Member Info for phil01

Just for balance else this BB will just be for ramping and burying head in the sand.

Ford (F) revealed on Friday morning that it will transition 1,400 workers off F-150 Lightning production at its Rouge electric vehicle production center as EV truck demand continues to wane. At the same time, the company will boost production of its gas-powered Bronco SUV and Ranger midsize pickups as customers flock to those options.

Ford said in a statement that those 1,400 workers will be impacted as the Rouge EV center transitions to one shift starting on April 1.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ford-moves-1400-workers-off-f-150-lightning-production-as-electric-truck-demand-wanes-152753175.html

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/ford-cuts-production-f-150-161903824.html

Not sure about how others are reading it but I was hoping that PM's allusion that it may take others about 2 years to come up with a competing Mirror based solution would have been true.

I never like exclusive arrangements as it ties your hand and limits your addressable market. Said so at time of Magna deal but was a bit assured when PM said that it is only for 3 years.

If magna was the only show in town in that 3 years then even Magna's competitor had to use Magna's mirror based DMS/OMS.

With Gentex having an offering now, all other Tier 1 suppliers who consider Magna as a competitor will probably choose Gentex offering, unless it has a flaw, rather than the product from their direct competitor, (Magna)

Anyway nothing that can be done about that now, so lets just see how it shakes out over the next 12 months.

Terry,

Reason a lot of people gets disappointed a share price we get 2+2 and come up with 22. [ If for some reason we end up with 6 then we are disappointed as we have set up an expectation of 22]

This contract is only for manufacturing fit of the DMS to meet GSR. That does not translate to monitoring revenue. I am pretty sure that less than 5 % of all sales may choose to have monitoring service. For most of the operators this just ticks the box that their truck is compliant to the regulations so they can operate in Europe.

To set expectations lets not start counting our chickens till at least the egg is at least laid.

The number, yes is small when compared to the annual volume of over 300,000 commercial vehicles manufactured in a year, but it is a start. We have to start somewhere.

Give it till June to see how well we do in the space before we can honestly say if we are doing well or not. I would imagine that if I was a commercial vehicle manufacturer I would like to see your product before awarding a contract, so I am not surprised that we only have this initial number at launch.

Now that we have a working product out there, lets see what the response from the other commercial vehicle manufacturers will be.

Since this needs to be in every commercial vehicle manufactured in Europe from July this year I would imagine that there will be a flood of contract awards either for SEE or their competitor in the next 2 months.

Based on above I am expecting more G3 contracts in fairly short time frame.

Whatif18,

The answer is that you can't have same year model with different DMS chips. How will the rating agency rate the car if one with a different DMS chip have a different score to the other? [ Each model year is tested and given a single rating score].

Another feather in PM cap so Kudos! The volume is small comparative to the expected total volume but it is a start. Maybe other manufacturers may start to pile in.

Having said that I was a bit disappointed with the RNS for the launch of Gen 3. Missed the opportunity to state what I think is the key benefit of Gen3 to other fleet DMS suppliers.... the ability to integrate with other logistic systems used in fleet management. I think that is the differentiator, as all the other fleet DMS suppliers will meet the GRS regulation.

I do give credit where it is due but not blind enough to think that we are perfect and there are not gaps in execution that we as a company should strive to close out.

Just to clarify: Ford may not have moved over totally to SEYE. Some models may utilise SEYE while other models utilise SEE DMS.

But it is business suicide to have different chips on the same year model car as it will lead to higher maintenance cost for the OEM,( cost of OTA updates and development), different performance for cars within the same model-year range (customer satisfaction issue).

[ Imagine if we both have the same car model, same year and yours can detect microsleep while mine can't. I am sure the OEM PR can work out the negative PR impact of such scenario.]

Maplin,

As per your point 3 , what makes you think that they re dual sourcing on the same car models? If so why did you not think that they are dual sourcing on the current BMW iDrive which most people here believe we won from SEYE?

Anyway as PM stated, just because you win one round of RFQ from an OEM does not mean that you will win the next round of RFQ from the same OEM. [Eg. Previously BMW was with SEYE for the new refresh, current iDrive, it is SEE for the next refresh it may be AN .other DMS supplier].

Personally I do not think an OEM will dual source for the same year car model. Does not make business sense. Cars are now software defined, so over the lifetime of the car several new features may be added via Over The Air update. Our feature set is not the same of SEYE so that will mean that for the same Model year some cars will have different features to start off with. Besides if the OEM wants to develop additional features to be added to the car during its operating life, then the OEM will have to pay Engineering development cost to both SEYE and SEE. Finally the algorithm for the two DMS suppliers is different so the performance will be different for the same year car model depending on the chip used, SEYE or SEE.

Appears that we do need real contracts before the share price will shift. Apart from us in this BB who expect to be millionaires next week or the week after, the market is no longer interested in jam tomorrow hence no mass stampede to pile in based on product release or alliances. Every company has a product but that does not mean that it will sell nor does an alliance directly translate into dollars. As for what PM said, I will be flabbergasted if he was to come out and say that the company is not great. Have still to see a CEO that does not believe his company is doing great and if the shares are low valued then it is the market that has it in for them or don't understand the inherent value or economic condition that is against then or the classic case of customers postponing purchase. Everybody's else fault but ours.

Still believe in the tech but we need to start putting the pound signs into the alliances and products. The contracts need to start dropping within the next 2-3 months or else the game is a bogey.

I must congratulate PM on this achievement. I am the first to criticise him when I feel he has fallen short, so credit where it is due. In the absence of any definite statement, reading tea leaves as we do on this board I never thought it would happen.

Hopefully the contracts will now start to flow.

,

Redit,

I think that there is more activity with regards to FOLI, ( Fear of Locked In), than FOMO. Based on past record some have already judged that the Gen 3 news is not coming next week as such the share will not react too positively if we missed this timeline for the 3rd time. I think at this level, there is no point selling if you are not already out. The expectation of missing our timeline for Gen 3 launch has already been factored in the current share price since the last RNS. I am not expecting a sever drop if this turns out to be so, but a drastic upswing if we do indeed make the launch as initially communicated by PM.

Although this RNS does not bode well for launch of Gen3, let's give PM the benefit of the doubt as the RNS also does not state that it will not launch as planned.

The company may release a new RNS later in the week specifically for Gen3.

They may still launch at CES2024 even if they did not release an RNS. ( though missed opportunity at PR and maximum exposure)

Let CES 2024 play out first, then depending on events we can either eat humble pie or let some of our telegram colleagues grace us with their presence and offer us the merits of not launching Gen 3 at CES 2024.

If this explanation is good enough I will sign up for the proposed knighthood for PM.

I have to think that Guardian G3 would have been the key point of the RNS. they are asking people to book for demonstration, now how will anyone book if they do not know if it is coming.

As for this being kept on wraps because it is material news, they have already openly stated that it will be launched in CES2024 so nothing new hence in this RNS it should have been confirmed that it is coming so prospective clients can book or ensure they make time to review the product at CES2024.

If Gen 3 is launched at CES2024 the I feel that this RNS has missed the target. There is nothing in the RNS that is not already out there. My fear is that Gen 3 may have been delayed but the Ostridge fraternity with head in the sand may find great reasons, ( which I call excuses), why this is so. The RNS is also too verbose which is always a sign of a company trying to convince others of apparent improvements by trying to shift attention.

Only materials that really needs to be in this RNS is paragraph 1-4 of the release, the rest is just waffle.

I hope I am wrong but SEE do have history of missing their own timelines over and over again.

NOTE: This is just my impartial interpretation of the RNS ...reading the tea leaves. This interpretation may be just as wrong as those that has predicting take over of SEE for over £1 a share over the last few years. Next week however will reveal all, but if SEE misses this timeline for Gen 3 launch then we can easily identify the delusional who will then queue up to offer excuses.

Then again the launch of Gen 3 may be so monumental that they may release a separate RNS on that by itself before CES 2024!

Since the prediction is for fun, can you put me down for 60p by end of the week and £30 by year end.

Wilson,

I imagine that he never specified which year...plenty of year ends still to come so we are still on target.

Anyway if they don't make it this year then they will never make it. Not sure if Aussie tech suffer from similar British contagion where plenty of great techs somehow always fail to make it, in spite of first-mover advantage and great product.

Anyone remember Toumaz Technology later mophed into "Frontier Smart Technology". Invented the first Chips/modules and market leader for DAB/DAB+ Radios and SmartRadio solutions, (Digital radios and connected audio), and it had with contracts with all the major digital radio and amp manufacturers, Sony; Denon; Pure; Philips; Onkyo; Roberts;, Hama; Harman/Kardon; ; Alpine Grundig etc.

Price ran all the way to well over £1.50, if my memory serves me well, and management ran it all the way back down to pennies and it was acquired for peanuts. At the time we were all going to be millionaires because we have cornered the market and have chips with no obvious competitor. The company is still a major player in the space but none of us investors are there to enjoy it. Irrespective of product a management with poor execution can always manage to louse it up.

To end on a positive note; I wish everyone a happy new year and hopefully our ship will come in this year.

Seize,

I am not sure it is any different when SEE was awarded the largest DMD award with the SEE RNS started as per below:

Seeing Machines Limited

16 December 2021

Largest Driver and Occupant Monitoring System award with OEM #8

..............

Hi Chutz,

I really have no interest in debating on a public forum as each person is free to invest his/her money anyway they choose.

I however despair when I see some people with a bias confirmation glasses. We tend to see what we want to see to confirm our views.

Sic e you asked a question and is looking for answer I will provide one ..which is not to say that I am advocating buying or selling, no one is paying me to be their financial adviser so they have to make their own mind.

The inconvenient truth is that there has been precedent where the board have lowered the option price of shares because the share performance has not been able to meet the original option price. That being a fact, it then means that it does not really matter if they put an option price of £30, since they have shown that they will reduce the option price if the share did not get to £30.

Firstly, let me get the disclosures out of the way>

I am a holder in SEE.

Do to my training I can also review things objectively without emotion to extract relevant information from data.

I have to say that I normally enjoy reading Colin's comment but in his latest analysis he seem to have some bias in his analysis and is totally wrong in attributing risk to a software vendor. The vendor is purely selling software as an out of the box product and not integration services.

Being in high tech industry within the procurement space there are some errors in his conclusion.

SEYE selling directly to OEM does not negate their ability to sell to Teir2 suppliers since the method of procurement is determined by the OEM.

Teir2 are essentially System Integrators they get the components, Hardware and Software from the various sources and Integrates them together for the OEM.

Hence OEM has two procurement paths:

1. An RFQ for the final product: Teir 2 suppliers procures the components and integrates the various components together >> here Teir 2 integrates these separate components hence responsibility for co-operationality resides with the Teir 2 supplier.

2. RFQ for each components module to the suppliers HW supplier and SW supplier: In this scenario the OEM feels that they have enough knowledge and capacity to perform the integration themselves. They are just buying the modules from each of the suppliers . In this second procurement scenario the responsibility for co-operability is with the OEM who in this instance is acting as their own system integrator. There is no responsibility for co-operability on the HW seller or the software seller. [ The OEM has assumed responsibility for integration.]

If I purchase a Red-hat software , there is no responsibility on the software seller to ensure that the computer I am going to install it inside has the necessary specification to run the program.

Correction...meaning to say that SEYE has won over 80% by value of contracts over the last year. Hence our basis for assuming 50% market share falls down if you use the same basis in relation to SEYE contract awards.

I am not sure we can fully blame PM for the expectations on this board.

As for 50% market share, we may well win that but at the moment any person that is investing based is just investing on supposition.

There is no anecdotal evidence to support such prediction. Except from PM statement, when he put that statement out, that if you look at the awards over the past year we have won over 50% in value of the awarded contracts, ( at that time we had the A$125M contract in the bag).

If you use the same metric of awards over the last year, then SEE has won near 80% of awards .... does that mean that they will win 80% market share by value?

Truth is always somewhere in the middle but as for PM he is doing what he is payed to do, promote his company.

I have yet to see a CEO who does not come across as if their company or product is the best since sliced bread. Even when the company goes burst, from the CEO perspectives it is never the company's or his personal fault, it is just external factors that conspired against them....market or economic conditions, customers cancelling or postponing their orders, competitive environment, banks refusing to advance them loan even when they could see the promised land is in sight etc.