Welcome to Lund and to BeammWave. Today I will make a presentation out of BeammWave technology, and I will go a bit deeper than I usually do. So you're going to see a lot of slides that we use when we present for our customers. These slides normally make a point, and then there's proof on the slide. I'm not so keen on discussing all the proof points because, first of all, it's going to take too much time. I might not be the right guy to do it either. Maybe some of the more technical guys should do this. But also, we want to keep some of that secret. So some of the proof points are pixelated on the slides. So it's not a mistake when you see the slides. We will try to make a point of discussing the technology, beamforming as such, why digital is better than analog. We will also talk about our tape-outs, our priorities, so let's see what we can get of that. With me today, I have the Board Member for BeammWave, Svein-Egil. Hello. Maybe you want to say a few words about yourself. Yeah, my name is Svein-Egil Nielsen. I am chairman of BeammWave, and my background is in semiconductors. I've been working in the semiconductor business for, yeah, I guess more than 20 years. So exciting to be part of BeammWave, particularly now that we are on a full track for silicon. That would be great. OK, so let's start. I'll sit down too. Yeah, so this is the agenda for today. I will start with beamforming and then do a bit more examples than I usually do on digital versus analog. I'll talk about our product portfolio a bit more in detail, what's in it, what's specific with the different components, and I will talk about the tape-outs, and in the end, I will also talk a bit about the trends that's happening, so 6G is a thing now that is happening big time. We'll skip this, or we'll say something short about it. Because normally, when we talk about our existence, why do we exist? Why is beamforming? Why is high frequency needed? It's all about capacity, and it's an inevitable path that we have started to go on. For all wireless communication, it's growing, and the need for capacity is basically endless. Just imagine if you could have absolutely endless capacity, high speed, to a very low cost. Innovation is just going to fill that void. It's like a gas. It's going to fill the area you let it out in, so capacity is something that's always needed, so here, Svein-Egil challenged me because I only made one slide to explain what beamforming is, and that's the next one, and he said, you're never going to be able to explain it in one slide. Yeah, let's see, but let's start with beamforming as such, and let's say that what you have when you have a very, very weak signal, which the high frequency signals, they become weak quite quickly. When you have a weak signal, one way of enhancing that signal is to use many antennas. So if you have many antennas capture the signal and add it together, then you get a stronger signal. Quite logical, not too hard to understand. That combination, however, needs to be constructive. And why wouldn't it? Well, when we talk about radio waves, and now I'm going to move. People say, you can't move during the presentation. We're going to do that anyway. But you have an incoming signal of radio waves. They have a waveform, just like any waves. And if they would have come straight into the antenna, oops, that's a touch screen. Remind me of that. But if it would have come from the top down, then all these waves would have been in phase. And when you add it, you add a top to a top, obviously it becomes more. But if they were out of phase, and you add a top to a valley, then it becomes zero. So then they don't add up constructively. And what often happens is that the signal comes in with an angle. And now this antenna sitting here, compared to one sitting there, that's further away. So the waveform is different. You catch it in a different stage. So if you would try to add the signals as you have captured them here, they will not add constructively. So you need to fix that problem before adding them together. So here you have something where you want to realign the phases. You want to have it look like this here as well. And that you can do in many ways. You can manipulate the signals, delay them, or I guess it's one of the more normal things of doing, to get them back in phase, and then you combine them, and you get a stronger signal. So that's not too hard. It's not too hard to realize that that's so the real problem here is really to realign it, and then you have an enhancement of the signal in exact that direction, but this is just a snapshot of that direction. If the signal all of a sudden comes from here or there or whatever, then you need to do this realignment in a different way. When we talk about analog beamforming, which is the thing that you have today, then what you do is that you realign the signals in the analog domain, so you realign the signal using analog components. And that you do when you have captured the signal, and you are taking it down through a radio, and then you realign it. And then you combine it. And after the combination, you make it digital. So if you wait until this moment to make it digital, so what does the digital domain then see? Because here in the digital domain, you have all the smartness. Here you can apply software and smartness to what you have. But if you only have the sum of these antennas, you don't have any information about what direction you received. There's absolutely no, it's gone. Because there you see the phase differences here, but here you fix it with analog components, and then you take something here. So you're basically blind when you do analog. You're directionally blind when you do analog beamforming. When we do digital beamforming, we basically make it digital as close to the antenna as and I shouldn't do that. As close to the antenna as possible. And then you can apply digital smartness to it immediately. Which means that we can see all the directions at the same time. This is, of course, a major advantage. And there's so many different things that this will give you. And I will show you examples of what this will give you. But the trick is really to get it digital as soon as possible and don't lose information. And if you can do that, you can apply all sorts of smartness on it. So why is digital better and require deep system knowledge? And I guess you could add as well that and why hasn't anyone done it before. But let's start here. So this is a typical example of an analog beamforming setup. You have a baseband. Basically, the brain of a mobile phone, you could say, is down here. These two things are radio receivers and transmitters. You have some sort of a beamforming IC. You have some antennas. This construction here needs to be extremely dense. Because here you handle millimeter wave signals. And you can't really route them around on a piece of PCB, on a card. You need to keep it very, very dense. Which means you're going to get thermal problems. Because you have a very dense construction, and it needs to be dense. You need to put the antennas very densely together for the same reason. And you need to put them into a panel like this. You can't freely distribute them. This panel can only see one direction at a time. Which means that you have no possibility to adjust quickly and so on. This panel is also directed in a certain direction, so normally, you put the panel on the backside and the top of the phone, and then you have something that's good for that direction, but what if the base station is over there? Yeah, let's put in another panel, so there's another panel here, but you can't use them together. You can use one at a time, which, of course, makes the construction less flexible, more expensive, and now you have covered two directions, but you have skipped the third one, and that's basically what the trend is. That's how you build phones today, so you get one direction where you're completely blind. You can't take signals from that direction at all, so what you should do instead is to do digital beamforming. I do have a pointer. Over here, you have digital beamforming. You can see that there's a few things that's gone here. What you have is still the baseband, the brain of the smartphone. Then you have a lot of radio transmitters and receivers and a lot of antennas. These antennas, you can freely distribute. You can freely use them. You have all the information you need to do instant calculations like that. You don't have to do the guessing game that you really have to do in analog beamforming. For this, you have all the information. There is one reason, though, why people haven't built this. The knowledgeable guy will tell you that. OK, over here, you have a lot of radios. Here, you only have two. Here, you have a lot of analog-to-digital converters. Analog- to- digital- converters is something that tends to use quite a lot of power, which is not what you wish in a mobile phone. People have given up on digital beamforming before even trying. They basically come to the conclusion that this is a too complex system to build. It will drain too much power from a smartphone, so it will never work. Everyone has gone building this. We have some exceptionally smart guys in BeammWave that have thought about this and said, OK, this can't be. We can't give up on this. Because digital beamforming is in every way so much better than analog, we need to solve that problem. We don't need to solve the problem of digital beamforming. We need to solve the problem of digital beamforming that's not complex and does not drain too much power. That is the real problem to solve. Because everyone you ask that is knowledgeable about beamforming will say, you will get higher performance on digital beamforming than on analog. There's no question about it. No one would question us when we claim that digital beamforming is better. They will just tell us that it can't be done because it's too much power and too complex. So instead, what we have done is to really strive for this. So let's take a step back. Let's not apply just what we know from our radio design and things when we solve the problem. Let's take a system approach to it. And we have really good system guys in BeammWave. We have thought about how can you get this flexibility to a cost that's on par or lower than analog beamforming when it comes to power consumption and cost and what have you. We have come up with a concept that can do that. Basically, what we can do, if you now look at complexity from a baseband perspective, you can see the baseband only sees two inputs here, the same as the number of radios in analog beamforming. Instead, we have put the component in between that we call the DBFA. That's the digital beamforming accelerator it stands for. We have a piece of silicon there that takes down the complexity, reduces the amount of data that we need to push to the baseband in the smartphone. And by that, we make sure that we can keep the power consumption and the cost down. So when doing this, we can do this without any compromises. So the performance we get out of our system is very, very close to ideal digital beamforming. So we reduce the complexity. We cheat in a way, because we know too much about the system, and we know where to cheat on that. But we do not lose performance. I'm not going to show a lot of graphs to you. And this is the reason why I pixelated the other things. Because otherwise, I get lost, and you get lost, and so on. But let's take it very simple. Let's forget about all what's on the axis and so on, and just say that higher up is better than lower down. The red curve here symbolizes analog beamforming. The dotted black curve symbolizes full digital textbook beamforming. The blue one symbolizes what we can do with the BeammWave digital beamforming. We are extremely close to the ideal beamforming here. The two examples you see here, where it's in one place is 40% better and in the other one 300% better, is basically depending on the complexity of the radio environment. These are things you define radio channels when you define the 5G standard. They define how complex and less complex radio channel looks like. This is a less complex radio channel. One way of putting that is, well, actually, the guy transmitting can see the receiver. We talk a lot about line of sight, which literally is what it is. You can see the receiver. The other channel here is a non-line- of- sight channel. There you don't have a direct path where the transmitting guy can see the receiving guys. You need to live on reflections. You can live on bouncing off that wall and going over to the receiver. You can bounce the other way around. There can actually be quite a lot of paths there. Here is typically one of the things where you get a big difference between analog and digital beamforming. You get a difference because analog beamforming can only see in one direction at a time. If you have reflected energy, you need to choose one of the ways it can go, and you need to listen to that. The other one, you just lose. We can listen in all directions at the same time. When the radio environment gets very complex, then we excel. But even here, we're going to have more energy to harvest because we can see in more than one direction. So there is a benefit even in a line of sight direction. But this is to a great extent. This is one of the things making this technology so good. So I put it in different examples, and then we're going to go in a bit to the examples. But this is basically what I talked about just now. It takes a long time for you to understand what you're looking at. But here, what you can see is one antenna here, a smartphone over here. And you can see the blue. There's two paths for energy to bounce off things because there's a block in the middle. Analog beamforming only can take one of those paths. So that is non-line of sight scenarios is one thing. The other thing is, how do you find what direction you are looking at? You think about a cellular phone. It can move like this, and if the base station was there, I should keep it still there, but if I do like that, it needs to compensate for that movement, and that compensation, if you only can see in one direction at a time, what can you do then? You need to try all directions, so you try, is this good? Nope. Is this good? No, and then you try like that, and that takes up to half a second, and if you look at that movement, half a second means you're never going to find it. Because when you find it, it's moved again. We can do that. We can do it in two milliseconds and one millisecond. We can do it on one symbol, actually. Because we take a snapshot. We determine from that there, then it doesn't make sense to do it that often, because then I'm just going to use too much power, so instead, we have decided to do it on approximately 20 milliseconds. Every 20 milliseconds, we decide the direction, and we get a very good response, so I talked about the distributed architecture here. You can see the phone on the left-hand side, because that's supposed to symbolize phones. It has antennas to the left. It has antennas on the top, so those two directions, you can pick something in that direction or that direction there. We can instead distribute our antennas. We don't care about them being half a wavelength apart. We can put them anywhere. So with the same, or in this case, actually less antenna elements, we can get a more spherical coverage around the phone, which is good. Because the base station could just as well be there as there. And when you start moving your phone, you have yet another kind of problem. This I also closed in on. Uplink is limited. That's one of the biggest problems today with analog beamforming is that you do not get enough power out to reach the base station. And as you are restricted to build very dense, if you have a lot of power sources, you put them very densely together, it's really hard to get rid of the heat. So there, all of a sudden, it's not good that they only have one radio transmitter. Because all the power is going to be on one point there, and you don't get rid of it. To the extent that you can't transmit on full power, so you need to back off and go down to a bit lower power, and then you don't solve this uplink problem, which is a real big problem today. For us, that's typically a problem that doesn't exist because our radius is spread out, so we don't get the heat in one point, so it's just a problem avoided more than a problem solved. You can talk about resolutions, so this is typically how you can put beams in different directions, so you put out beams. And the better resolution you have, the tighter you can define these beams, of course, the better I can aim on something. If I define just four beams here, then it becomes less precise. I don't hit my target, and I don't get the good performance. So why should I define just a few beams? Well, think about this problem of finding the direction. The more beams I put out, the more beams I need to try before I find the optimal one. And then it takes even longer time. So you do a compromise. You define a few beams. You think that's a good compromise then. But by that, you get less of resolution. We don't care. We can have an infinite number of beams because we don't think about the problem like that. We take the energy that comes at us. We solve it as a math problem, and we get much higher performance. Let's go over to this one then. Now I've all of a sudden put the antennas in a ring. And we'll get an example of that later on. But here, if you think panels, then you need to define. So these five antennas, they form a unity. And this is what we can use. And then we have five here. And then you need to select these five or these five. But what if the direction I want is in between? Then it would have been more reasonable to take two from one of the panels and three from the other one and use them for beamforming instead. Can't be done with analog beamforming. No problem for us. Then we get something for free as well, which is very important. We get hardware that scales. One of the biggest differences, or you can say there's two differences from a radio perspective between a smartphone and a base station. One of the problems, or one of the differences, is that you need much more power from a base station. More power normally means a stronger amplifier, and if you use a stronger amplifier, then you change the radio characteristics, so you need a new component. You can't just amplify it. So you get something that you can't use the same component for a base station as a smartphone. Then the number of antennas also differs between a base station and there, but we have a solution. When we want to add more power, we just add a new antenna, which also means we add a new radio, so there we also have a natural benefit over analog beamforming. So all of these things, it's things that actually come just by choosing the concept of digital beamforming. You get all of these advantages, so of course, this is the way it should be done. You just need to do it in a way that it doesn't come with a too high cost of power and money. Digital beamforming is fundamentally different. So what I've said many times here, most of the problems people have heard of with analog beamforming is not even relevant for digital beamforming. We don't do it that way. So it's just gone. It's not something we need to solve. It's just gone. That's why we get quite confused when we get in people that know too much about analog beamforming. Also when we go to customers, that they know of all these problems and how have you solved this and how have you solved this. And we say, we haven't. We have just avoided the problem. It's not there, which is quite fantastic. We had another problem to solve, and that was the power and complexity problem. But these problems are not there. They are naturally gone. Analog beamforming is a calibrated technique, you could say. You need to build it, and then you measure it, and you see how it performs. And you learn that. And you do what you call a code book. So you write, if I put the parameters like this, I think the beam is going to point in that direction. And that you do early on. And then when things change, yeah, they better not. Because you're going to use your parameters for this code book anyway. So it's a calibrated technique. We don't calibrate. We measure. So what we do is we take a snapshot of reality. This is the energy that comes at us. I don't care where it came from, what problems it had on its way. We just do the calculation, and we figure out the direction. So we don't calibrate. It's very important. And sometimes I get questions about thermal problems in other directions. Well, when it gets hot, it's going to slide away when performance changes and so on. I don't care. Because we just take what we get and we do a calculation on it. So you can say that we calibrate our system with every snapshot all the time. So that's also something. Yeah. And I've said that the downside is really complexity. So here, I'm going to go quickly through a couple of examples. But these are slides that when we in the beginning of a relationship with a customer, these slides are typically shown. Because our typical customer are experts on beamforming. And that is analog beamforming. So they know the problem from that perspective. And the point here is very small changes can do a big impact. We put this 50% higher capacity all over the place here, but we can do that. One reason for this is we have a better spherical coverage. Another reason is we can make sure that you don't lose connection and the connection breaks down. Because we can handle the movement and we can boost it because we can take energy that comes, reflected energies, as well as the direct energies coming at us and for us, it's no trick. It's nothing. You can read this in a digital beamforming book, and you can see that this is how it's done, so it's nothing strange. It's nothing to be worried about and then what we do with customers is, OK, then we give them proof points in terms of numbers and so on, but let's skip that one. Spherical coverage. Well, you can say that more red is better. This is worse. It's blue. So, here and what you see here is a phone. And you can see the left side of the phone is going in the direction of the globe because you have antennas on that side, so if you happen to have antennas on that side, you want to send in that direction. Yeah, the result is quite good. But oops, sorry. If you instead have the phone in the other direction, there's no antennas down on the right-hand side. The right-hand side going here, it's quite bad, so if you compare that with a typical configuration that we have over here on digital beamforming, here we have put two antennas on the top and three on each side, we get a situation that's much, much better. So this one is really good from that perspective. I'm going to talk about examples for CPEs. What the heck is that then? Customer premises equipment. It's a 5G modem, basically. It's a modem that you can put in your house. 5G on one side, you get internet in through that. On the other side, it's Wi-Fi. It's a 5G modem. You can go to Clas Ohlson or Kjell & Company and buy one of those, actually, today, and use it. Why it's called customer premises equipment is because this is a big thing in many markets now. That's where the service provider or the mobile operator is providing this as a service. They call it customer premises equipment because this is the equipment they put at the customer's house. They put a 5G modem there that they handle and they own and they configure and so on. They take the maintenance of that one. Of course, when you do fixed wireless access, then what matters with that is if you want a good business case for fixed wireless access, there's a couple of things. First of all, don't put in fixed wireless access customers in a network that's already stressed and doesn't have enough capacity in it. Because a fixed user, a house, your fixed wireless, which is normally in your case going to be fiber, there you consume 20-50 times as much data as you do on your mobile phone. So the business case for an operator putting this into a system where you have a capacity shortage is really, really bad. It might be good if you have excess capacity. If it's in your summer house and they have a brand new 5G base station just next door and that's not that many people in the area, then it might be good to do it. But here, you need a lot of capacity, which means you need millimeter wave. This has gone to an extent where in the U.S., you build really large business around this. 80%-90% of all new broadband connections to homes in the U.S. are fixed wireless access there. Because it's much cheaper to install them, of course. It's much cheaper to drive that system. But one of the things that you want to have to make a good business case, because they build base stations just based on this. But one of the things you want to have then is as big radius of the cell as possible. You don't want to put your base station unnecessarily tight together. If you have the capacity, you don't want to put another base station in there, just because you lack the coverage. So here, if you think of an area full of houses and you want to reach as many as possible, what's going to happen is you're going to have a lot of non-line-of-sight. Your neighbor's house is actually in front of yours, which makes it way harder for the base station to find a line-of-sight direction to your house. So if you can harvest non-line-of-sight energy, you can increase the distance between base stations. And the business case for an operator becomes much better. You can increase it without losing any performance. And you can see here, there's an example. Here we put some figures in here. Here is if you have a cell size of 500 meters, then 27% of the users are going to be non-line of sight users. If you increase the radius to 1,000 meters, then it's 47%. If you go to 1,500 meters, it's 6G. So this is a real thing. This is really important to get here. So being able to have non-line of sight is crucial for fixed wireless access. And here, yeah, OK. I'm getting ahead of me. But here you can extend the cell radius with 200 meters. That matters. So it is something that really matters if you can do that. If you can get higher uplink throughput, that's also good. That's one thing that's really when you see on cellular networks, if you see on home examples as well, what you can see is really that everything is dimensioned for downlink traffic. Downlink means in this case from internet to you. Why? Yeah, because you consume Netflix. You consume video and so on. You consume data. Normally, you don't send so much data. But that is about to change. Because with AI, with all sorts of uplink where you send video uplink use cases, that's going to drive capacity shortage as well. So also the benefits we have of a strong uplink, because that's a cost to get that uplink. And you use frequency spectrum to get it. And if you need to use unnecessarily much, you need to build the network much denser again. Getting into base stations. So we had this example of panels. Now we have done a stupid example of it, maybe. But if you try to do a base station and you have four panels around it, you put one in that direction, one in that, one in that, and then one in that. That's OK. If you have the user straight out from those panels, it works quite well. Or you could have digital beamforming. You can have these antennas not organized as panels, but as individual antennas, and you put them in a ring. When you start measuring this, you can see the red example is the four-panel type of example. And the blue ring is the blue ring down there. You see, what happens is that if the one you want to reach is in that direction, yeah, of course, that corresponds to that you end up here. You get a dip. And the reason for that is you needed to choose to use one of these antennas. You couldn't use both. You needed to choose one. And with that, you get the performance degradation. You don't get that with the other solution. We have one customer who is doing exactly that. And I think you have seen sometimes we have been out with Molex. This is a base station antenna that Molex is building. So I'll ship it around. It's not functional, so you can't destroy it. But that is how small you can make a base station antenna. And that base station antenna has a lot of advantages. Here's another example of what happens. I've said that from each one of these square or of these antennas, you can only form one beam. So if you have this office environment with seven users in it and four panels, you can only serve four of those users at the time. You can't serve all seven because you can only form one beam at each panel. Of course, if you use digital beamforming, you can serve all seven. And you will serve them better because you will have the optimal direction to each one of them. So these things, they are quite obvious. It's not that hard. It's quite obvious advantages that come with the concept. So let's go into what we are building then. So what we've been selling so far is what's on top here, an Advanced Development Platform. This is what we would call an engagement product. It's something for us to start engaging with the customer. There's different things we are doing with our customers. Some of them are doing evaluations. They want to measure. They want the hard proof points. And they don't want us to measure it. They want to measure them themselves. They buy a development platform. They can take it into their lab and they can measure things. They can measure the performance, and that they have been doing for a couple of years now, actually, so they are out there doing that kind of measurements. What they can do as well is like what Molex has done is to start developing their own products. Because this is a modular system where they can put their product, interface it to what we have in the development platform, and they can in their lab start developing that, so all sorts of interfacing right and left that we want to use our development platform. But the end game is not, of course, not selling development platforms. It's selling products. We normally describe our products as three things. So we have this digital beamforming accelerator, a digital chip, sort of the secret sauce of taking away the complexity, making good digital beamforming to a lower cost. Yeah, let's leave it with that. It encompasses our digital beamforming. It has the algorithm in it. And by that, it's also saved complexity for the baseband. Because one way of doing this would be to just make sure that the signals we captured went into the baseband. And they could write the software in their baseband processors and do the algorithm there. We actually do it for them here. So we do the beamforming in that chip. And not only the beamforming by shifting the phases, but also figuring out how to do it. So we do the calculations in it. Then we have quite fantastic radio as well. This radio is ultra compact. Some of you have actually been in our labs. But it's hard to see it with your eyes. Because it's one by one millimeter. So when you put that in context of everything else we have in the lab, you need a microscope almost, or at least a magnifier, to see it there. It's so compact that when we took this to the foundry, to the factory that builds it, they said, "We have never seen such a radio." They were quite amazed. Because it's one by one millimeter. It's two radio transceivers. Because what you normally do to get systems more robust, you have two radios. You send with different polarizations, just like your Polaroids in there. Waves can go in that direction. They can go in that direction. You use both directions. And then you can put antennas like that. So we have two radio transceivers in there. We support three bands, which means there's different frequency ranges, so we have combined that into this ultra-small radio, and this radio takes it all the way from, in worst case here, 40 gigahertz down to a signal where it's actually zero when it comes to the carrier. It does that in one step. In analog beamforming, they normally use two-step radios. One radio taking it from 40 down to maybe three or six gigahertz, and then they have another radio taking it all the way down. We do this in one step, and that's important why? Well, we said we can have a distributed concept. We can spread our radios out, but if you spread it out and you keep a high frequency component, then the signal actually going to get. You're going to lose signal strength on the way. Because of capacities, the signal is going to disappear from your card, so it's very important to go all the way down to zero here. Then we can route it far away, and I also said we don't care about calibration. We don't calibrate the system, so in an analog beamforming, you need to know because the signal is going to keep going up and down in these peaks and valleys all the time, and so you have phases shifting also onboard on your card. We don't care because we take a snapshot and we calculate it, so you can basically take a handful of radios, throw it up, and let them land, and then we do beamforming from that concept. Instead of what you do in analog beamforming, you very carefully position these half-wavelength apart, and they need to be there because otherwise, your calibration will not work. You need to keep it extremely dense. So this is really important for us. Then we have another asset as well. We have a lot of patents. And a lot of patents, yeah, does that matter? In telecom, it does. Ericsson makes $1 billion a year on patent licensing. Some years, that's been the profit of Ericsson. So that's really nice. Because the cost of patents is not that high. But it's also good when you're a small company that you have a lot of patents. Because we have something unique. And we want to protect it. We don't want everyone to copy it. And now we have a very good protection. What you normally say is, well, one patent, a big guy with a lot of legal, they can always overthrow that patent. They just throw legal on it. And they make sure that it's invalidated. Five patents, it becomes painful. Ten, whoa. Because what happens is if they throw legal on it, they kill nine of my patents. And one stand, they still need to take a license. We have 40, 45 patent families in this. So we feel very confident. And we have tried to make it very robust. I'll come back to patents. But then we have something here. And again, a slide that takes a couple of minutes to understand what you're looking at. But if you look at this one, so this is typically a phone configuration, less than eight antennas, which means my DBFA can serve eight, maximum eight radios. Then in a phone, you don't need more. But I said this scales for base stations and CPEs. And in base stations, yeah, let's say they have 64 radios in there. Or in a CPE, 32 radios. In the antenna that's going around, the Molex antenna, there's 32 radios in that one. That means 32, but only eight in the DBFA. You need four DBFAs to serve this. Then, of course, what we needed to do is to make sure that we can connect four, or in this case, eight DBFAs together. Each one of them serves eight radios, capture the data, do some calculations, send it to the next one. In the end, the complexity for whatever thing you have here, the baseband, which is sort of the host environment, it still only sees that one connection here. The complexity for the base station or for a cell phone, if you now would have had more than eight radios, will not get higher. The complexity is the same regardless of how many antennas you have. Anyone still awake? Maybe. Yeah. Now, there's a lot of fuss about tape-outs. And of course, we are in what we have done now for several years is to build the concept. We have built the technology. Now we are building the products. And we have done tape-outs before. So don't misunderstand that. We have done several tape-outs of our radio chip. Because you need to do that before you can come to a mature solution. But just to understand what the heck is that then, well, tape-out is tape-out, which in the old days was the way you did things. You did your design. You put it in a database. You put the database on a magnetic tape. And you mailed it over to the foundry or the factory so they could manufacture it. So the tape was out. Nowadays, of course, you use electronic means of doing that. In order to do that, you need to have your design, and you can follow the flow on the other side. You build an architecture. You do the design. You do loads of verification, and this differs a bit if it's RF or if it's digital, how you do the verification. At some point, you do start caring about not only the logical design, but also the physical design. Because a chip is a physical device. The code you write or the design you do somehow needs to translate to pattern on a piece of silicon. So there's a physical layout being done, and when that's ready, you send it to the factory. They manufacture the chips in a very complicated way. Normally, what comes out of the factory is something called wafers. LP records, the ones we had before in that size, basically the same size, 300 millimeters or 12 inches of a wafer. There's loads of chips on that. What happens to that? It goes to packaging. Someone cuts it up in pieces, down to the individual chips. Then it's packaged and tested again. It's a complicated process. It takes a while to do this. If we have spent a lot of time up here, now we are in the face of this here. There's some lead time for all of these steps. It is what takes it to a physical chip. Yeah, I said it's a bit different between the two different chips. Digital Beamforming Accelerator. It's primarily, I call it a digital chip. It is primarily a digital chip. There's some analog in it as well. Because there's A/D converters and so on. There's some analog technology in that. There's some other analog things as well. It's primarily a digital chip. A digital chip, yeah, I know this. I this. I did once upon a time. Then it was a graphic design with gates. Now it's more like a special version of coding. When you do that coding, when you do that chip design, the physical design doesn't matter really to you. You don't do the physical design. You keep within rules. There's a possibility to do a physical design without breaking timing and so on. You basically think on the logical flow. You test on the logical flow. You can stay for years in that process. All of a sudden, you want to do a tape-out. Then you need to go to physical design. We call the coding phase more front-end. On the digital chip, you have a very distinct back- end process where you need a different type of skills. You need a different set of tools. You need a different set of engineers. Almost all companies use a different set of engineers to do the back end flow, to lay out this physical chip, and to make it ready for production. What we are doing here is that for this chip, we have a very good partner for the back end process. Maybe the best in the world. So a partner that we have worked with for ages. And that is actually the same partner that supplies us with our design system. So we are using Cadence for the back end system, the back- end process here. So we are in that process with the DBFA right now. We are in the process of doing that. It's quite a lengthy process. You do a lot of iterations within that process. You test tapeouts several times. And actually, we do refine some of the chip design at the same time here. What's very important is that you can lock down some things early, the size of the chip, the way you're going to put all the outputs, the pins of the chip, where the buses are, where sort of the traffic flows are. There's a lot of things that you need to have in place in order to start it. But you work on this in an iterative manner. For the radio, it's slightly different. There you can say that, just as I said before, about millimeter wave and distance and physics or the physical size of things matters. So here you can't really do a design and being unaware of the physical design. So here you do a little bit of each all the time, based of course on some sort of a principal schematics that you start with. But very early on, you need to do simulations where you take the physical layout into consideration. So here, the back-end, going back-end, you could say, is not as dramatic. It is not that you don't bring, or at least we don't bring in a new team there. I don't think anyone does that. You use your engineers for this as well. And they have been preparing for that all the time. Here you can see more of it. They distinctly go for tape-out. And the tape-out process, at least in our case, is much more condensed. It's something you do during, yeah, several weeks or more than just a few. But it's a matter of weeks where you really prepare for this tape-out. And then you send it off and get it produced. When it comes to the radio, we have an urgent need for doing a tape-out for one reason. And that is we've been sampling the few prototypes we have had to a lot of customers. So we are running low on supply of radios. So we need more radios. And we did our last tape-out three years ago. And the reason we haven't done anyone since because then we made sure if any one of you know how few components you get when you do sort of a prototype tape-out, we made sure we ordered more so we could get a bit more chips. But still, we have run out of them. But the driving reason we haven't made a new tape-out there was this tape-out in 2022, which was our second tape-out, was so good that we didn't consider that we needed it. Because we had all the things we needed to fulfill to prove digital beamforming was there. They weren't in the first tape-out. The first tape-out was functional, but didn't have the performance we could do digital beamforming in the way we wanted to. But 2022, we did that tape-out. We secured what we could show, exactly what we want to show. And that was, of course, a big, big step for us. Now it's given us a big advantage. Because then we have had since then to figure out what's really lacking on this chip. How do we get the last few% of performance out of it? How do we solve this small thing that wasn't good here and that small thing that wasn't good there? And we have had the opportunity to test it, not only to characterize this radio statically, but we have been able to run it in our system together with our digital IP in the development platform, setting up all sort of strange test cases. So this radio is very well characterized, very well tested already. And now what we need is to go for a new tape-out to make the last few percentages there. There's no functional improvements really in that one from when we did it last time. It's performance improvements we do. A lot of it's about 60% now. So why is that? Well, it's because here somewhere, the standardization organization in the world is. They're not stopped working with 5G specification because they will maintain it. But their focus is clearly shifting to 60. So here now, when we get into 2026, the meetings now is about how 60 is going to be defined. To a great extent, it's going to be built on what you have before. Because that's how you do this. There's a lot of things that's going to be reused. But you have a few things that you want to put in. One thing is positioning, for example. But there are also always the thing with capacity. So they need to fix what's not so good with these higher bands. They want to add new high bands. And they want to add new lower bands as well into the specification. This impacts the discussion we have with customers, normally in a positive way. Because we are proactive. We can show how we fit into the next generation of products as well. So that is really good. There are customers that's for sure going to claim that they launch products 2028 or something like that and call them 6G. That's a bit premature, I think. The mainstream 6G is yet a couple of years away beyond that. We need to be prepared to take the discussion. We are. Of course, we participate in the standardization work. We have mostly been participating with one person covering that. We will increase that now when 6G intensifies. It's important for us to know what's going on. It's important for us to be the advocate for digital beamforming in there. There's going to be a new high-frequency band. We don't need to push things in there to be a viable alternative. We can make it even better with that. And we want to push things into the specification that is good for our patent licensing business as well. There's some other things going on here, like when it comes to new frequency. So once in a while, the world meets. There's ITU down there. The world meets and tries to decide there's some new frequency bands we're going to use. We're going to free up more spectrum for cellular communication. And that needs to be a global agreement. Because if it's not, if you start using different frequency bands in different parts of the world, you need a different phone from that. That's how it started out when you had 1G. Then it was quite fragmented. And you couldn't travel with your phone. Nowadays, you expect to be able to travel with your phones. But spectrum is scarce. And it's used for other things. Most of you have, I think, lived through the era where you get a new set-top box to your TV because frequency's moved, funny enough, to higher frequencies. You need a set-top box to work with that. That's what happens on that conference. They will say, "OK, so you have resolved this for satellite communication. You have resolved this for police communication and what have you. Sorry, you need to move that. You need to go somewhere else because now we want to use it for cellular in the full globe." That's tricky because it means if you tell the ITU, I worked with Bluetooth for a long time. We needed to do the same thing. One of the users was Israel's army had those frequencies of 2.4 gigahertz. So they said, "Sorry, you need to throw all your radios away and buy new ones on a new frequency band. And that's quite an investment. But that's what you need to do there." So this is a fairly slow process. You have seen this built in different shapes before when it comes to our patents. This is really important for us. We feel that we were so early here that we wanted to make sure that we get good patents. And we have been very, very systematic about it. So when we look at patents, we look at in different areas. You see our algorithm, digital architecture, radio architecture, antenna system, and so on. So we have systematically tried to build a minefield of patents where it's going to be very hard to build digital beamforming, of course, the way we do it. But we're also trying to make sure that you can't do it in the alternative way. So if we find an alternative solution to what we do, we take patent on that as well. So we put quite an effort on patents. We put quite some money on patents as well. But when it comes to money, we could also say we are very cost-effective here. First of all, we have an in-house patent attorney, which no startup I've ever heard of having an in-house patent attorney. But we do. It makes us very, very efficient. Then we happen to have two of the most productive inventors in the world in the company. So we have 30 people in the company. But still, we have two of the most productive inventors in that company. One of them, Bengt, is sitting here in the room today, having more than 2,000 approved patents, but also Joachim, that you saw there, is 600, 700 type of patents. I'm sure that there are some people here with a few patents as well, but I'm quite sure that no one has 1,000. Coming to the end of this presentation, I said we're going to do it in 45 minutes, and I didn't mean one hour and 45 minutes. Priorities and risks, so if you look at the priorities, well, yeah, the priorities now is to build products for volume. That's really the thing for us to do. We have built technology. Now we are building products. So that's the top priority. You've heard what I said, well, there's some things that come into play now that we didn't have to care as much about before. Some of this back-end work, some of this production tests, there's a lot of things that need to be done just because it's going to go in high-volume production. Packaging becomes very important. All the final details need to be there, and for that, one of the things we needed to do was to build out the team with more people than. We raised money at the end of this summer. Since then, I guess we have increased. Now it's up almost to 40% or 45% of the company. We have increased that on the engineering side just to be able to get these competencies in, so the ones of you that's been in our office before, now the office is bigger. There's more people. There's more intense things going on. It's even more fun to be in there because you can really feel the pulse of what's happening. What's also important? Well, this process of hiring people has gone extremely well. I'm so happy that we are in Lund. We have the university just next door. We have an endless supply of good master thesis students that we take in. We have large companies surrounding us and companies that's really relevant, of course, Ericsson, but Axis. And we have an example of Volvo as well here. There's so many good companies here. So recruiting in Lund is a good place to recruit. These are positions that normally is hard to fill. We have filled almost all of them that we want to fill. We're still looking for one or two more guys. But basically, we have filled the positions we want to fill. We also need to take care of our current customers. We have customers now that's into a phase where they very intensely prepare for their products. We need to support them. They are far away. It's an important task for us to serve up to their needs. Fortunately, this development platform is working very well. We have one platform that's eight time zones away in a place where English is not really good, and we still succeed supporting them in a good way. The cost is a phone call every morning or at least twice a week at 7:00 A.M. to make sure we sync in with them, but it's a very efficient way, and we can see they get it. They get it, and we manage to do remote updates to the platform. We manage to support them on these issues. We also have operators that are all over us to help them push their suppliers to go digital beamforming. Because analog beamforming is not performing for them. They are very impressed with what we show. But of course, it doesn't help them until we have products. But we have operators that are giving us all sort of offers of how we could do this together. So I think, hopefully, we can present things together with operators here as well. Because this is very, it's crucial for them. It's crucial for us. So it's very important. And then we have some trusted partners as well that we prioritize. I guess saying what you prioritize also says what you don't prioritize. We are going, and we have Adam, our Head of Sales here in the room as well. We are prioritizing finding new customers. But we are not pushing as hard as we could have. We are not that eager to send one or two of our top engineers to the customer place for a new customer. We want them to stay here and make the products ready. Because it is costly when you need to send them away. There's a week you lose for that sort of trips. So we do prioritize our existing customers. We do talk to new customers. But we don't give them all that. They don't get our top-notch designers on site as often as they did before. Risks. Yeah. There's so many risks. So there's always risk to these sort of things. The thing is, there's always risk. So you shouldn't be surprised by that. What matters is how you handle risk. And the easy risk, that's the risk you know. There's always a few problems and a few things that you do know that this is going to be a risk. In the end, you've always taken care of that before it happens. Because that's the nature of things you know you solve. What you really need to worry about is the things you don't know. Because they are hard to solve in advance. The only way of attacking those is proceeding with speed. Because you need to hit the risks. You need to get there as soon as possible. The guy that sits in his room just trying to figure out, oh, this might also be a risk and solve that problem, he's always wrong. It's always something else that will fail. I think you know that from your private life, that things you really prepare for, they never happen. The shit that happens is something you didn't think of. And it's the same thing here. You can only just speed on. And you take it when it hits. But that, of course, gives you some uncertainty. You know that thing's going to happen. And for us, I think for an engineer, it normally is not a problem. We see problems as a challenge. I have a fight with my CFO that's here as well sometimes. He said, "Problem is a positive word." That's what the engineer lives out of. If there's no problem, there's no work. There's no fun. So we have problems. But we solve them. That's what makes an engineer tick. So that's important. And with that, I'm going to stop brutally there and leave the field open for questions. We're going to have a microphone to pass around for those who want to ask questions. And Svein-Egil will help me to respond to these things. Because I think you have even more experience than I have when it comes to semiconductors and silicon. Who has the first question? There we go. Microphone over. Yeah. OK. It ended up back there to start with. Yeah. OK. I have followed BeammWave for a number of years. But I have puzzled about a couple of things. I mean, I follow those presentations. And technology seems to be superior to the existing ones and so on. But for instance, this Advanced Development Platform, as far as I know, you have only sold a few of them. And there are so many companies out there that should be interested in this technology. So why haven't you sold more of those? And the second question concerns the rights issue that you had a few months ago. It was directed towards ordinary shareholders like myself. But if the technology is so great and you have those partners, your customers, wouldn't that be an excellent opportunity for them to take part of BeammWave, a great investment, if they see the potential? I think that's two great questions. So the first one, why haven't we sold more development platforms? I think if you look at the industry and how it works, there's a lot of people building phones and building well, it's quite consolidated that as well. But there's a lot of actors acting on this technology. There's just a few integrators putting it together. So for us, there's a very specific type of customers that can take this sort of technology early. Because then you need to have more knowledge. You need to go into the radio technology, into the beamforming technology. And you need to have knowledge about that. And most of our end customers can't do that. They could take our chips when they are tested and ready and pre-integrated. But they can't take the technology. Could we scale it up more? Yes, we could. Could we handle that? Yeah, maybe. But it's not our primary intent to sell a lot of development platforms. We need a few. Because we want some early adopters. We need the feedback they can give us. But we don't want to scale this up to a business of 50 development platforms. Because we're frankly too small to support it. We're frankly too small to sell it. And it wouldn't make sense. When it comes to the rights issue, yeah, I would have hoped, if I'm going to be honest, that I had some strategic investor with me in this last rights issue we had. In the end, we didn't. We had a clear goal to make the cap table look better. I think quite a few of you represent small shareholders. And we're really glad for that. Because we have a lot of smaller shareholders. Some of you are a bit bigger. But with this rights issue, we wanted to get the money. Because we needed it. And we wanted to improve the cap table. And for us, that meant to get in some larger shareholders. And we think we succeeded with that. Not many, but a few new large shareholders. If one of them would have been a strategic yes, I would have been much more happy or been happy about that, and I'm sure it's going to happen, but it didn't happen this summer. When will you be able to present the Customer X? Is it after tape-out? So the Customer X, yeah, I don't know. It's their decision. It's their decision. Maybe a funny side story, but when you are a small company and try to sell to a big company, yeah, selling is one thing. Making the press release is actually twice as hard. Because normally you sell to a person within the company. And that person is enthusiastic. This is the best thing. I really want this. And then we ask him, so yeah, when you got this, can we now send a press release? That I can't decide. But I can ask my boss, who asks his boss, and then ask that boss. And then it comes back. But by principle, we never send press releases with small companies. OK. Can you ask again? And you keep playing that game. It's really, really, really hard. But then you have some factual things as well. If you are a market leader on a certain technology and you try to invest in something that's disruptive to what you have, you maybe not want to tell that early. So yeah, I think there's different things. But press releases is a headache in general. And we need to send it out. So if we can't send it out with the company name, we need to do what we did with customer X here. I'm sure it's going to happen again. You are still recruiting people. Are you further ahead now than you believed half a year ago? I think I'm quite a realistic guy. I think we are where we should be. I think we are if you ask where did I think we should be a couple of years ago, we are way, way more ahead now than what I expected. There's a lot of things that I thought is going to be really hard to do that we're already done. So that is good. But if you say six months ago, I know I think we are sticking to the plan. We needed that money. We needed this acceleration. Because we are on a competitive market. I'm not giving you any opportunities. Yeah, I think so. I think so. I think that just to add on that, I think the most important thing this year is Stefan's strategy is to accelerate the development of the final product. And I came on board at BeammWave a year and a half ago. The first thing I asked about is, where's the product? And where's the product? Where's the product? And in my world, in my life, in the R&D concept, I was always much more focused on D than R. Now here there's been both. So now to bring a product to market is vital. And I think the acceleration we're able to do now is great. It gives that momentum. The hiring has been great. Gives the momentum. We've got to get products. We've got to get chips out. That at the end of the day, you've got to have something that the customer can put on their PCB. And that we are on that path now with clear milestones and teams that can do it. That feels really good. And we weren't there like a year and a half ago. Then we were still sort of looking at how are we going to get there. But now we are on a track. It looks really good. We do understand that digital beamforming is superior. And despite of your many patents, are there not any competition from other companies? I think we have a fantastic head start. Digital beamforming, sometimes when we talk about it, it sounds like no one has ever done it. People have done it. But they have done it for other types of applications where you have a bigger budget of money, bigger budget of power. So typically in military applications and so on, you see digital beamforming. So I think the secret sauce of what we do is we do digital beamforming with the low power consumption. And there we do not see any competition. There should be. And we actually would welcome some competition there, even if we try to stop it by all our patents. But we would welcome some competition there. Because we have spent several years now sort of being first in the track in this deep of snow. So we have been having to push and educate the industry of that these fantastic things that you know of can be done. But there is not really any competition that we know of. Someone might be hiding around. We are not naive enough to believe that Nokia and Qualcomm and Ericsson and those guys haven't tried. We haven't seen any signs of them succeeding. We haven't seen any evidence where you can see evidence in just among patents. Because after one and a half years, patents become public. We don't see a lot of track of that happening. I think we still have a very good head start here. Now we just need to get there all the way. Yes, first, thank you very much for a very insightful presentation. First time I listen to BeammWave like this. Looking at the operators, you said something about their interest. How far can you estimate already their willingness to invest before the standardization is actually in play? I mean, the operators, you talked about network operators as a big opportunity. I'm keen on understanding their willingness of investing in testing environments from a monetary perspective before the standardization is in play. No, but in one respect, the standardization is done. This is part of 5G. So it's already done. They have invested in buying spectrum, which is really expensive. They have bought base stations. They see a lack of phones. And they see a lack of traffic and income right now. So they are desperate to recoup their investments they have already done. They do not want 6G to be something completely different. Because that would waste the investments they have done. They want the suppliers to fix the problem we see now. And they see us as a solution. So they invite us to their suppliers. They invite us to do demonstrations, to do talks in order to influence. For them, it's crucial to get what they already invested in to get it functional. OK, thank you. Another question, if I may. It's related to the projected burn rate after the investments that you have now. I mean, you're capitalized, yes. But for how long? So that's a question that I normally don't respond to. We publish our quarterly reports. It's quite easy to figure out our burn rate. And you can see how much money we have there. But what's always difficult is, of course, all these one-time expenses and so on. But we feel well capitalized. We took quite a lot of money now. And that gives us the confidence to go for it right now. Yeah, question. When the tape-out is finished, what is sort of the next step when it comes to the customers? How do their processes look like in the timeline? Yeah. So it's different from customer to customer. There's several different dimensions to talk about that. But if you look at the most eager customers, the customers that have a product that actually depends on millimeter wave performance, which does not include the handsets. Because a handset is about cameras, about this and that and so on, and not so much about every network feature in it. But if you talk about the other ones that depend on the performance, they are very eager. So the development platform for us is a way to have them working in parallel with us. But of course, the moment we have a chip, there's two things that happen with the customer. They get the means to do a different type of prototyping. They can do a form factor correct prototyping. They can do demos in another way. But they also get the confidence that we can produce the final thing. And with that comes, of course, that they can increase the speed in their development. So I hope to go parallel. And we already do with these customers. You can see the Molex antenna that disappeared somewhere here. That's one of the parts that it ended up with its rightful owners, Adam Noll, Head of Sales. But that one is a perfect example where they go in parallel. And so is customer X and actually Alpha Networks as well. They go in parallel with us. But there will still be quite some time before we actually see the products on the platforms. If you ask me when we see it in the first smartphone, I will say it will be some time. If you ask me when you can see it in some of the other products, I'm not so sure. It's up to them how hard they want to push, how much risk they want. They have an upside because we can deliver higher performance. They need to take risk if they want to go fast. And right now, these customers are going fast. Other customers are saying, OK, we're going to wait until you have the final silicon before you test. So it's going to be different from different. It's also clearly so that we see two types of customers. There are some customers that are that big that they can have three generations of products in play all the time. Others, when you go out in Southeast Asia, some customers only have one generation of products. And if you're not in it, you're not in any. It's important to understand it's very different. I think that if I can add to that, I think there's a couple of proof points that you will see on the way. First is the fact that a customer decides to use the product and commits to using the product. Then there's the time it takes for him to get his product manufacturable in volume. Typically, the most important is what I call a design win. Design win is you're on the board. You're committed to go. Then yeah, they start developing. They do all the work that needs to be. That period can be longer than you want. I would like to say that. But the proof point is before. From a chip company, there's always can we actually prove that we have had customer success? Yes, we're on the board. We're moving forward. All right, we have to still have a little bit of patience before we get the revenue. But that's how our business is. Of course, as a semiconductor company, the great thing is also typically when you're in the product, you're in it for a long time. So it goes both ways. We sort of measure ourselves in making constant progress. We try to avoid putting out time limits. Because there are so many of these that's not in our hands. But making progress is the important thing. As long as we step forward, we are happy. I thank you very much for the presentation, the technical one. But I'm very interested in the figures. So when do you plan to reach break even? And then I'm very interested in the volumes that this will come up to in the future. What the earnings will be for each item you will sell or how you counted it, so to say. We are shooting for the stars when it comes to the volumes. We can see that the addressable market for high-frequency communication and actually other, it is hundreds and hundreds of millions of units. From our perspective, it's so big that we don't care about doing the numbers game there. We want to get into that segment. That one is huge, of course. When it comes to break even, I think it is. To some respect, break even is always a choice. Because if you want to reach break even, just stop investing and sell what you have. At some point, you are in a situation where you can do that. You can keep investing. So we don't have that sort of clear plan of that's the point we're going to make break even. We have a clear plan on how we break into volume products and reach for the stars. And then break even, yep, we can do that at some point. Or we maybe need to do it at some point. But it's not like we're reaching for break even within the next 12 months. That's absolutely not so. Oops. I wouldn't blame you if you're tired after this. But there's another question, of course. Yeah. Warren Buffett, I read that he mentioned that NVIDIA has the market cap of Japan's total GDP. So that's what we're reaching for. Reaching for world domination. That's what it is. Yep. I'm not sure if I'm going to challenge him. But maybe. Now, we have an enormous potential, of course. And we have by far exhausted the application that goes for digital beamforming. You have beamforming and high-frequency happening for so many other things than only communication and 5G. It happens in Wi-Fi. It happens in military application. It happens in satellite communication. There's so many applications for this. So that's another reason why our patents are so important. But I'm not going to challenge Warren Buffett. I think we'll take that when it comes. Yeah, so concerning the volumes, of course, if you get into the smartphone market, there is a huge volume. But for instance, this product that Molex has developed, what is the volume for that type of product? The volume for that type of product is, of course, the compound volume of base station for millimeter wave and to some extent CPEs as well. There you can use that. What you need to remember is that that product has the specific product we circle around has 32 antennas. A cell phone has eight. So we have some advantage, and a base station maybe have 64 or 128 antennas and even more so. So the product or the volume of the product or the market of the product, you need to then consider also how many radios will go into each product. But of course, mobile phones is the ultimate market for any company and any technology nowadays. Everyone wants to get into the mobile phone, and a good way is to do communication. Then for sure, you're relevant at least, but what I really wanted to. The smartphone market seems to be further ahead, according to my impression, so if Molex launches this product, what kind of revenues could you expect then? I think there can be quite considerable revenue in that market as well. I can't tell what Molex's plans are in terms of volumes. If we only had Molex on that market, what that would mean. It's far below our ambitions, at least. It's not what we want to do. We want to be in many more products, and the way to get into many more products is to prove ourselves somewhere. Everyone is afraid of asking a question now. Because then everyone else will look angry at you. Now, but if no more questions, thank you for taking the time. Much more time than you have planned. Much more technology than you would have liked, but still, it gave me something. I got the opportunity to say all the things that I can't say when I go on Aktiespararna and the other places where I need to tell the basic story of BeammWave from the beginning every time, so thank you very much for coming here, and I hope to see you again.