I'm excited to speak with you because it seems like you have extensive knowledge of all three products, in addition to having worked at one of the companies in senior leadership roles. I typically like to start at a high level and would love to get your thoughts. I'm a long-term investor looking out multiple years, ideally even five years or longer. What's your long-term view on CMG?

Since 2022, CMG has undergone changes after bringing in a new CEO and altering their management team. They acquired two new companies and slightly adjusted their business model, although their core business model remains unchanged. I liken them to Nokia; from an outsider's perspective, after leaving CMG, they resemble Nokia in the simulation market. They have not adopted necessary changes to maintain their market share. The core issue is that their simulation code is still based on the outdated Fortran language, and updating it to modern languages is a significant challenge. In the long term, competitors are expanding more rapidly, while CMG is contracting in its core business of simulation modeling. The two seismic companies they acquired are not yet well integrated into CMG's mainstream business. Although they belong to the same industry on paper, creating a streamlined, unified business is still a few years away. My exposure to tNavigator, Eclipse, and Petrel over the past year has shown that CMG lacks the manpower and resources to compete with these competitors. I foresee CMG's core simulation business contracting.

That might be a better way to look at it. Even if it's twice as expensive, but you're getting eight times the output, it's still a better value. How does someone in your position or a decision-maker think about pricing and value? Maybe that's a better way to ask it.

Yes, definitely. That's actually the best way to ask it. I'll give you an example. You pay for a license of tNavigator and a license of CMG. Let's assume they both cost the same, which they don't. CMG is much more expensive. With one license of tNavigator, the license supports one node or one computer. They don't care how many CPUs and GPUs you can fit into that one node. That one license supports all of them. You don't have to pay per CPU to use parallel processing. However, with CMG, one license supports only four CPUs. If you want to go for parallel processing with 8, 16, 32, and so on, you have to buy additional licenses. Each copy costs the same as the base one. So, if I need, let's say, 128 cores to run, I just need one license of tNavigator. But for CMG, I have to pay for about six licenses. That's where CMG becomes extremely expensive. The license structure makes it costly. After tNavigator released their pricing structure, especially in the Middle East, CMG tried to come up with something. I forgot the name, but it multiplies the licenses only for users in the Middle East as competition to tNavigator. They call it the Turbo license. It allows them to run 8 CPUs instead of 4 with one license, similar to this concept. But it still lags way behind. For example, we recently upgraded the network cluster here. Each node has 64 cores. For 64 cores, I have to buy 4 or 5 copies of the CMG license to utilize all of them.