first of all, I'd like to say like I'm very fortunate that I have a really great team. So a lot of the things that I shared with you is because they've created it. So in that sense, I'm like more of a spokesman. I drive the product a little bit, but I want to just acknowledge the team that works incredibly hard to get us here. Now when you talk about perception, this is what I believe, all right? Ultimately, a lot of OEMs believe right now that if they own all the software, that's the right thing. That's how they can beat Tesla that makes less cars and has a higher valuation. I mean Tesla makes less cars and value more than VW. Think that for a second. That's a uniqueness only in America. All right. So they want to own the software. But let's take a step back and say, how would you solve this problem if that was not an issue. Like what product makes the most sense, okay. Typically, if you need a lot of machine learning algorithms, you need more computing. If you are smart enough and you've created algorithm, some of those algorithms that can actually go inside an ASIC running on a smaller level of compute, like our engineers have, and deliver the same level of KPIs or really high golden standard level of KPIs, it will be a cheaper product, we'll provide the safety and we qualify it and it's in silicon. So you don't have to worry about the software. So ultimately, it does not matter how much they resist us. We have the key ingredients that final product will be very well -- true one-box solution will happen. So right now, somebody may say to me, just give us the point cloud. We have a massive team that we've had for 10 years. We do not intend to use your perception, okay? But then the next thing they say, bring your perception engineer, we'd love to talk to them, because they know the Ibeo team, they're really intelligent. They're really incredibly talented. They created something of value. Purity of thought, they did a really great job. So ultimately, that product has value. So it may not be in this first digital ASIC it happens, but it will happen, and they will demand it. There will be no choice, right? So if you build a business over several years, you're going to have many bites at the apple for. They want this right now, fine, you can have that. But eventually, the real value will come when you put the true one-box solution perception inside, either in MAVIN or in MOVIA, it will happen. And you will see it that, that product adoption will be incredibly fast.

And I'm just -- I mean, it sort of portends that you would think that the competition would need to ultimately go down that road, not that it's that easy to do, not that you can flip a switch and make it happen, but...

But the mistake -- I mean who am I to talk about somebody else's mistake, but I can say that from a strategy standpoint, what I -- if I just go by what public comments people make, they're not acting like good engineers or good people that know how to develop technology. You have to speak the truth about really, what is going to happen in the future. Like yes, I'll take the credit for the fact that years ago, I said to you guys, we're not going to do autonomous driving. We're going to do ADAS because yes, when you think about it, that was the bigger market. And I clearly even state that right now that a lot of those guys, it starts with the top people understanding what strategy has we deployed. You can't be arrogant. You have to think about business is what it is and think about your customers first. They're telling you what they're willing to accept. You're not going to get them to accept an autonomous driving software stack and completely change the way they do the business. That's not going to happen. Argo is a great example, great company, very smart engineers. Where did it go? The fault was not in the engineers, it's absolutely not. It was the strategy that was wrong, right? So it comes down to strategy. Therefore, yes, we spend a lot of time making sure our strategy is correct and in line with what the future will be. And I do not lose a single night of sleep thinking that my competitors eventually are going to start saying the same thing we're saying right now. And that's the indication. So if we have a design win, if we get something down, right, guess what, everybody would change their tune and start, this is going to be the victory path. But what we did not do is when they were getting their small victories early on, right, we did not start making the product based on what they were doing just to gin up a story, get some money and get that done. That would not have been good stewards of the technology, right? I mean you guys have been in this stock for a long time. A lot of these engineers have worked on these companies for much longer. It's kind of important for me to think about like if you build something, how is it going to be sustainable for a long time and you really get the value of what was invented.

Follow-up question. The MOSAIK software, you've articulated well in the press release for Jaguar and Land Rover a couple of weeks ago. It seemed like there was intimated at what I perceive, intimated that maybe the reference sensor that might be with that software could be MOVIA or MAVIN, is that sort of...

That is true. But I think like if you think about those hardware sales, they're incremental, right? You're going to sell just so many ground validation truth vehicles. Certainly, we're going to have a vehicle at someday, which is going to have MAVIN. It's such an awesome thing. You want to build a full stack and you want to be able to offer them. But right now, like any say, like people have like reactions, they want to say, well, that's great. But you know what, I'm going to use my own sensor, just give me the software. Great. But why would we do that? Well, we want to know what their perception needs are, so you know what we can make our products better, right? So we're okay with that. So if you think about the MOSAIK business, right, we are going to support as an independent business. We're going to innovate, like if they say like, hey, this other lidar, make sure you support that, we're going to do that, absolutely. Absolutely, right? We're going to let the OEMs decide what they need. But what we can get out of it is just real market intelligence of are we still on track? Can I say the word best-in-class now, and it holds true for many, many years to come. I mean that's right. If you can predict the future, you look like Oracle, but it is -- nobody is an Oracle. It is because you have inside information. Every business that does that. They have some hooks in some places, they can figure out what the market will do in the future and they get to say some stuff. And if it comes true, you feel like these guys must know what they're doing. I'm actually telling you guys how we get the information. I'm telling where the hook is. We met them in 2019. We started finding things out from MAVIN. MAVIN is in good shape. MOSAIK will make sure MAVIN is in good share for a long time and MOVIA is in good shape for a long time. So this is -- I mean, I'm glad that we're at this company working together.

There were some -- for the proxy, there were some Board Member changes. Seval is not up for reelection and Jeffrey Herbst, he's the newer person. So there are some discussions about Jeff's previous history with NVIDIA. So maybe is there something there, who knows? I don't know if you can comment on that. And why Seval leaving if we're not focusing on [ NED ] anymore or the AR, not for now. We have Spitzer, who's obviously very well respected, but it's not something that we are focusing on. Seval is from the Continental and also [indiscernible] of background. So what's the Board makeup strategy behind that?

So the Board makeup is up to the Chairman of the Board and what's happening on the Board. That's -- it's an independent Board that is representing where we going. I would not read too much into it. I think Jeff, we met. I think just like we have great employees in the company, we are fortunate enough to have great Independent Board members that are willing to take their time and spend it on our board and make us better, give us insight and give us guidance to make the company better. I think Brian Turner has been on the board for a long time. He's gone through a lot of things that you guys experienced. He's put his own money in the company. We have to respect that. So I think like it's not good to like -- this is not like any kind of reality show, which is like how people go in and out. I think the Board decides what the makeup is. And I think I feel very fortunate, I learn a lot from them. They give us a lot of insight and guidance towards a broader thing. So we're very happy to have the board we have. So I would not read anything into it. And people come and people go, they have personal reasons. But I think as far as the company is concerned, I think it's just this is Board, 7-person Board, Independent Board. And I think we have a very good Board. We really have an Independent Board compared to our competition, just go look at it, right, which is a really great makeup. I mean there's professionals everywhere, but we have, for this industry, done a really, really good job to prepare for what comes ahead.

Okay. Just to kind of follow up with that, with a new VP of Software that is in the website now. But before that, I believe Jari was the VP of Software and then he kind of disappeared. And wouldn't hear...

He resigned. He resigned from the company, yes. Okay. So again, like I met Martin last year September. We just connected. I like him a lot. I think he's going to be -- I can promise all of you guys. You can all see us coming, see us go, but people like some of the VPs we have right now, you can see them. You guys should be very proud of them. The teams that they've built are really good. So Martin is great. I know Jari really well. I love Jari, but he's been at the company for a long time, and the company changed, but I don't think there's anything to comment. It's a personal choice that people make.

Okay. Can you comment more on the difference between class? I know you talked about it before, but if you go on to some of the competitor subreddits, there's always a knock on MicroVision saying, "We're not Class 1 certified. We're Class 1 compliant." And that's a knock on us.

Why do you think it's a knock on us?

Because it's not certified is better than compliant.

Certification happens when you're shipping the product. We're at a sample right now. So you develop everything to say you're compliant. Then you have to develop a product with an OEM and get it certified at the end. When your cell phone, your iPhone is in early development, they don't get it certified. They make sure it's going to be compliant. The design is going to be compliant long term. Then they go through the development process, and when they're ready to launch it, they then go get the certification. The certification comes at the end. So I think like whoever is talking, they don't know what they're talking about.

Right. No, that makes perfect sense. So I'm not a software engineer. And obviously, Ibeo's acquisition sounds great. The fact that it's automotive-certified, et cetera. Now from a nonsoftware expert, one thing about kind of acquiring or using a very old -- not old but experienced software is that it could be bloated versus something that you can build more recently from the ground up, kind of like the difference between Internet Explorer versus a -- other -- Microsoft Edge. Now is there some kind of a -- that's a concern that I have, but I'm not an expert on that, maybe you can comment on it.

These guys use the latest computers. They're not using 286 from the 1980s. The software we're talking about is cutting edge. I mean like anybody that develops software -- and I'm not a software guy, by the way, [ Alex ]. So like this is not a knock on you, with me also. I'm learning a lot. I think the tools we're using are phenomenal. So don't think about software in that sense that it is something like executable file that just goes out. It's something that's maintained. That's something that we keep investing to like make better, okay? I think I've said that it's beyond what people have right now. Nobody has actually even showed the KPIs they have. So that is not a concern that anybody should have. Just like MAVIN has more than what anybody is asking, it's cutting edge, right? So it's long in the tooth for some people because it's the same thing. But what's in there is like so contemporary, it's going to be many years before it's like really long in the tooth. The software is not that way, right? It's something that has to keep to be developed, keep investing into it, adapt it for MAVIN, perfect it for something like putting inside a silicon chip. There's a bunch of investment that still goes on the software, and all the tools these guys use are totally contemporary.

Okay. It's my last one. The difference is -- there's been some discussion regarding silicon and silicon carbide. Is there any benefit to using silicon carbide? And do we use it on the MAVIN at all?

No. We make our MEMS. MEMS are silicon wafer. I didn't bring one today. I forgot that, but I wanted to show you the wafer. But we have wafers that are done by wafer fabs. Our chips are made by analog chips with analog fabs and digital there. So silicon carbide, I think that's more about battery power converters, right? But we use the most -- the best automotive nodes are available right now. So I think like when the ASIC team actually goes out there and finds that, they benchmark nodes and technologies that are going to be around for a long time. And that's how we piggyback on to it.

Just a question around the RFQs that you've had so far. Have you noticed any kind of trends in terms of the vehicles being more in the medium range, high range? And just in terms of if you were to win it, I mean, are these high-volume end products? Or are they more in the top-end lower volume?

I think the OEMs that we're talking about that are out there right now, we know what their fleet size is. And they're more conservative as in like when they tell you a number, they're -- unlike some other companies we work in the past, they don't give you this big number, and it's like 1/10 of that, right? What's the biggest complaint about the 2017 contract? A number was given. We've worked out a deal, and not even 1/10 of that has shipped right now, right? But these guys are -- they are really serious business people, right? So they give you volume. You know the size of their fleet. You know that it's going to be rolling out into vehicles definitely beyond their premium vehicles. So -- and if you think about these OEMs, when they talk about it publicly, they're talking about their EV strategy. And as I've said always, when EV starts rolling out, ADAS is going to be the big hook of like, how -- why is this car more valuable. There's less parts, there's no transmission, there's no engine, how do you sell it? You can't sell it because you have more horsepower, right? Pretty much all the EV vehicles have like significantly higher performance. They're great to drive, okay? Well, how are you going to sell it? Well, they're going to have some ADAS features that are going to be significant level of safety beyond what has ever been there. But the volumes when we talk about that these EV -- I'm sorry, these OEMs are discussing, it certainly is going to be deployed into a wider fleet. And that's the why I'm excited about what 2023 represents for the RFQs that we have. Yes, [ Jeff ]?

Yes. The notion of novel marketing campaigns as time goes on around automotive safety. That resonates heavily with me, and I often dream of the day where they say MicroVision inside, much like Intel inside. That would be really cool. That would be a really cool thing. Do you guys have any conversations around, I mean -- or hear any talk around OEMs and how they plan to market ADAS as a key feature and anything like that?

I mean I can't comment on anybody's marketing strategy, especially like we're not aware of anything that's shared with us. But I think like -- I'm just going to give you my general view of the space. I think there's a reason why we call it safe mobility at the speed of life. There's a very specific reason for that because technology for people is scary because they don't understand how it works. Like [ Ty ] is always worried about specs and this and this, right? He can't put one and one together like why -- how is OEM evaluating? And I can't tell them, so you could feel frustrated. But if you think about it, when you guys actually buy technology, you say Intel inside, you don't know what the gigahertz or the processor is, how much RAM it has. You buy an experience. right? Technology has to melt away, and it has to be the product that you say, "Okay, I believe this is safe," right? So when you think about branding for this, I believe it's not going to be some big splash, something like that. It's going to be it's safety. This is something that you want to count on. So if you want to look back when they started marketing airbags, that's the way. There was no big marketing campaign. It was just about safety, a 5-star safety rating, this technology path there. It's going to be that subtle, most likely because again, I mean I love technology, our engineers love technology. We're comfortable with what we see. It's because we are intimate with it. But my mother who's in her late 70s, she doesn't want to hear that. She wants to hear, is this stuff safe, like it's got a 5-star rating, and whose name is behind that car, right? That's how it's going to be evaluated. So yes, it's not going to be that moment you're looking for that hey, we've gone to the Super Bowl. That moment is not coming, but it's going to be more subtle, but it will be more meaningful because, again, the revenues that comes into the business we build is what we have to evaluate as successful.

So not a tech spec question, commercial question. You guys -- the company laid out the strategy about 1.5 years ago, right, 3 pillars, the OEM -- win OEM deals, work with a Tier 1 as directed by the OEM and work with silicon companies. I haven't really heard a lot about silicon companies, and the competition talks about their relationships with the silicon companies and how great it is, and it will be able to sell more stuff. Any -- are you talking to silicon companies now?

Yes. I think, think about it this way, that we stated a pillar. So whenever we say something, we do it. But it will happen at the right time, right, because you can flail your arms when you say something, and that's what a lot of people do nowadays, right, because in social media, they want to get attention, get a spike in the share price, and then when it dumps all the way down, they don't defend it, right? But if you do it the right way, it's going to sustain you for a longer period of time. So if you think about the partners that I'm talking about that are in the silicon, they are the ones that make the domain control in the ECU. They have very complicated businesses, and they have much more powerful businesses. Being able to think about how you connect with them long term, like how are you going to actually enable them, right? You want to get a more meaningful relationship done, and that takes time, okay? First thing is focus on the RFQs, win it, and there'll be time for some real, real opportunities.

[ Chuck Young ]. Anubhav, this is for you. The 100 million shares, I know you guys have stated you don't have any near-term plans to be tapping into that or using it. What would you say would be the first use likelihood scenario for tapping into those?

So I think of this as -- again, let me give that answer in technical and nontechnical terms, right? So obviously, the technical answer would be general corporate purposes, but that's a bunch of words, what it means. We are looking to accelerate revenue and acquire customers faster. I think all I can say is this capital gives us the ability to pursue both these options. And that's what we're looking to do because I think, this year, if we hit our revenue targets, $10 million to $15 million is going to be a huge leap of jump from what happened in...

2015. Before it got 2015, yes.

So it obviously is a huge jump from last year, right? So I think of this as an enabler to accelerate that, to turbocharge this growth. And I think that's what would be the first use of this capital whenever we want to do it.

Can you expound on what you mean by gaining customers faster using this?

So expand in the sense that, look, at the end of the day, we're looking to accelerate this revenue. So either you sell more products or you find more customers to sell that product into, right? You acquire sales channels, or you build sales channel, and it's -- what's [ built versus ] grow, right? So I think the question in front of us is, how can we demonstrate between now and then with trajectory? Because we have an impressive trajectory. Can we further accelerate that trajectory and further instill even more confidence in the institutional investors who are looking at the holistic LIDAR space? Because I think as [ Adam ] pointed out earlier, I think because of what has -- what I call as the [indiscernible] on the highway because of the specs, a lot of the people have lost their confidence in the LIDAR market. But if you demonstrate that, I think it's very easy to attract those investors, [ Ty ], because they will see the trajectory because in my mind, the game has already been set. What could the valuation of any successful company could be? And again, it's going to be a very easy decision for these institutional investors to come in and partner with a company that is executing on its strategy to accelerate the growth.

More I think about it, it's not capital as in like it's gun powder. Last time we got 60 million, we've only used what, 24 million, approximately, right? You want to have the right gun powder ready when the market starts, right? You want to be opportunistic. But the goal, as I've mentioned, is you want to own segment. You don't want to just have a small piece of it, just get one win and say, "You know what, Miller time," right? It's more like, "No, you want to own all of it as much of it as possible," right? You want to accelerate that you want to have enough gun powder for that, and people have to believe you're going to be around in a more sustainable manner to do that. I think that's -- what Anubhav wants to highlight is when he says like brick-by-brick building business, I think as you guys reflect on this day, that's actually really powerful words. You have to build a real business, right? And part of your business is, you want to have capacity available. Opportunistic like if we do not have the balance sheet strength and some of the other things we have to do from there till now, Ibeo would not be part of that and think about what value they represent to each and every one of you. Long term, that I hope you now have it today, you can feel like, "Hey, long term, this is going to really be like one of the best deals that we did to turn the ship around." It's not just making MAVIN. MAVIN would have been great, but this really took us to another level, right? So you want to be opportunistic, right?

Right. We'll keep saying 80% of the market. I like those words.

No, I think like anybody that's in this space, if that's not what they're dreaming, then they're just completely missing the spot. Then they're a professional CEO. They -- I'm not the founder of this company, but sometimes, like the amount of energy that all of us and every employee in the company spend, you would say there's like 350 founders of the company. People work way harder than we pay them. I assure you on that one, right? So yes, I know everybody worries about OpEx, right? But people are really invested in it, and they're really excited about it, yes. If not going to win at all, why do it?

I have another question regarding RFQs. And I'm not a technical guy, but it's my understanding that creating the digital ASIC is a very capital-intensive project. It takes a lot of money, it takes a lot of work. And you've already stated you expect to get at least one design win this year. Is one design win enough to start that investment in a digital ASIC? Or do you want to wait and get 2 or 3 more?

Yes. No, no. It's required to get the first. So we're going to start -- the work is going to start, right? So yes, I mean, you're spending the money because you expect that it's around the corner. But once it's done, the other ones that you're thinking about as you think about longer term, you have something, you have a product that's going through qualification, and that's valuable. You want to make sure what's in there, supports multiple customers. So you can grow customers without having to do every and new digital ASIC. And because of that, a lot of people that did not know all the features to put inside the product, perhaps they are putting their sensor model in an ECU outside, and they don't talk about the digital ASIC, riddle me that, right? I think like -- but nobody asked them that, right, because they can't talk about a digital ASIC strategy because they have none because they don't want to do it because they don't know all the features. This is, again, market intelligence from our part that allows us to actually commit to a very expensive digital ASIC program that I believe very strongly, multiple customers will be happy and we will meet all their needs and never have to spend another one for a certain category of product. There'll be -- when we put the perceptions out, it'd be another category of product for a different OEM. There's 60 OEMs globally. So the race is pretty far from over.

Let's go over here at -- to the gentleman. I don't he's had his turn to speak yet.

[ George Burner ]. I want to talk about our patent portfolio for a minute. We have a pretty substantial patent portfolio. Being best in class, we also are attracting potential infringement. That's my guess. Do we have any ongoing investigations or infringement potential right now that from either the United States or other countries?

We don't. And if we did, we would announce it publicly because we'd be required to. I think the patent -- I mean Drew can talk about that, but I think the public comments would reflect that. So I think we're in good shape.

Okay. Then on another aspect being best in class, I mean reading about various LIDARs, I just want to make certain that our LIDAR name is impervious to adverse weather conditions like fog, dusts, snow, rain, sleet. How does it characterize black ice on the road?

It's impervious of things that are limited by physics. So ray-based systems always have a hard time looking through fog, any laser there, right? We're picking 905 for a very specific reason. Radars can look through fog, but they have really crappy fields of view and resolution, right? So every technology based on physics is going to have a limitation, right? So our strategy if you think about sensor fusion, why when you combine radar and LIDAR, we've expanded the spectrum within which the solution performs, right? This is like the electromagnetic spectrum, right? So if you think about it as a spectrum, so yes, we're at 905, and we're going to do a phenomenal amount of work, heavy lifting there. But then a software will combine radar, and the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that you're talking about expanded. So that sensor fusion is very valuable long term, right? But again, it's congruent to what would happen with an OEM. They're going to start off slowly before everybody wants to turn over the control of their cars in fog and rain and everything, can they just be happy in [ sunlight ], right? So it's going to be step by step by step, but the LIDAR has to be put inside because a 15-year product that you buy a car, expected to be 15 years, and they're going to send updates out there. But the LIDAR has to have all the features now that for the next 15 years, they can still upgrade. So this is the model that if you think about it, when you buy a car, it comes in, let's say, 7 airbags. For the rest of the life of that car, you'll have 7 airbags. But this is the first time they're going to put sensors inside where new features of safety can be rolled out to you in that 15 years ownership of a car, right? So they may find other ways to monetize it. I have no idea how they'll monetize that, but this is very exciting, actually because again, your car is now a platform, right? It's an experience that you can always have.

So are there any OEMs that are actively looking at -- talking to you about the combination of those various radar and...

I think what I've said publicly is we're developing the sensor fusion demo and then from there on out will be a jumping point for us to discuss. You can't talk about everything is like it can be done in PowerPoint and just orating your idea. You have to show something working. But I think the Ibeo team was incredibly productive. They developed something. We are bringing the focus to a product that's scalable. So we're not talking about autonomous driving. We're going to start with that demo. We're going to look at communicating to the market and our partners what could be possible in the future. As we have success in that area, then we would scale that part of the business to start producing that product. But right now, it's in R&D phase.

I think there's a question right there, and then we'll come to this gentleman in the front here.

[ Stephane ]. So are OEMs sharing at all like what the split will look like for EV versus gas cars for LIDAR adoption? And are you worried about the lithium supply from now going up to 2030?

I think in their public comments, they've never distinguished if there -- if the [indiscernible] you're talking about that they're talking in those time frames, there will be ICE engines around for a long time. They're not disappearing, but their fleet will start transitioning to EV. Now this is again my belief, right? If you look at their public comments, they're not really talking about how EVs rolling out. They say things like majority of my fleet is going to be EV by 2027, right? Or it is a majority. There's no qualifier for that. I mean there's no number, right? But we sell LIDAR, and of course, it works on all of them. And they have to figure out what models, what their fleets are going to do. Lithium supply, I think those are resources they would have to really worry about. But I think what we care about is RFQs have specific volumes, ramps, things they'll love. So -- and we know the size of their fleet. We know how much of their fleet has grown in the last 10 years, where the growth is. So you can imagine they have lots of other things that they will announce that they've not made public yet. So we can't certainly comment on that.

[ Jim Scerbo ], again. I want to know if you have any feel for how it would be -- this will be deployed by the main car manufacturers. And I assume it will probably be an optional package in the cars. And if that's so, how much is that, like cost to buy a car with LIDAR?

The reason this $500 number is very, very important. And the volumes that we're talking about, so somebody asked me questions about the volumes, right? So we can't really talk about that, but the volumes are big enough where it is probably a standard feature. These rounds of RFQs now are looking at this as a standard feature going forward. So unlike the previous deals that they've done, those were options, and not a whole lot of them sold because those products were not ready, right? They're like kind of big, and they don't have the features that we require. So you're finally talking about RFQs that are looking at a fleet, parts of their fleet, so there'll have to be a standard feature. And therefore, price is very important because you have to have a certain price because, let's say, you have a car that costs X number of dollars and you want to upgrade that car and you want the same exact car, you don't want to pay 30% more for that previous car. You know really what kind of car you want like I have a FJ Cruiser, right? I know what that costs. Somebody offered me more than what I paid for it 12 years ago, and that's just crazy to me. But can you imagine if somebody says, "Oh, it's going to cost you $70,000 to have an FJ Cruiser now." That's not -- like I'm not going to buy that then. I'll buy what I can afford. So price, we don't talk enough about that. The price of the device is actually very important. I think I don't want to talk about it a lot. And I think if you guys want to like talk about Easter eggs and stuff, forget that, this is real stuff because those are real business models. That's very important. Those are models that we haven't just ginned up. We've really given a lot of thought of what would be to be required to penetrate the market in those big numbers, if you want to own it.

Sumit, I think I've heard it -- sorry, I'm standing over here. I think I've heard comments in the past around the solution actually being able to reduce the number of sensors that OEMs would have to put in a car. And therefore, does that imply some sort of eventual cost savings going down this path for them?

So there's multiple levels of cost savings if you think about this product. When I say sensors, if you think about -- you can have multiple radar that have low fields of view and overlapping that you can try to create that with more sensor fusion happening at a big old ECU or domain controller. So if you have a dynamic new LIDAR that covers near/mid-far fields at very, very high resolution, and it is something that you can certify, you can get it fully qualified, you don't need as many sensors those other sensors required. You may not need them, right? I mean OEMs will decide that, of course. Then the other part is if you could actually put perception inside the domain controller side, that compute goes down. So you don't need a massive amount of AI compute anymore, right? So that's the premise for us. That's the -- they will call it a hypothesis. That is our thesis. We believe that's what's going to happen. And that's what the team in Hamburg has created. It's very, very impressive what they've created, right? So long term to be in more of the fleet, you have to keep reducing price. But you can't -- there's a physical limit of how cheap you can make a sensor, right? Then you have to look at overall system costs and say, "Hey, by the way, I have software that could further reduce the system costs for you." So your sensor price can stay where it is. So you don't -- you're not in this like never-ending battle of like go find a cheaper supplier someplace else. That's not possible because you're in a slow-moving industry. So the level of difficulty when you say the things like $500 to $600 sensor, it's much higher than you think because you can't just go out and keep finding cheaper and cheaper sensor component suppliers. But you have to have investments right now, R&D investments right now that, long term, are going to reduce the overall system costs. And that will be compelling to our customers, we believe.

Our next question is right here.

Yes, [ Brian Atchison ]. Are you going to incorporate over-air technology? I know once you commit to ASIC that there may be -- from FPGAs, that there may be difficulty. But is there any -- going to be any variability that's built into this for it is?

No, no. The sensor is over designed, has more features than they'll ever need. The hooks will be given to their computer. So their software will be, over the air, upgraded so they can deliver a new feature to you. So why is the sensor -- why don't we don't talk about all the specifications, right? We don't want to tell anybody, but also, it has clearly got more features than they will ever need, right? And all the hooks will be left in, and their software will enable those features as they go. But for us, it's a LIDAR sale. It's a box, one-box solution we sell all in with a piece of ASIC that's qualified. Once that's qualified, they use the data stream, and they do what they want to do with them. They create the customer experience, so they will do the OTA, but we are not going to be in the middle of that. And we don't want to be in the middle of that. You don't want a company that says they're going to OTA their sensor. That tells you that the technology is like not up to snuff.

And in the back.

I learned a lot about reflectivity today in our test drive. How will snow affect the car's ability to recognize the space around it in a snowstorm. And will the system shut down in a case like that?

I believe that in ADAS system at the car level, [ Mike ], they're going to shut down the ADAS system, right, till they have sensor fusion that can penetrate the snow with another sensor that can actually fill in the gap, so their algorithm is going to continue running. Just remember, the driver experience will be controlled by the OEMs. So they will decide what is the different environmental conditions within which the feature is allowed to work. We'll be streaming the point cloud. We'll collect all the point cloud with snow, with fog and everything, whatever the quality comes in. And then we'll -- there'll be radar that -- there will be fusion for that. There'll be camera. There'll be fusion for that. But they have to decide in what environmental conditions they want to allow it. And for that, they're going to do lots and lots of validation, lots of different sensors over a period of time. So the work here is going to continue. It's not like one and out. You have a sensor that feels like, okay, it's going to do something for them long time. It's going to be very stable. And then they have to see from their software standpoint, what are the sensors do they have to put to expand the features they deliver. And that's going to be the big race between all the OEMs: who can actually expand faster and provide safety, right? But again, the good news that I'm delivering to all of you guys is like we have a sensor that's way over designed for what their needs are, right? So they will have the LIDAR working, and that's why it's such a high resolution. You don't drive through waterfalls, right? Yes, if there's some places there's a water -- part of the point cloud dropped off, you do that, but you still have so many points available to you that it is still a useful sensor.

I do -- I'd like to pivot if it's okay. I'd like to have Anubhav address this. I've got a group about 37 investors. And one of the questions I get now is it 100 million share authorization is on the table. I'm all for it. I'm voting yes, but I have to convince 37 other people why this authorization is important to the company. Could you give us your thoughts on that?

Yes. So look, I think this is really what I mentioned earlier. It gives us the tools that we need as a company to get to the next level and build a business because I think it's very imperative as Sumit has described that we have a very fantastic piece of technology. But can we build a business around? And that's the entire focus of this conversation and our strategy because I think a lot of the people talk about fancy, cool tech. But again, going back, can you monetize that technology and build a sustainable business, which is growing and also yielding cash flow? Because ultimately, I want to be a traditional public company. We want to be a traditional public company where we reduce the cost of capital, right, which is going from the equity all the way down to fixed income to debt. That's what the goal of any public company should be, which is emerging from this space from an R&D to a product company to a business that can be built around this. So this authorization is really essentially the tools that we need to get from here to the next level. So I hope that sort of helps you identify and why -- and I think the other thing that I would say is the financial discipline of the company and, again, by virtue of being a traditional public company and having decades, again, if you think about it, we have been around for 50-plus years, including Ibeo. That sets us apart from anybody else who is like less than 5, 10 years ago, they were formed. And I think that's sort of what essentially demonstrates that what -- how disciplined the company has been in using the resources that were always given to this company and what we plan to do in the future as well.

This question, I'm sure you -- I'd like to see -- at least hear an answer. Certainly, the company, based on my knowledge of how the market works with public companies, that you'd have to raise more capital mid- to the latter part of the year. You wouldn't want to wait longer than that. Do you anticipate being able to sell into the market at a much higher share price based on where we are in our development process?

Look, like I said, I don't think I can comment on when and what the share price is going to be, right, because I think at this point -- let me tell you one of the few levers that we have in terms of the visibility through the next year, right? It's really the revenues that are going to come in, especially the revenues from the software, which are actually what is called a commit-to-consume model. So when we get the revenue or the cash before, and then we bleed it down into the P&L as and when the customer uses a software. That itself, in my mind, is a very big driver to fuel the growth of the company and the OpEx of the company in the next 6 to 12 months. On top of that, I also talked about the NRE programs with the OEMs as well because whenever you are doing a customization, and I think as Sumit talked about, OEMs might want to have different features enabled or disabled in their custom product. This is where we expect because that would be -- that would mean we're going to have to spend man hours to do that. So that itself is also going to add to some of the cash coffers of the company to fuel the OpEx between now and the next 12 to 18 months. And like I said, raising capital, we have been very strategic about this in the past because I think that's what even when the entire industry, especially fueled by the specs, the stocks were trading all-time high for everybody else. I think you could have seen that how prudent the company has been and how strategic the company had been at that time. And then we sort of again demonstrated that for the Ibeo acquisition. We only sort of raised what we needed to fund the acquisition because I think it ultimately makes us very opportunistic. As and when the opportunities present themselves, we're going to make sure every dollar goes way further out than what has been spent to raise. And I think that's sort of what I meant by crashing the algos because that's how you demonstrate prudence and also beating what we have said in terms of setting the expectations that we are setting for the market.

And that's why I mentioned I had a question about whether or not we're going to be able to name names, and I thought it was a great answer. But I think, again, validation in terms of building confidence and trust in the market and beating the algos, I think that's a critical goal for the company, we have name names.

I don't think benefit it has that you see that other partners that actually went public with their partnerships, right, OEMs want that because for the first time, they have to deal with high-tech companies that have developed something that they need. Typically, they were a Tier 1 company, like a company -- a typical Tier 1 would not, as I said, somebody is not going to invest $0.5 billion over 10 years to go develop a technology like this. Those -- the conventional business, they just look at revenues for the next quarter. So they have to deal with technology companies, and part of that technology company is that they have to be able to say, "I have a partnership with this is X, Y, Z." So validation is part of some of these deals that we do.

So we have some [indiscernible]?

Absolutely. Of course, this is unique than what we had ever in the past. In the past, as I said earlier on, we were the small company that was amazing. Same set of stuff that we're using to make the products right now, we -- these guys had already developed it, but it was easier to match that company down because what are the choices to have, right, because the market was narrow, they control the market. They can say whatever, and they can do whatever they want. So you're better off being in a market where there's multiple customers, multiple competitors because everywhere is competing now. So this is a better place to be for us.

So I think it's a question for Anubhav. You've talked for years about the value of the software. And I'm not talking about the MOSAIK software. I'm talking about the algorithms and things. And of course now, and certainly, we're looking at putting that software really into the hardware and making that one solution. Just like to understand like because you said, okay, well, the hardware gets commoditized over time. So the price -- the OEMs expect your price to keep coming down and down. But if you have software in there, you can maintain -- certainly, it's higher margin than software generally, but you can maintain that price, right? Can you just -- I'm not sure I fully grasp that aspect of how that works or how that is working in your model?

Yes. So I think in the model that we had described, I think, at the beginning of last year, the idea was since the hardware is going to be manufactured in a partnership, obviously, the hardware gross profit margins would -- cannot be in excess of even 20%, 30% because obviously, that's something which, again, you could have commanded if you were a Tier 1. But like I said, it's so hard to become a Tier 1. So that's the place where the margins have to be much significantly lower because that's when it's a triangular relationship between the OEM, Tier 1 and MicroVision. The software will remain the biggest component internally for us because that's what if you think about it, the price is what I talked about, the $500 ASP as every device. Imagine as the production scales, our effort -- because we don't have to spend any money to upgrade the software because as Sumit described, once you're in the chip, it's done. And this price is per box. So where I was going with that is the reason why it translates into a higher-margin business because over time, every dollar that comes in, drop straight to the [ bot ], it's like almost recovering the cost of your investment that the company has made all the way reaping it towards the end. Does that make sense? Because ultimately, the price is fixed, but you don't have to do anything because you've already done the work.

So you buy LIDAR, there is a hardware. There's one line item, and then they can use the point cloud by itself. That comes out of the LIDAR. That's the hardware-only cost. But if you use the perception, that was also innovation, that was also investment, that's another line item. So there's different models, right? So we're not -- I'm not saying a specific model, but we have to find a way to monetize. So you want to build a business brick by brick, but this is a lever that we have that people are not thinking about. They want to sell expensive software that goes into domain controller. As far as OEMs are concerned, they said, "Well, that's an executable file. Why would I pay so much premium for that?" And then I would have the liability, so once you put in the silicon, you still have other opportunities to build a more successful hardware and software business.

So I think are 2 things, and I think I get it. Just to recap and see if it's right. So on the one hand, you build a new LIDAR hardware device. There's costs, right, the manufacturing costs you're going to have put it together. Somebody's going to make it. And that's going to be a real cost. And you get some margin out of that. But the software was developed X years ago, and those costs have -- there's no more cost for that software on that device anymore, I assume.

No, no. That's not true. You have to maintain software. Like when you buy your Windows machine, there's always the Windows up there, right? You have to maintain it. There's a bunch of work that's done, and you have to keep perfecting it, right? So I mean it's not like after that is done, all the people just quit in their gun, and we just keep selling an executable file. There's...

It allows you to command the value for that.

Yes, of course, there's value for that. You have to maintain it, you have to do it. You have to perfectly validate it. You have to create new features, right? So you're always going to be engaged in that thing. That is going to be a software division. It's going to be around for a long time, absolutely.

Okay. And then the second part I heard what you said, so as you mentioned today many times, you put that software over design features are in the ASIC, and then you can just turn things on in the future when they need them.

Not us. Based on the license that the OEM bought, they will do that. Let's say they bought license to 3 features, they pay us for, okay, that's it. Somebody buys a license for 8 features, they get that, right? So again, that's the variable part of the model, right? So the point is I want all the engineers that are working in the company to be -- build anything you want. We'll find a way to monetize it, but build something that solves their problem long term. They can choose to do themselves. But if it's already created to a high level of quality like the Ibeo team had done or the Hamburg team has done, we get to monetize it. But every OEM like to be honest with this, they may not want to take it. They'll say, "No, no, our team will create that." Okay. Here's the point cloud. Somebody will say, "I'll just take 3 features." Okay, here you go. But the point is create it, and then we find a way to monetize it.

I guess what I'm thinking though is that they could buy the 3 features today, get a license, pay it. And 2 years down the road or 3 years down the road or 5 years now, they might say, "Oh, I want to unlock these new features that are there," and then they would have to pass, I mean.

I would like to live in a world where what you said is -- but again, I don't want to over say anything, right, but of course, that's the idea for building this stuff out, right? And then -- but what we're being honest about is we need to find a way to monetize. There's no validation I can give you that we've actually agreed to somebody to do that. So the focus is, of course, that's why you want to invest in the business that will have that variable, right, because something you already sold, perhaps you can sell a license on to that because another feature could get activated, right?

Back to the front here and then...

Actually, he asked my question. It was exactly about monetizing other features you've already built into the ASIC at a later time for extra money.

Okay. Yes, [ Alex ]?

So [ Alex Yu ], again. Look, I sometimes dream about MicroVision and as lot of other people do here. So one thing that kind of -- that I keep thinking about, what is the checkmate move to get us the 80% share of the market? And obviously, resolution, dynamic range that's all fine. But I feel like -- or if you just -- just kind of comment on it, like the LIDAR interference because you can blind other LIDARs and if there's a lot of other LIDAR companies versus in a lot of cars with LIDARs but that MicroVision actually has a patent and has a solution to LIDAR blindness. I feel like that's a big feature. Or am I just kind of overstating that?

No, you're not. I think like the active scan locking feature that's very important, right? But I think you're asking the question, what's the checkmate move? You're still thinking about like technology is it. Technology is very important. We've already created everything that would be needed for a very long period of time. The checkmate move to get that 80% that just owning the segment is actually building a good business, something that people can count on. Like I use an example with somebody back there that when you want to renovate your house, you don't just pick the guy that can get the most exotic Italian marble for your kitchen. You want that, but a business that can actually finish the job. Do you understand that? So you have to build a business. That's the checkmate move. Like I can talk about tech all day long. You know I like doing that, but that's half the story now. The people you're talking to right now, they have businesses that have been around for 100 years. They want other businesses to behave a manner that you're going to be around. You know what you're doing, build a business that they can actually get their brains around that is not some hokey business model. A lot of people have asked me when I've gone to Germany, they don't understand how the [indiscernible] works. And they just made a comment about it because they don't even know what that is, right? We're a traditional business. We're building out, yes, business is onboarding, but being boring in this environment is actually the checkmate move. Mobileye did not become what they are by just exotic features. They have a lot of exotic features. We're going to have more exotic features, absolutely, but learn how to monetize it and build the business that's sustainable. That's the checkmate move.

Right. So I understand building a business is important. But that's -- in terms of barriers to entry, I feel like anyone who's kind of disciplined has a good business mind can do that more or less. But in terms of the technology, that to me is more like the barrier as the -- it's the moat around what you have. So in terms of -- we talked about it before in terms of the secret sauce, without -- and this is the secret sauce that MicroVision has, which was developed 20, whatever, 15, 20 years ago or more than that. Can you talk more about -- like I want to feel -- as an investor here, I want to feel that Innoviz and Luminar and all these other guys are not comparable or that's how I would like to feel. But the secret sauce, without giving too much detail, can you just kind of talk more about that?

Yes. If you think about a marathoner that wins the London Marathon, they don't say, "I want this. So forever and ever and ever, I'm the greatest marathoner ever." They still have to get up and train the next day and win another one and another one, another one, right? So if you think about technology, it is no different. You have to keep innovating, right? So the stuff that was created 15 years ago, some of it we use right now, but there's new things that the guys create all the time. So you have to keep actually at it, and that's how you actually have to go develop technology, right? You want an answer perhaps that tell me one thing that forever and ever and ever, I can like turn my brain off and never think about it. It is always a race. You have to always create other things, but don't discount the fact how hard it is to build a good business. Companies have created technology for a long period of time, and they're gone because they never thought about building a good business. So yes, you say more or less. I would say it's more than less. It is not that simple. You have to get people to trust you. That is not trivial. That's not trivial actually. So yes, why are we so direct and honest just not with you but with the customers because they have to trust us that when we say we're going to deliver something, it's not just that our tech will deliver that we're going to deliver a business that is going to be around to support you. These are things that are not trivial, right? So I know like, listen, I'm an engineer. We could all geek out about it all the time. But at some point, we could stop and say, "Okay, we are going to do great things. The team is going to do great things. They're going to invent awesome things." But if you don't build a business, think about Ibeo. You think the Ibeo guys, they were not surprised by the insolvency, and they were like harshly affected by that. It's a personal thing. We almost went insolvent as a company. So I know exactly how they feel, right? But if there was a successful business, everything that created could have been monetized, but that never happened, and they were looking at the abyss, right? So if you think about it, where both the companies fail and the joint company has to succeed as a successful business, and that is not trivial. Now trust me, sit back, put aside whatever [ your ego ] is and think about it, getting somebody to trust you, it's not based on the specs that I can give you. I can talk about that all day. I can tell you what the next thing we have to build. But right now for the company to be sustainable, you have to really build trust with everybody saying, "We're predictable. We're going to be around. We're going to give you the best technology at the best price, and we're not going to disappoint." So that's how -- if you think about it, right, so it's -- I mean I'm going back down. I'm being so harsh about that is because it is that important actually. I mean like the whole -- this whole event is the people understand that this is not really about -- not just a proxy question, we're building businesses even more effort than technology because we've already done a lot of technology development. We are way ahead of everybody, and we'll be even further ahead as we keep investing, but we're going to falter if we just focus on that.

Sorry. [ John Nelson ] again. I've already said that innovation is realizing that what your customers are going to need before they realize it. And my question is, you talk about your guys, you're an engineering guy. I get that. What do you do to foster within MicroVision an atmosphere where there's a sense of recognition and reward around people realizing these things and being able to integrate features into your design that are going to ultimately be differentiators or, as when market share put it, delighters?

I think the DNA of the company will always be great engineers deciding what they can create and looking out there. That has not changed. I think we will mature as a business. We're going to have more conventional business things to create, but the DNA of the company, the combined company is the same, which is actually engineering-led. A lot of things that you have right now, nobody gave us a spec. These guys were working on this years in advance, well before any product would need it, right? That cannot change. Certainly, like it will not change as long as I'm CEO, and that's important because that's what's fueled this company to get where it is. And the only way you think about winning a big section of a segment is to keep doing that. While in the background, you work extra hard, double time it and build out the business as well, so you're there, right? So you get everybody. But the investment in new R&D, the new things are there. Nothing has changed. And we incentivize our team, our engineering team as well with -- as you know, with the shares and things that they have to be part of the story. And I think all of the guys should be -- I hope you are, but you should be very happy about that because these guys are creating amazing things for you, and they should have an incentive to make it even better, align management's compensation but also employee compensation to long-term shareholder value. So we've done everything possible in the last 3 years, not just build technology but also try to build the fundamentals that the employees see a reason that, long term, their -- the value creation has an effect that they could also enjoy. And that's how we keep -- I mean that's how you keep ahead of everybody, right? Just be the fastest gazelle on the savanna, right? You're not going to be able to do it by like forcing features all the time. These guys are going to come up with stuff that nobody has even thought of. You just have to let them work out what they're doing.

And I think that's one of the reasons why we are able to attract talent from the big tech. Obviously, this market, as you can imagine, the people who work here are really passionate about creating something that is really valuable because obviously, big tech can throw our own money, but the testament that these people are really passionate and devoted to the cause, I think, tells the story itself.

I think that there's no substitute for that within an organization.

We're engineering-driven. I think I would be lying if I said were anything else, and we're always going to have great engineers. When I think about MicroVision, we've had lots of ups and downs. If any of you guys have been around for 20 years, you know a lot of great people have left. We missed them. But the company always found engineers that will take up and take it to a next level of height, right, so...

May I ask a question? This is for Drew, and I know you're not mic'd up. I'm sorry. Two things. Do you have strategies for protecting our IP? And secondly, I think if you look historically, at our company, do you have strategies for making our contracts more desirable going forward?

The toughest question goes to Drew.

Absolutely, we have both of those things. So we have -- is this working? You hear me?

Yes.

So we have an in-house patent counsel. He has been with the company for about 17 years now, I believe. And he knows this technology inside now. He actually is an engineer, but for us, he's a patent lawyer. This company, as you can see from its history, has a very strong process for protecting its patent portfolio. So we take that very seriously. Ibeo did as well, and so combining our patent portfolios has been pretty straightforward. So we feel very confident in the protection of our intellectual property. On the contract side, I can't speak for historical contracts at my provision. But yes, going forward, again, we have a strong internal legal team, and we make good use of outside council as and where needed. So it -- obviously, it's what I don't agree every day, so we're very focused on it.

My name is [ Matt Pence ]. I had a question going back to talking about AR and VR. I initially invested in the company. I'm a gamer. It's kind of the technology that I know. Now that we understand that Microsoft is making HoloLens and it has MicroVision parts in it, is there a reason like at this Investor Day like we couldn't show off that technology to better -- I don't know how to say this, the base that doesn't necessarily know a whole lot about like automotive, for example, versus video game technology in the future of that. But even just speaking to it would give us more confidence.

I think I can speak to it. I'll speak to it, right? But there's a very specific reason you're not seeing that because it's consistent with like we're authentic people, authentic company, really said since I took over that that's not we're investing in at all. And it's not because I don't have a love for. It's because it's not the right time to run a business around it. I think there could be a personal reason why that people think that Sumit won't even say the word AR. That's total -- I've worked longer in that, and I have more passionate for that than any of you can even imagine. But I know more about that, that you don't know. And I will tell you why you don't know, okay? It's not the fact that like you and I may be passionate about it, and we're willing to take our glasses off and put it on. But you always find people will use it, but then they'll put it down after 30 days and not use it again, right? I just don't want it here because it dilutes what we're doing. We're spending money to this, not on that. That's a hobby that I can have it in my home. Somebody can have it. We can talk about it over a glass of water, but that's about it. But the business that we're running, that we're spending your money on is this, right? So that's the reason why it's not here. There's no other secret thing. And it's not a matter of that I don't have a passion for that vertical. I'm pretty sure that I can argue about how much more passionate I am about that than anybody else. I cut my teeth on that when I worked for Mark Spitzer on his company when we had no money when everything was like dying and I just kept working at it. So I know more about that, and I'm passionate about that. But it's not the right time. I just keep saying that just people are not accepting it. And [ Alex ] will probably not give me a hard time about this, but you just have to accept it. It's just the market is not ready for that yet. That's a fact.

I think we've got time for one more question, and there's someone who hasn't had a chance to speak yet, so we'll go there, and then I think we're going to have to...

Two more back there.

Two more? Okay. Good.

Nobody asked. This is for Anubhav. The guidance that you gave of $12 million to $15 million, right, is that correct?

I'm clear it's $10 million to $15 million, yes.

Yes. So what percent of that would you say, if any, could be from additional acquisition versus organic revenue growth?

So this $10 million to $15 million is really coming from when we announced this acquisition. This is coming from the product portfolio that we have. So this is the product portfolio we got the breadth of things that you see today.

[indiscernible] [ $12 million to $15 million ] range NRE. Is that factored into the [ $12 million to $15 million ] [indiscernible]?

That's a great question. The reason why the revenue and that is a bit different because NRE -- and sorry, I don't want to get too technical, but there is a difference between what you can recognize as revenue versus what NRE is because technically on the book says what you can show as revenue because they are ASC 606 requirements or performance obligations. When those obligations are met, doesn't mean even if the company receives cash, the U.S. GAAP doesn't allow you to recognize that as revenue, right? So that's why I think I want to be clear that there is -- there are different factors or drivers that drive what gets booked as revenue. So I wanted to make sure that this is -- these are the different streams that the company have or different tools that we use -- that we will use to put this revenue in the box.

There's a last question.

I'm [ Kate O'Neil ]. I wanted to make a comment and just to say thank you for having us here today. Thanks for the test drive. It was tremendous to witness it and experience it. And I think we are all realizing this technology is going to change our lives, especially as we age and grow.

Mike, she was looking at you when she said that. I don't know. Maybe there's an Easter egg about that.

So that's really -- that's more than. You've all asked great questions. I've learned so much today and really, so thank you.

Thank you so much.

And I just wanted to thank you to Sumit and Anubhav for enduring 3 hours of intense, grueling question. So thank you, guys. Thank you all for coming today. Do you want to wrap it up, Anubhav?

Yes. So again, I really thank all of you for coming here and really witnessing what we have created. I think this company has really transformed into something that I think we all can be very proud of, the team of engineers, the spirit, most importantly and, I think, the passion because I think the combination of all these elements are really the key to success. And I'm just going to repeat the same thing that I said: Rome wasn't built in a day. And obviously, as we build this business brick by brick, that's what is the foundation is based on. This is a traditional public company, and we just want to continue that DNA to show and create a business which is going to be valued on fundamentals and the true foundation of the technology and what can be created around it. So thank you all for coming to this event and making this a big success.

I just want to say that it means a lot to us. Like these guys work very hard. All of us worked very hard. So the attention we get these kind of events, I think I can tell you from the employee standpoint, they love it. So we want to thank you for that. And I know a lot of you traveled really far away to come here, and that personally means a lot to me. So thank you for that. And if you got a chance, congratulate Anubhav. Today is his birthday. It is for him. So he's done -- the whole event was organized because I was traveling. So I really want to thank him and the entire team. Our team worked very hard to get this experience created for you. So thank you, everyone.

Thank you.