Thank you. Okay, thank you, everyone, as we continue day two of the Barclays Global Automotive and Mobility Tech Conference. I'm Dan Levy. I lead U.S. Autos Research coverage, and very pleased to have with us, Mobileye, one of the leaders in the active safety, autonomous driving space, and we have, Dan Galves. Dan used to do what I'm doing. I did, yeah, and not as good as you're doing it. Yeah, we, you know, share some previous employers. That is- Yeah. That's correct. No, it's good to see you back at Barclays. Before we start, I've been asked to, like, start reading some disclaimers- Oh! ... before my fireside chat, so I'm gonna go through this pretty quickly. Some of my statements today may be forward-looking and are subject to meaningful risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including those set out in our cautionary statement on forward-looking statements contained in our third quarter release and 10-Q. I may use non-GAAP financial information in answering some questions. Reconciliation of those statements can be found on our website under Investor Relations, including in our third quarter release. We provided guidance for 2023, most recently on October 26th, 2023, and we will not provide guidance for 2024 until early in 2024. The 2023 guidance was only effective as of the date given, and nothing in this presentation should be viewed as me in any way confirming or updating this guidance or providing any view on our potential results for 2024. Got it. Done. Okay. It's easier when there's a slide. Right. Got it. Okay, let's actually just start. I think the big event that you have coming up- Yeah ... is CES. So what's on tap? You know, I think that, you know, CES is kind of our main, you know, promotional, marketing kind of visibility event of the year, and it will continue to be this year. You know, last year we provided some information on kind of future revenue pipeline, design win activity for the year that had just ended, and I think we'll continue to do that. But I think the most important thing about, you know, our CES program most years is it. You know, Amnon is our CEO. You know, I think he likes to give a real kind of state of the industry, you know, state of the union type of speech that's not necessarily, you know, 100% about Mobileye, but about kind of trends he's seeing in the industry. I think one thing that we'll focus on quite a bit this year is how we've been able to find ways to really kind of allow automakers to turn our core technologies into products of their own. You know, we talked about a concept called tunable parameters in association with the Porsche announcement, but we'll go into a lot more detail about what that means, and kind of the sneak preview is essentially... You know, our system can, it comes with essentially tuning knobs that can kind of tweak, fine-tune, you know, hundreds of different parameters about how the vehicle actually acts. and that's, I think, you know, where the OEM's focus is most, is creating a driving experience that's aligned with their brand, that doesn't feel the same as every other competitor, and we think that that's an important way to collaborate with our customers. We'll also have our CTO for the first time give a speech, you know, on the Wednesday of CES that's gonna kind of drill down on some of the technology items that Amnon speaks about the day before. Great. Is in general, I know last year you provided some backlog or order book color. Is that the type of thing that... not maybe not necessarily for next year, but you know, something you wanna get in the habit of doing, or maybe was that more one-off? No, I think that that's something that we wanna get into the habit of doing. Like, one of the benefits of our business is we have long-term visibility, you know, based on kind of the contracts that we've won, that typically start, you know, two-2.5 years after you begin the contract, and then last for eight, nine, 10 years. You know, so we're, you know, currently signing agreements that run, in some cases, through 2035. So it gives you a good, kind of a good sense. Nothing is for sure because there's no take or pay in the auto industry, so it's ultimately all gonna depend on how many cars are produced that are, you know, targeted within that contract. But, you know, because we have this good visibility, we think we... It's kind of a helpful framework for investors to use to value us. Great. Let's pivot just broadly to what we're seeing in the industry. I think the theme of the year has really been this pullback on EV euphoria. Another theme that's emerged more lately is yet another, you know, trough of disillusionment on fully driverless AV. Mm-hmm. We know that the push to a more advanced ADAS, more advanced driver assist-type features, that was also a separate theme, you know, somewhat of a conflation between that and EV and AV. What are you seeing on overall the bidding, quoting activity, the interest by customers in really adopting this technology? Is it in line? Is it accelerated? I'm guessing based on the commentary you provided on the third quarter call, it's accelerated. Mm-hmm. Yeah, I mean, it's a complicated question. I think that, you know, if you go back five or six years, kind of the interest in terms of fully autonomous vehicles was more about fleets of autonomous vehicles that were providing kind of robotaxi services or goods delivery services, kind of within a city, deployed in networks. I think that you know, some OEMs in the industry had the sense that, you know, we could wake up one day and nobody's buying cars anymore. So there was a lot of investment in that side. But Mobileye always believed that, you know, the world had two parallel futures, and, you know, one would potentially be- or the world could, you know, the AV world could develop in two different ways. One would be this kind of robotaxi charged by the mile, own fleets of cars deployed in networks. The cars would operate 60%-70% of the day, and everything would be more efficient. But we also believed in, in, you know, driverless technology or, you know, what we now call eyes-off, hands-free. So, you know, in a wide variety of conditions, you can, you know, do other things on your commute and let the car take over the driving for you, deployed in vehicles that you or me buy. We saw that we wanted to create a technology approach that could win, no matter which direction the industry followed. I would say that there's been a huge pivot over the last couple of years towards developing technology that could be deployed in consumer-owned vehicles that would kind of, you know, evolve, progressively take over more and more of the driving. And that's, you know, so that's the direction. And our product portfolio we built while we were inside Intel serves that perfectly because, you know, our approach is targeted at a complete cost to the OEM of a self-driving system of $5,000 or $6,000. That is relevant for a consumer-owned vehicle, and building blocks of that approach can be deployed in systems that are not eyes off, that are eyes on. So our SuperVision system is supported by 11 cameras around the vehicle that provide a complete 360-degree view of the environment, high-definition mapping, decision-making software. The failure rate is not gonna be better than a human, so you still keep your eyes on the road, but you can provide value. And that system is already on the road with several different customers, generating revenue for us. So I think, you know, one of our principles has always been, you know, you should look at an approach that will get to fully autonomous vehicles when it gets there, but pieces of that approach should generate revenue today or over time. And that's kind of... So I think it's really, you know, the way that the industry has evolved is, you know, kind of playing perfectly with our approach. I think the idea of, you know, all of the cost pressures that are in the industry today, whether it's from, you know, union negotiations or EV margins, or kind of, you know, high levels of investment to support EVs, is also a positive for us because I think it makes OEMs more likely to look for kind of a high probability delivered solution from a supplier like us, at a reasonable cost point with proven performance and good time to market, rather than internally developed systems that, you know, carry higher investment costs and have, I would say, lower probability of success versus something that's already on the road. So this point here on why customers want to engage with you. Mm-hmm. You know, the data point that you gave on the last earnings call was that you're engaged, or you're in advanced talks with ten automakers on either SuperVision or Chauffeur. It's across regions. There's no EV pure plays. What is it that that's driving this level of engagement? Is this exactly what you're saying, is that this is just the easiest and most cost-effective path of scaling on this technology? And then I would just ask as a follow-up, we have these awards, and I think the metric you gave is, like, great 50%+ likelihood of converting into something. Mm-hmm. How do we take this from a discussion to a hard award? Yeah. No, it's another good question. So, you know, I think that what we've seen—because if you go back to the beginning of the year, that probably, that number, those metrics would have been maybe 3 OEMs representing, you know, 9%-10% of the industry, and now it's 10 OEMs representing 34% of the industry. I think what's really happened is that, you know, I think that the industry has seen a major kind of a very kind of fast-moving development of hands-free systems in China. You know, we have companies like XPeng and Li Auto and NIO, all deployed systems that, you know, in certain environments, navigate the car for you. Again, you have to keep your eyes on the road, very similar to kind of a Tesla FSD type of technology. And consumer demand for these systems and interest by the media in China is, like, off the charts, and so there's huge demand to put these systems on the road very quickly. We deployed a system with an automaker called ZEEKR that has, you know, similar type of functionality, we think better, but, you know, that, that's, you know, that's subjective. So that kind of fast level of development in China has in combination with, you know, many announcements of Chinese automakers, you know, looking to export vehicles into Europe and potentially North America at some point, has led the legacy global automakers to focus on more pragmatic concerns, like time to market, cost, and performance. I should say, like, you know, the alternative for the legacy automakers has been a desire to develop internal software to support this type of functionality and deploy it on a processor from, you know, maybe NVIDIA or Qualcomm. The alternative to Mobileye, kind of an outsourced solution from Mobileye, has been internal development. These programs, you know, seem to not be kind of resulting. You know, they're either being de-scoped or, you know, the cost is too high. So but I, but I think that the, you know, kind of the aggression by the Chinese automakers in this space has led to a focus on more pragmatic considerations by the OEMs. And then the final piece to kind of this flywheel was we successfully delivered the SuperVision software into ZEEKR vehicles in August, you know, more than 100,000 vehicles, and the system has been performing, you know, I think, better than we expected. It's getting great consumer feedback. So I think in some ways, until you actually see software in consumers' hands and out of the kind of the demo world, you don't really know for sure. And so I think that that was a huge proof point to the industry that, you know, what we've been talking about is actually a real system that can be deployed quickly. So I think that that's how we think of kind of why this traction has really been kind of increasing over the course of this year. The path to contract—like, what are the gating factors? Is this just timing, companies have to go through their processes to grant the awards? Yeah, I mean, I think that these are strategic decisions. Like, you know, the typical kind of our core products, driving assist products, like you know, you have a normal sort of RFQ process where you kind of submit your bid, it's evaluated by purchasing people, the engineers kind of all know your capability, and it's a very kind of clear kind of cadence of, you know, timing. With these kind of more strategic decisions, there, there's a lot more, there's a lot more factors. Like, you know, if you have a large internal team, like, what do you do with them? What are the roles and responsibilities? Because I think the automakers, they, they wanna have a role in these programs, and they should, because there's, there's a lot of consumer-facing aspects to it. How does the vehicle, you know, drive? You know, you know, do I want to follow the common speed or the legal speed? There's a lot of decisions that the OEM has to make, so you need to kind of work out who's gonna... You know, what are the roles and responsibilities? There's, you know, more aspects of, you know, terms and conditions and, you know, probably a little bit more liability discussion. So it just takes a little bit longer. Can you address, you know... Actually, before we go to 2024 SuperVision, maybe you can just give one more on the scope of opportunities here, right? Because, we know that, you know, SuperVision, there's Chauffeur, you know, you have hardware, software. Maybe give us a sense of, you know, how we think of the split on hardware, software, SuperVision, Chauffeur, and then how many of these are for standard fit vehicles? Mm-hmm. So I think that, you know, we're hardware, software integrated. So we, you know, the lifeblood of our company is software, but we design our own chip, and the software comes deployed on a chip. Now, the way that we're selling SuperVision, the way it works today, is that for all ZEEKR 001, ZEEKR 009, there's several other models. The hardware comes on each car that's produced, and it provides, like, a basic kind of Level 2+ capability, like adaptive cruise control, lane centering, things like that. But if the consumer wants to have the full kind of navigation capability of SuperVision, ZEEKR calls it NZP, so kind of navigate on pilot type of technology, where the car understands where you're going, knows where to position the car to get off the exit, makes automatic lane changes, the consumer has to pay extra for that. And we would get kind of a back-end software licensing, fee for that. But the, the bulk of the revenue per unit is coming from the initial delivery of the hardware. And- Does that, does that answer your question? Yeah, yeah, but it's for customers, right? Like, I think it's either a software-only solution or it's software plus the domain controller. Ah. So, you know, to what extent are- Right ... the customers interested in, "Okay, we just want software, which is like $750 ASP, or we want that plus the hardware," that, that's what gets you to the full $1,500 that you- Yeah, you're talking about more, are we the Tier One- Yeah, sorry. - or are we the Tier Two? No, that's fine. As the Tier Two, which is our position in kind of the core driving assist business, we would just deliver the chips and the software. And, And, and then if we're the Tier One, we're delivering those chips and software on a domain controller. Right now, all of the kind of the booked business is Tier One. So it's, it's, you know, it's the domain controller. If we look at the pipeline, it's a mix of Tier One and Tier Two, and, and that's actually best for us because I, I think that, you know, the, the being the Tier One requires more kind of on-the-ground development and validation work directly with the OEM, which requires us to build teams. So, there you know, there would be. We wanna limit execution risk as much as possible, so if we could have a mix and we could have partnerships with, you know, kind of current Tier One partners to kind of help validate and develop some of these programs, assuming we win a lot of them, then that would be best for us. Great. One of the key things for the stock, obviously, on a more near-term basis, has been the volume of SuperVision. This year, you've guided to, you'll be in the low 100,000 range. Mm-hmm. I don't know if there's any updates you could provide fourth quarter, but as we think about 2024, which I think the indication from the last earnings call was something in the low 200,000 range, maybe help us bridge from where we are today to next year. I think there's a variety of models. 001 is still the key model, but, you know, Volvo EM90, Polestar 4, smart, you know, how are we- Mm-hmm ... bridging from today to next year on that low 200, number? Yeah, I think we, you know, what we said was that consensus was, and it seemed reasonable, right? That's what we said on the Q3 call, and I think that what we're seeing. You know, so we started this year with only one car in market, the ZEEKR 001, and then the ZEEKR 009 launched in kind of sometime in Q1, and that's really been it until last quarter, the smart #1 launched. You know, Polestar 4 just started shipping to customers in China, or delivering to customers in China a couple of weeks ago. So you really have kind of a full year effect of some of these launches, as well as the ZEEKR 001 is gonna be sold in Europe. They're starting to deliver to customers in Europe now. So that should drive incremental volume. Polestar 4 currently is delivering only in China, but it launches in Europe, you know, I believe in Q1, and in North America in the middle of next year, and then FAW launches towards the end of the year. So, essentially, I guess the takeaway is, we don't require any sort of incremental... We don't require any growth in terms of vehicles that are being shipped today, you know, that are sort of at run rate. Like, we don't need that run rate to go up next year. It's just about expansion on the new models. It's about expansion on the new models, and then getting some volume from Europe and U.S., which we're really excited about, because, again, like, we want, we think that these proof points in front of our other customers are really important. So if we have a successful launch of SuperVision, not just in China, but in Europe and U.S., like, I think that that's a big benefit to us. As we think about, you know, in 2026, if we think more about just what the timing is for winning a program, you know, and getting that to be in 2026, how far in advance do you have to win that program? So with a Chinese automaker, so for example, like we signed the agreement with FAW in September, and that launch is in late 2024. So, you know, a little bit over a year from design win to launch, and we think that that's pretty typical of Chinese automakers. So if you win business today or in the next couple of months, it's gonna launch in, you know, like early 2025. For non-Chinese automakers, it's about a year longer. So I would say, like, the designs that we're, you know, trying to win today with non-Chinese automakers are more like first half, middle 2026 type of launches. Okay, great. Competition, and I think you—you know, I think we can look at competition in two ways. One, I think you addressed internally why it makes more sense to use a Mobileye versus an internal solution, the scale and whatnot, but maybe you can talk about the external competitors, be it a Qualcomm Arriver- Mm-hmm ... or an OEM that is doing things internal but using NVIDIA, other tier ones. I mean, what are you seeing really as - when you're getting RFQs, what are the names that you're seeing? And then is there anything you can comment on, on share or win rates? Mm-hmm. Yeah, so I think that it's a little bit confusing because even if, you know, you hear about a kind of a relationship with Qualcomm or NVIDIA, in our space, it's the OEM that is responsible for delivering the software, right? So they're really, it's a combination of internal efforts on software from the automaker that is deployed on kind of a high-powered processor from Qualcomm or NVIDIA, maybe Ambarella. And these are typically the names, you know, not so much Ambarella, but these are typically the names that we hear about from the customers that we're, you know, pitching SuperVision or Chauffeur to. The 10 OEMs that we've talked about that were in advanced discussions have essentially told us that they're no longer evaluating those, that kind of direction. And now it's more about, you know, do they wanna pursue this? What's the timing? You know, kind of roles and responsibilities like I was talking about before. So I think that there was this view that, you know, for an automaker, it makes sense. If you can control the IP in a high-value space like this, you know, and you have the ability to completely customize the system. You could differentiate from your, you know, the other automakers, and you could end up, you know, with, you know, a high-value position if you did it better than others. I think that the and this has been going on for five or six years, and I think that the success stories are few and far between, and it's also very expensive. So it goes back to the original comment of this flywheel effect, where you see sort of the fast-to-market development of the Chinese, whether it's using us or whether it's, you know, kind of internal development by some of the startups. You know, you see the consumer uptake, and it's... You know, you see the, the potential for exports outside of China, and you start to focus on, we need a higher probability of success. You know, we need to get to market quickly and mobilize. We think that we have, you know, significant advantages on the in those areas. Like, we think we have our system is kind of very low compute versus the Chinese startups that are doing this. They have, like, 1,000 TOPS of processing power in their vehicles. Our system is about 50 TOPS in the ZEEKR, so you've got 5% of the compute. You're not using LiDAR. We have a crowdsourced map that's scalable to kind of large geographies. We have 90% coverage of our mapping in the U.S. and Europe. So this all leads to advantages in cost and performance. Time to market is clear because you're already on the road with the product, so there's really no uncertainty there. So I think that this is, you know, where we're winning right now. There's a lot of... You know, there's a lot of traction. So I think that, you know, the competitive landscape is more about internal development of software combined with, you know, a processor. Maybe that processor comes with toolkits and libraries and software development kits that are very helpful. But at the end of the day, someone needs to come up with the software, and we feel like we have significant advantages there. Can you talk about the competitive dynamics in China? Yeah. So I think in China, you have... You know, I mean, Tesla, I think, has had a lot of success in this space, right? And we have a lot of respect for what the system that they've developed. Like, Tesla FSD, it's a very good system. We still think ours is better, but, you know, it's impressive what they've been able to do, and I think part of it is because they've built their company around a culture of software engineering. Now, you have startups in China that kind of modeled themselves in that way, right? NIO and Li Auto, XPeng. NIO hired a guy from Tesla in 2016. He built a team. You know, they've been able to put a pretty good system on the road. So I think that, you know, this combination of internal OEM development and processors from whether it's Horizon Robotics or NVIDIA or Huawei, it's shown some progress in China. But, you know, what we're seeing is that the legacy automakers don't have that type of culture, 'cause there's legacy automakers in China too. You know, companies like FAW or Great Wall or BYD. So, you know, we feel like because the market is developing so quickly in China, it's very important to win there. The fact that we have delivered, you know, what is being called by third parties, kind of the best performing system on the road, despite not having LiDAR, despite having lower compute and, you know, as a result, significantly lower cost, this is kind of leading to much more substantial discussions with the rest of the Chinese industry as well, which I think we're kind of waiting for this system to get on the road and see how it worked. Great. Let's pivot beyond SuperVision, and I want to start actually with AMaaS. Just given everything we've seen with this slowdown in fully driverless AV, and you provided some commentary earlier this year that you were pulling back on some elements of AMaaS, autonomous mobility as a service, that was maybe not as scalable. Where do your efforts stand on AMaaS? And, you know, to what extent could you further pull back efforts to just, you know, focus more on the more scalable SuperVision Chauffeur opportunities? Mm-hmm. Well, the great thing is we don't have to pull back because the technology that we're developing for Chauffeur, which is the consumer autonomous vehicle technology, is really the same technology that we're targeting for the mobility-as-a-service business. So it's a, you know, complete set of cameras that's capable of driving the car on its own. It's a complete set of radar and LiDAR that's capable of driving the car on its own. It's the high-definition mapping, it's the decision-making software, and then it's our EyeQ6 High that can be deployed in, you know, two, three, four chips. So we don't have to pull back. I think what we've pivoted to... You know, a few years ago, we did have an ambition to own our own fleet of cars in Israel. Maybe it was supposed to be more of a proof of concept than something scalable, but we've really kind of pulled back from that, and we, we said, like: "So we need to, we need to focus on what we're good at, which is software and hardware, and then find." You know, you also need a car, right? So we have relationships with three different platform builders that are building sort of autonomous shuttle type of vehicles for us. I shouldn't say auto, just shuttle vehicles, because I think, you know, using, like, just a regular SUV to try to, you know, do the robotaxi business doesn't make sense. You wanna be able to carry six, seven, eight people at a time. So we're, you know, we have these kind of vehicle platforms being developed. They launch in 2026, and then we look at the demand side in terms of, like, where is the relevant use case for this technology? And one that we found is in Germany, like a company like Deutsche Bahn, which is the public transit operator in, in Germany. They have, you know, these, like, 50-person buses running around, you know, 10%, 20% utilized, with a very expensive driver that they can't get enough of. So if they were able to remove that driver and replace that bus with a kind of a 10-person autonomous shuttle, and allow their customers to schedule rides, and you could create routes and, and essentially make that business much more efficient. There's still a lot of, like, positive kind of bullishness, you know, in that type of space, where you have, you know... I think recently the German Minister of Transportation did an event in Hamburg and talked about 20,000 autonomous shuttles, you know, in Hamburg by 2030. Now, will that come true? I don't know, but the technology, we believe, is progressing very quickly. But I think it's just as important to set up the right business model, where you have kind of the right customer that understands how to maintain vehicles, that understands how to charge vehicles, that has a customer base. And then you team up with a vehicle builder that understands how to create a vehicle that is pre-engineered to integrate with your system, and then we're kind of in the center, providing the self-driving system. So we're still very positive on that business, but the great thing is we don't need it to develop next year or the year after, or the year after. We're already generating a lot of cash flow. We have, you know, very kind of significant, you know, potential for, you know, semi-autonomous systems to be inside vehicles, which will create more growth for us and kind of continue to fund the development of fully autonomous vehicles. What% of your operating expense is autonomous mobility service? I think around the time of the IPO, we talked about that, you know, 50% of the R&D was related to kind of eyes-off technology, so Mobileye Chauffeur and Mobileye Drive, and then maybe another 20%-30% was related to SuperVision. So 70%-80% of the R&D is related to products that are not generating at, you know, anywhere close to the majority of our revenue yet. Great. Questions in the room? To follow up on the pricing, you mentioned $5,000? So this would be total, like, I like to talk about total cost to the OEM, right? So, you know, a typical kind of collision avoidance system, you know, that's in most cars today is maybe, you know, anywhere from $200-$350 total cost, and we get $50 out of that. That's our average price of the single chip system. Supervision is more like a $2,000 total cost to the OEM. It's, you know, today, it's $1,300-$1,400 to us for the domain controller, but the OEM has to buy the cameras, there's extra electronics, so it's about $2,000. We're targeting total cost to the OEM of an eyes-off, hands-free, kind of consumer-level system of $5,000-$6,000. You know, go ahead. Is that apples to apples with, you know, we think about FSD. $15,000 back in the day, lowered to, like, $10,000. It varies depending on promotions. Some places, it's like $200 a month. $200 a month. Yeah, yeah. So we don't have great details on the take rate. Yeah. So I think—Okay, so Tesla FSD is an eyes-on system. You know, maybe there's ambition that someday you'll be able to, like, go to sleep or rent out your car, but today it's an eyes-on system that they're charging, I think. I don't know if it's $10,000 or $12,000 for the consumer, and the take rate, you know, from what I read, is pretty low. I think what we're talking about, by a $5,000-$6,000 system cost to the OEM, that would be, you know, eyes off, right? So you could, at least on the highway, do other things, right? And it would be engineered to do that from the beginning with, you know, multiple levels of redundancy, the two different perception systems, you know. So I think it's a different product. You know, like I said, like, maybe Tesla FSD will get to eyes off, but, you know, right now it's not. Just a quick follow-up. Your redundancy, radar, LiDAR, without the camera- Yeah. Do you just view that as, like, regulatory aren't critical, eyes off? We think that you know, we think you have to prove that you have a failure rate better than a human in order to satisfy regulators, in order to get the consumer to actually activate the system and read a book, and to also protect yourself and your customers from liability, right? So our view is that a camera-only system, at least in the foreseeable future, can't get to that type of failure rate. But it can be pretty good, and we think that if you have two separate perception systems, each of which has, you know, low failure rates, but nowhere close to a human level, if you have both of those systems on the same car, then the risk of both of them failing at the same time goes down exponentially. That's our approach. Maybe just a quick one to close, and touching on the Chauffeur opportunity, higher ASP. To what extent is your development of radar and LiDAR a gating factor, or is that something that you could work with external suppliers? It sounds like radar, the imaging radar you have is unique. LiDAR is a bit more of a, you know, you could work with external players. Yeah, I think we're definitely gonna be working with external LiDAR suppliers for, you know, at least this kind of first generation of launches. You know, we do have... You know, we do believe in our LiDAR product, but that's not as strategic as the imaging radar. The, the key to the imaging radar is, we believe you can get, you know—the, the development of our technology will result in output that's very similar to LiDAR, so you could limit the number of LiDARs that you need around the car, right? This is a key to getting to this kind of $5,000-$6,000 price point, is having a, you know, a technology that you can put four or five on a car, that gives you similar output to LiDAR, but still at, like, 20% of the cost of a LiDAR unit. So it's an enabler to get to that price point that we think is important because we don't think people are gonna be paying $15,000-$20,000 per car for a, you know, an autonomous system. Okay, we'll leave it there. All right. Thanks, Dan. Thank you so much. Yeah, great. See you at CES. Okay, thanks.