Member Info for redindi

soulboy

Yes, it's well known that OEM volumes won't really kick in before 2022. Considering the time it takes from signing a contract to rolling off the production line, new models from earliest 06/2022 is pushing it, more so SW only as against chip.
That is why ironically, the longer there is no OEM news announced the better for SEE as it indicates either the chip route and/or more rigorous sign off procedures, together with SW.
What's noticeable as regards the SEYE recent DWs is the expected roll offs with even 2020 mentioned, a sure sign of the lesser sign off requirements for convenience DMS.

Mr BB

I think the new agreement with Xilinx helps in that respect and I would not be surprised if SEE did license in the Auto sector vis a vis ARM type arrangement. That is, after all, what SEE is at its core. And look at ARMs CPU market share?

seeingm

Safestocks is very good but 75% if it's ever realised may be some time away and the 25% as espoused by Ken 6 months was for public consumption as is the 30%/ one third. I doubt if SEE got 25% of market that internally they'd be happy and expect internally the target for 2022 is 45-50%. However, neither these sources are independent and the only independent source (Cenkos don't count, they're house brokers and not experts in market analysis) is Colin Barnden (Semicast) who gave a presentation at the CMD but whose contribution is not in the slide show provided by SEE.

However, his expectation was for SEE to attain a 40-45% market share by 2022 with the rest (about 40) of the providers sharing the remaining 55-60%. Although he did not say it, I think this all is down to legislation and worldwide NCAP's and can be roughly interpreted as safety (40-45%) v convenience (55-60%) and that at present (40-45%) that would include most of the EU (those that want 5 star), premium brands (even possibly in China but only on chip), OEM's that want to be ahead of the game and any (if there are) other areas at the same stage as the EU. So, for those that don't do safety, there is the possibility that pre 2024, one of them will win Fiat, for example. However, over time,ie 2024, SEE's market share (assuming still independent) is likely to grow (despite industry resistance as being trumped by legislation) following further safety implementation to a figure greater than 50% and until an alternative appears stay that way.

Schlem

Good article, in fact so good, it's ahead of its time! Those Aussie!

S7

I hate to disappoint you but until a few weeks back, there were a number who detected a hint of optimism. Glad to see you've recovered your usual equilibrium!

Schlem

This has nothing to do with what SEE has done with Cadillac but for the needs of the Chinese market which if anything is more cost conscious than anywhere else. The regulatory requirements in the near future vary dramatically between Europe and China, hence why there's about 40 providers of (convenience) DMS going after its bit of the pie in China. Hence, it is possible that GM could have both SEE and another DMS provider in Chine, SEE in Cadillac, the other in non-premium models. The maths don't support any other US OEM is the end user of which there are only 4 worth considering - GM over 1 million sales, Ford 400,000, FCA hardly any, Tesla worldwide sales at present less than 500,000. So, which well known US OEM is it then? Unless it's Tesla, SEE work with all of them and Tesla doesn't sell enough in China even after the new factory opening!

If it is exclusively for China, there is realistically only one well known US OEM it could be and it isn't Tesla.

In certain scenarios, ie the tech don't work well enough or the local market doesn't need safety DMS, incumbency isn't every thing!

S7
We are told on a regular basis that SEE does not withhold news but you are saying it does which would be market manipulation and would be illegal. Although how it could hold back a mass market penetration RNS worth $200+ until 2024 when the vehicles are on the road a good year before then is hard to see and again i think Nick wouldn't be too happy.

These SP targets are there purely for show, once the RFQ's are sorted, not only just in Auto, an independent SEE will have a limited shelf life.

S7

I suggest you contact the authorities as you have uncovered Paul McGlone's dastardly plan to hold the price down, for reasons only known to Paul, to only the SP required to collect his free shares.

Obviously, Nick is in agreement with this plan and is quite happy to restrict the gains on the shares he paid for with his own money, again for reasons only known to Nick, who no doubt is now working out how to hold back the news for another 3 months /years. All to ensure the SP doesn't rise much above 6.2p before next June.
What with all these conspiracies to plan and manage I'll be surprised SEE win any new business.

Yeah right

seeing m

Great first post. Go back to Sweden and do some research. Safe journey

Bausch

Simple answer, the market, especially AIM, is not 100% efficient 100% of the time.

As regards your last sentence, yes it should assuming the market doesn't remain in its clueless state for ever!

1. SEE not yet profitable, need to guard every penny.
2. Potentially lead to placement.
3. SEYE might disagree.

S7, really?

Bausch

Technically speaking, if you class it simply as DMS there is not a monopoly. However, as our erstwhile competitors technology is lacking, that is what has caused the monopoly ie no other company is offering any other product that can provide the required software.

That is not SEEs problem, rather it is the users of that technology and its industry who by their own failings has brought this situation upon it. It's the flimsiest of excuses going that an industry will not use one companies technology only, that is a requirement and will save lifes, as it places the very same industry that caused this situation at an unfair advantage, less so than the number of people who have up to now paid for their ineptitude.
They, the OEM's, cannot have it both ways, portraying themselves as the champions of safety as at the same time as being reluctant to use the one and only, at present, solution to the problem.

And, as in all monopolistic situations, this should encourage both existing competitors and new entrants to invest resources that eventually will lead to an alternative. It again is not SEEs problem, or fault, that others have not invested sufficiently, up to now, to offer an alternative.
Of course, there is a way through this predicament which SEE has broadly speaking given hints at but again it's not SEEs fault that others, until now, haven't taken the hint as far as we know.

Only as so far as complying with legislation, not as to 5 star NCAP ratings IF any are to be sold in Europe

Terry

Possible but only if the news release is being somewhat economical with the truth -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2019/01/where-is-subaru-from-and-where-are-subarus-made-.html/%3famp

S7

Get real, unless you're talking of coffee cup, Eyesight are in it for the short term, and most definitely not what the EU is looking for

It would be nice if they could orchestrate an Aviation licencing deal or two

Amazing what the difference is between China and the EU is and is a big pointer as to why SmartEye upped sticks and went to China. The regulation there is the vehicle needs one of either an accident event data recorder (outward) or an eye tracker (inward) camera. That is a big difference. And guess what? SmartEye don't have the linkage and some other company does.

https://www.sunev.cn/automotive/criterion/250.html

Terry

My eyesight doesn't do me justice, or rather it's selective. Don't know whether DMS would help!