Amnon Shashua: Well, no, there’s a significant cost to the OEM between a front-facing camera with or without cloud enhanced and the SuperVision light. SuperVision light has about between 6 to 7 Cameras feeding on to a domain controller powered by an IQ 6 chip. On the other hand, a prospecting camera is just a front-facing camera, right? There’s no domain controller. And cloud-enhanced is our ability to add value to a front rating channel. So you have the front facing Campa, which is very low cost to the OEM. And just by adding software capabilities, we can considerably enhance the feature set, the value proposition of the front-facing camera, for example, allow to do lane keeping when we don’t see any visible lanes or providing traffic-light information and providing alerts against running on the red light or breaking against running on the red light and software and so forth.
So the price difference is significant between transfacing camera with or without cloud enhanced supervision light, supervision, safer and then dry. It is I think the big steps in terms of cost
Chris McNally: Maybe I thought on a lot of these Gen 1 programs, there was also on the ENHANZE that you’re on, there was also a significant amount of radar, for example. So if you have multiple radar, you’d be adding 50 million or 60 million to the total cost of the system to the OEM, which you may be able to remove with Subcision light?
Dan Galves: Well, so many of the front-facing cameras do not have a radar. It’s not that every ADAS program has the front-facing radar. So a lot of our front-facing camera penetration is vision only. There’s no radar. With the supervision light, it’s the 7 cameras, including 4 of them are parking cameras, of course, sometimes they come with radars and sometimes they denin this particular program that we won, they’re the front facing radar.
Chris McNally: Okay. Makes sense. And that’s why you had the limited operational design domain of when — the GEN-1 program will only have a big camera. Just the second question. For getting OEMs on the low end to sign up for supervision light, could you talk a little bit about how the system would scale, meaning do they get to see how REM and RSS works and then it leads for them to potentially us higher levels of supervision for more premium vehicles and just the ability for them to upgrade on those existing platforms over time to higher forms of supervision. If you could just kind of go through that sort of escalation that upsell that you could have that with you?
Dan Galves: Well, if an OEM buys into supervision light, they cannot upscale because supervision has more sensors, as more cameras as in Canvas. Normally, it goes the other way around. We have an OEM that is signed into supervision in some of its models and now has a low-end model and wants to upgrade the low-end model from a front-facing camera to a supervision light.
Chris McNally: And just if I could follow up, in that logic, the Super Light win was — that is a new OEM, right? So you didn’t downsell this specific OEM. The supervision light is the first subvision they’re taking.
Dan Galves: Well, the supervision light wins with a new OEM design way. It’s with a new OEM. It’s not part of the OEMs that we mentioned before.
Chris McNally: Perfect. Appreciate the detail. I’ll follow up after.
Operator: Our next question comes from Adam Jonas with Morgan Stanley.
Adam Jonas: I’m not, again, my thoughts and prayers with you and your loved ones in the Mobileye community following entropies in Israel. My first question is on the legacy OEMs. Many of them are dialing back their investment plans. We continue — we expect that will continue. If it does, does slower EV adoption categorically have any impact on supervision adoption over the next few years in your mind?
Dan Galves: I think the opposite is happening. When they’re dialing that investment, basically dialing back in-source those are very, very big investments and pushing them towards a better time-to-market performance and ODDscaling that Mobileye can provide. So our engagements with OEMs on a supervision is really all over.
Amnon Shashua: Yes. Just to be specific. The question is not on EV targeted systems. It’s agnostic to powertrain. So we don’t see any impact from relative [indiscernible]
Adam Jonas: Okay. That kind of brings on my second question then, Dan, is of the 10 identified and does those also include — how many of those are EV, do any of those include architectures for ice or hybrid?
Amnon Shashua: There’s — none of these 10 OEMs are EV-only companies. And I think we’re involved with design win discussion and negotiations. I think what I would say is that we have announced design wins with Geely with Porsche with FAW. The other 7 are in negotiation around a variety of models within each group. Anything to add on?
Dan Galves: No, it’s really agnostic to the powertrain.
Adam Jonas: I was thinking about the operating system though. I’m sorry, I’m almost done here. But powertrain, I can see agnosticism, but my understanding was about starting clean sheet with an operating system and our electrical architecture did have some advantages for integrating a very invasive and important new system like the technologies you offer relative to, say, retrofitting an existing or kind of kind of fading out or run off of a nice architecture, but I don’t know if that logic is correct.
Dan Galves: I think the supervision system is really a closed system, where with the new wins, there is the cooperation with the OEM on tuning the driving policy. As I mentioned last quarter, we have a new language. We call it tuning language or behavioral shaping language, which allows the OEMs to really take control of all the driving policy decisions on top of our kind of operating system of driving policy, but it’s all within our system. So whether you have an EV or a new architecture or not a new architecture that’s no different. It’s really agnostic.
Adam Jonas: Thanks.
Operator: Our next question comes from Shreyas Patil with Wolfe Research.
