Gayn Erickson: It has some efficiencies, advantages by being integrated that offset the fact that you would have one of them per system versus maybe one or three or four. It allows — and I actually choosing not to go into all those competitive reasons, candidly. But there are absolutely advantages to being integrated by contrast to, well, doesn’t it drive some of the ASP up. There’s also companies that are passionate about not wanting to have any manual operations in their factory and not having WaferPaks moving around, and other people that are passionate that, that is the best way to do it and so we just offer that to them. I would tell you that you could make the argument that they are similar in cost of test and one just has the advantage of automation. The other one has an advantage of potentially some flexibility on test times and fungibility of tools across the floor.
Dylan Patel: Okay. One last little comment I wanted to hone in on and thank you for the answer. Is — you mentioned GaN a couple of times, you haven’t talked about GaN too much in the past. Is the burn-in — are you thinking that the burn-in times are going to be long for GaN? Is the customers that are doing silicon carbide, some of them are or at least the major companies are doing GaN as well. Do you think that they would use — would they use a lot of burn-in there as well for sort of application?
Gayn Erickson: Yeah.
Dylan Patel: Yeah. Could you talk about that a bit more?
Gayn Erickson: I think that’s what shifted. If you would kind of look at the breadcrumbs over the last couple of quarters, I think, maybe two quarters ago, I mentioned GaN for the first time, maybe last quarter, I said, hey, we are starting to talk to some people about it. We now have people specifically describing requirements for production burn-in and test times that are significant that make it an attractive market for us. That includes — it seems more obvious for the automotive guys, but there’s actually other applications as well that would require production burn-in. The way to interpret that is these devices have an infant mortality rate that exceeds the applications need, okay? By the way, one of the things we brought up is there are devices that have been shipping in the industry for decades that still have production burn-in.
Even though they have high infant mortality rates by using a production burn-in, you can weed out those devices and ship it into the application. An example of that would be DRAM, right? So DRAM, one of the most commoditized products that has been around since 1980 if you will and Aehr Test was one of the market leaders in what put us on the map was building production DRAM burn-in systems. They are still being burned in. So it doesn’t always go away. And what we are seeing is silicon carbide, silicon photonics, these compound semiconductors are kind of a hotspot both in terms of applicability for new applications, driving things like electric vehicles or fiber optic communications, but also need this infant mortality rate and seem very susceptible to the desire for wafer level burn-in, because the devices are going to be put in multi-chip modules with other devices.
So it’s — the GaN devices specifically are being put into automotive applications. There are people for power and we have even seen RF people talk to us about wanting a production burn-in. So it’s the first time we are getting that message out and we now have engagements with several of them. One of them has already given us drawings to move forward with the wafer level burn-in application for a long test time burn-in application they need. Anything else, Dylan? I think we lost, Dylan.
Operator: I think we did. The next question.
