RE: SEYE27 May 2019 17:37
According to some SEYE tech is up to the job of safety DMS and is roughly half the cost of SEEs tech. Being as Auto OEM's are very conscious of cost it's amazing that SEE has won any business at all. Would a cost conscious OEM use SEE tech which may be just a bit better or would it go for the cheaper but still perfectly adequate solution? Surely, if the tech is up to the job the OEM would snap your hand off for savings of 8 euros a car?
Also, wouldn't an OEM who already had the cheaper version, but still adequate, of DMS also put it into other future models?
Also, why would an OEM with the cheaper version, but still adequate, of DMS already in vehicles, reopen the RFQ for future models?
To use Martyns own words, it's hard to move an incumbent supplier. So, why near the beginning of the relationship, has the above happened? Surely it is as easy as flicking a chip as some have inferred so it works proficiently above 37mph ?
Well, no it isn't. Compare SEE and SEYE on scientific staff and R&D spending and the difference is marked. Do SEYE have a Dr Mike, Tim etc, do SEYE spend anywhere the amount on R&D as SEE? The answer to both is no. And SEYE doesn't have to because what it's selling is not anywhere as technically demanding as safety DMS. And SEYE is very aware of this and that is why it's concentrating on the less technically demanding Chinese market which seems a sound business decision for a company still not flush with money after its recent fund raise (which if you believe Viktor is not only enough to fund the Chinese expansion but to cement its world leading safety DMS position) and with its tendency to lose current customers could even face a cash crunch if rumours about the X5 prove correct.
The truth is SEE (safety) doesn't have the resources to compete for convenience DMS business although it could and SEYE (convenience) can't compete with SEE as it can't do safety.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
