← 返回

2026.10.08 | TB | Software | SoundHound AI M&A & Organic Growth

原标题：SoundHound AI – Every Dog Has its Day – M&A Integration & Organic Growth Path

#software

Third Bridge · 2026-10-08

Analyst-led • 2 Oct 2026

Companies: SOUN US, MSFT US

Matthew Anderson (MA) Independent Consultant

Dylan Koehler (DK) — Third Bridge Sector Analyst

Agenda

Key Insights

Introduction

DK [00:00:02]: Welcome to Third Bridge's Interview entitled SoundHound AI – Every Dog Has Its Day. I am Dylan Koehler, and I will be facilitating today's Interview with Mr Matthew Anderson, former Senior Director and Head of Automotive Business Development at SoundHound.

Matthew, before we start today's Interview, please state I agree or I disagree to the following statement: You understand the definition of material non-public information and agree not to disclose any such information, or any other information which is confidential, during this Interview.

MA [00:00:31]: I understand and agree.

DK [00:00:33]: Could you start with an introduction to yourself, and your roles and responsibilities during your time with SoundHound?

MA [00:00:44]: Yes, sure. Matthew Anderson, I've been doing business development work related to the automotive industry for about 20 years now, working with companies looking to bring embedded cloud and connected services to the industry overall. While I was at SoundHound, I was responsible for North American business development, particularly related to automotive and some IoT areas with SoundHound.

Questions

00:01:21] Could you walk us through the evolution you've seen SoundHound go through over the last few years? The company went from being primarily viewed as an automotive voice assistant vendor to a broader AI platform focused on restaurants, customer service and commerce. What do you think has changed most about the business? How does it look today?

MA [00:02:09]: Yes, sure. I'll give it a shot. I think SoundHound overall, has done a lot in the vertical as well as product diversification from when I first learned of SoundHound years ago. They've moved from predominantly being automotive voice technology and expanded into other segments, restaurants, healthcare, customer service, enterprise. That's been done both organically as well as through acquisitions. There's been a number of those, I think, that you're aware of, Synq3, Amelia, the latest, I guess, is LivePerson, which seems like it's a very cool addition. I think SoundHound's focus here is interesting, too, where they're not trying to be a foundational model. It appears that they're trying to become more of the orchestration piece here and really bring value through that area into these new product areas as well as new industry areas.

00:03:27] We're seeing a shift happen in real time as SoundHound launches new products and tries to round out the platform organically and through acquisition. When you look at the company broadly and as it moves to become more of an orchestration layer, where do you think it has advantages? What's the competitive moat? Why does an enterprise need SoundHound between the underlying models and CX rather than building that out themselves or using a larger platform?

MA [00:04:22]: That's kind of the sixty-four dollar question, not only for SoundHound, but for everyone when it comes to AI because it is moving so fast. I don't think companies and SoundHound including others are going to necessarily compete with a new foundational model. That takes that segment off the plate. There's big players in that space, and I think they'll continue to dominate. Then in the enterprise side, there's a bunch of point solutions, I call them. You have the copilot type solutions. You have the solution tied into a CRM, for example. What you don't have effectively working is a solution that coordinates and pulls all that stuff together. If I'm a CRM vendor and I AI-enable my CRM, my focus is on my CRM. If I'm looking to become broader value where I have an orchestration layer that can create agents that can go out and touch the CRM, it can touch the financial system, obviously, all securely and with the right authorisations and pull information together in real time that would have traditionally been a manual effort or some kind of report building effort.

I'm bringing a lot more value to the organisation. I think in part, that's where SoundHound is playing being kind of that orchestration layer. Some of it may be specific to an industry like restaurants where they're orchestrating mobile order entry, taking the disparate systems and bringing them together and providing a much easier interface in voice to use those systems. This orchestration layer can be viewed somewhat as a horizontal approach that can be tweaked to the vertical applications. I think that's a decent fit for SoundHound.

00:06:42] When you look at SoundHound as an orchestration layer for specific industries, how do you think about the verticals that it plays in? Across automotive, restaurants, healthcare, customer service and enterprise, which do you think is most important going forwards? Could you talk about the company's penetration in the automotive segment and which of the other verticals could become the largest incremental revenue contributor over the next 12-24 months?

MA [00:07:49]: I think one of the things I really see as being positive going forward is the diversification of accounts. They're not industry or account dependent. If you're in an industry too much and the industry takes a downturn, you're going to take it. The diversification on a financial basis makes total sense here. Then applying to the specific industries, you look at something like a restaurant industry, which has a lot of small entities that make up this, that probably don't get the same level of service that larger entities do from the Googles or the Amazons of the world. I can see the restaurant and lumping them all under one bucket, that customer service type entity being a strong contributor going forward. I think you could build a number of business models around that that make it appetising for restaurants or nail salons or whatever to deploy SoundHound's technology because you could go on a transactional basis, you could go on a percentage basis. You could even go on a fixed fee basis for services to cover those industries. The payback is demonstrable. It's easy enough for companies to understand, "Hey, I spent X dollars here, and I got a Y return on it within 30 days or 60 days. It becomes strong.

If you look at it, another area, I think contribution will come in is on the enterprise side. The enterprise needs more coordination across data silos or information silos. This conversation comes up all the time where you talk to the Head of an AI within an enterprise and they say, "We don't know how to move forward. Our marketing team has restrictive contracts on the data and how it can be used. Our R&D team doesn't want to put AI into the cloud or let their stuff go into the AI into the cloud." By being the company that can come in and address those different silos and tie it together in a manner that is safe and secure, and drives the results, you're bridging the gap from a commercial personal productivity level of AI into a meaningful enterprise level AI where the CFO can say, "Hey, AI, what's the status of the business today, and it will go out and slurp data in from systems that never spoke to each other before and generate a real-time report." I can see the services base and then the enterprise base being two strong potential contributors for SoundHound going forward.

00:11:23] The enterprise component seems to be a broader opportunity. What would give SoundHound the right to win in that environment and to win that orchestration layer vs some of the larger players we've talked about so far in CRM, such as Microsoft, Salesforce and ServiceNow, or other platforms that already sit across a lot of the enterprise data?

MA [00:12:08]: It's not a technology issue in the long run. It's really a business alignment issue is how I view it. I'm not picking on anyone in particular here, but if you are an AI-enabled CRM, your interests are within the AI enablement of your product offering, your service offering. That's how you make your money. That's where you live. If you're coming in as a trusted third-party vendor such as a SoundHound, you have a different interest in succeeding. That interest in succeeding aligns better with the customer than companies that have a self-interest in their product succeeding. Microsoft Copilot is a very good tool but it is very good as far as working with Microsoft's product and promoting the usage of Microsoft's product. It doesn't do a lot beyond the personal productivity compared to other platforms that can have an agentic infrastructure tied into them, such as SoundHound.

00:13:40] When you look at SoundHound over the next couple of years, how much of its growth do you think could come organically from the existing platform vs needing continued acquisitions to sustain the high levels of growth that we've seen from the company so far?

MA [00:14:07]: Gosh, I wish I had a crystal ball and could get on the market that way. That would be awesome. My guess on this would be that the acquisitions they've made have been pretty interesting if you apply them overall. They've been plugging in pieces to the jigsaw puzzle. It's been pretty good overall. There's not been a lot of duplication. There's been new product development driven off this. The next phase for the existing acquisitions has to be organic growth. You're going to need to see that to really make these go and make the lever of acquiring these companies make sense in the long run. That said, I wouldn't think that they'd be stopping looking at new acquisitions. If you're taking product into new markets and there's an alignment on an acquisition that opens up a client base for you, it probably makes sense to at least explore that. I think they've done that successfully. Live Nation [LivePerson] is probably a good example of that. Live Nation has some pretty good enterprise customers that now there's an ability to go in and sell the broader platform into, which it's a combination of acquisition and then growing that acquisition. If I'm understanding what I'm seeing from some of them going forward, that seems to be where they're going. It's almost a step function, make the acquisition, grow the acquisition, either from a technology or an access or a market perspective.

00:16:36] It seems SoundHound's next phase has to be organic growth to validate the acquisitions. What would you want to see over the next 1-2 years to conclude that the company is succeeding there? Is there a certain revenue growth range that you think it should look to achieve? Is there one that you think is particularly realistic? How do you think about what success should look like and what you expect from it?

MA [00:17:34]: I think success will be evidence of proper execution. That's not limited to SoundHound. That's everybody. I guess I'm kind of stating a fact of nature there. I would start looking at are the customers from acquired entities growing the business with SoundHound because I think that becomes an easy litmus test to say, "Is what SoundHound is doing recognised as valuable by the market." I would, first of all, start looking at existing customer base and their reaction to things. There's been companies where they've acquired an entity and that entity's customers have just fled. I don't think you'll see that with SoundHound at all. I think you will see positive customer response, not only because these customers were already working with the entity that SoundHound acquired, but they are already interested in that space. SoundHound bringing more capabilities in that space should lead to growth by those existing customers. Hopefully, I'm explaining that clearly. That's one thing.

Then the other thing I would look at it on a more macro level is what does the overall mix look like from the customer base? Does it stabilise? Do you get to a natural level across the customers where you're not seeing a dependency on market A vs market B. Are you seeing the anticipated growth in these markets given who the competitive base is? What's your share of market in retail? What's your share of market in enterprise? Are you in alignment with those or are you on track to become aligned with those? Looking at some of those types of metrics, I think, makes sense. I would fully expect the technology to shift and evolve over time because technology is so fleeting, especially in the AI space, you don't gain a long-term technology advantage. It's very short-lived. I think by being somewhat agile in this space, they'll be able to continue to evolve and adapt. Oasys, their agentic platform seems to be positioned to manage that evolution, not only for the customers, but I would guess they're probably using it internally pretty heavily.

DK [00:20:44]: When you look at SoundHound, is there a revenue growth range that you think is realistic for the company? We talked about positives in expanding the verticals that it operates across and how its Oasys looks to be positioned. Is there a range that you think the company might grow at excluding the recent addition of LivePerson?

MA [00:21:39]: When you look at the growth through acquisition, the numbers become skewed. Paring out the acquisition and just seeing what the growth is levelling the playing field, I would frankly expect SoundHound to be on the upper end of average returns for the industry, if not pushing into the exceptional returns. I do think there's an opportunity for them to take a leadership role here. If you look at some of the… There's third-party reporting, Gartners of the world, etc, and look at where they position SoundHound, I think execution-wise, they should be on the upper end of the expectation of growth, excluding growth through acquisition, especially if Oasys is as well-received as I think it will be.

00:22:54] You said that you expect SoundHound to be on the upper end of average returns for the industry. What do you think that looks like? The company just had a very strong quarter, but the longer-term outlook, excluding LivePerson, is in the mid-teens range. Is that what you were getting at? What are your thoughts?

MA [00:23:29]: I hate to throw a specific number out there because I've seen so many numbers for the industry, and they vary growth-wise from low-teens to 40-50%. I think if you were just to take the average and if the average is mid-teens, say the average is 15%, I would expect SoundHound on the low end to be at that average point. I'm not anticipating they'd come in at double I'd like that. I think there's a learning curve that will have to go on, but can they come in at 20% above average, not 20 nominal points above average, but if it's 15%, come in at 3% above or whatever. Yes, I think that's feasible. I think they can be a leader in a return in this space. Everything always falls back to execution.

00:24:41] Oasys [Orchestrated Agent System] can create and orchestrate AI agents using SoundHound's own models to reduce reliance on expensive frontier models. How differentiated does it seem to you, and do you think the broader market is heading in the same direction?

MA [00:25:23]: That's an interesting question. We'll get to that one. Yes, I think Oasys being an agentic platform that is a self-service platform. It can build its own agents and help understand the business and create a whole infrastructure or AI people or whatever you want to call them these days, companies are adopting different nomenclature for these agents. If you look at what I see in Oasys, I see it being kind of that ability to create a dynamic orchestration platform basically. If I need to connect into a service platform in the company, that can be deployed and functional in minutes, maybe an hour, depending on the complexity vs the time it would take to just do an API integration with these platforms. By having control around Oasys where you're putting the guardrails into the orchestration and those bleed into and drive the guardrails into the agents, you're able to offer centralised command and control over this fleet of agents that you're deploying. It's a very cool opportunity to carve out space in the middle that I don't think is… There might be some companies that are attempting this. Maybe Palantir seems to have something in this space. I'm not as familiar with them. There are some start-ups, I know that are playing heavily in this space, but they tend to be very vertical centric. I think SoundHound has got an opportunity there.

If I look at the industry overall, the foundational models, I think, look to support this type of activity. I don't know that they want to necessarily get in and start developing this level of technology. That said, the risk always exists that they can build the technology to build this type of platform. If SoundHound can build a platform that maintains itself, a larger foundational model could come in and build a platform that does substantially similar things, may not do everything directly. Then you run into the challenge on trust, validity and is there an alignment of interest with your vendor? I still think independent companies like SoundHound maintain a premium offering there. People don't trust large players still with their data. They think that it's being monetised across the board or it's being used to train models. SoundHound has an advantage in the industry that they can point to that we're not pushing your information into the cloud and using it for every search or AI prompt out there.

00:29:16] You mentioned AI to build AI. It seems to be an approach unique to SoundHound, at least for the moment. If Oasys works as you've described it, how meaningful do you think it could become commercially for the company over the next 2-3 years? Is this a hundreds of millions of dollars revenue opportunity, or could it be a little too early to grasp the scale of it? What does it strike you as, given the vertical approach that SoundHound has taken?

MA [00:30:08]: Yes. I think it could be a substantial revenue generator. The challenge right now that you see across the board is companies do not know how to deploy AI. The expense that companies are seeing from tokens is unforecasted. It's hitting the CIO's budget hard. Nobody knew how to forecast this. Having a platform that can build AI out in your enterprise where it makes sense to the enterprise and it's useful to the enterprise, I think, becomes a very strong value proposition compared to… We'll bump our heads around in the dark room until we figure it out on our own because companies can't wait to deploy AI, their competitors are already doing it. They need a more reliable way of doing it with more predictable results. That seems to be the direction that SoundHound is pointing Oasys in that we can be your reliable partner to build out your AI through our platform here. How much revenue-wise is that? Again, I'd love that crystal ball.

00:31:45] SoundHound's management has argued that big tech provides APIs [application programming interfaces] while SoundHound provides a full-stack, verticalised solution. How real is that distinction when competing against some of the bigger players such as OpenAI, Google, Amazon and Microsoft? Do you think that drives real wins for SoundHound? Where does it win and lose against those players?

MA [00:32:26]: I would suspect if you did an analysis on the tech stacks offered that that might be a bit of an overstatement that the larger companies don't provide things that kind of touch into this space. Google provides more than an API. They have a whole agentic platform. That's not something I would wholeheartedly dismiss as being kind of a binary. That said, I think there's an advantage to SoundHound because of the way they're providing it. We can just stick with Google for a moment. Google makes a lot of money on search and ads. They don't make a lot of money in other areas like, I don't know, operating systems for cars, for example. Why do they get into that space? The theory is they're looking to use the data and figure out how to monetise the data, and that's probably fairly accurate. If their interest is monetising data, how does that align with where I am as an automaker and my interest, which are to provide a service that drives customer loyalty or decreases my cost for other things. This is where SoundHound and some others likely have some advantages that can be longer term.

Again, I don't like to say technology will give you a long-term advantage, but just the approach to delivering this value proposition can carve out a longer-term niche for yourself, if you would. The other piece here is SoundHound is putting agents on the edge. Now if you stop and you think about where does that play? That can obviously play in disconnected devices, but it also makes it really nice for physical AI as we get into more robotics, automobiles, aircraft, drones, all these different in the wild type devices that need to have better experience to communicate with. Then, of course, using your voice as the main interface for them. That's a pretty good fit overall, I think, for Oasys and SoundHound's direction. Looking into the physical AI space, there's already a toe, if not a whole foot into that water for SoundHound.

00:35:35] It seems the question that needs to be answered for SoundHound is whether the company could turn what has been a collection of acquisitions and Oasys into sustainable organic growth and ultimately profitable growth. How confident are you in that? If you're still in a wait-and-see phase, what would you need to see to become more confident that's happening?

MA [00:36:37]: We've talked about that briefly. This is 100% execution-driven. There's that element of it. Right now, I think where I'm looking… It's a wait and see to some extent for me. The rationale is not so much on is Oasys something that brings value to the market. I do absolutely believe there's a good play there using Oasys. My question really is where is the market at. I think there's a lot of FUD (ph 37.16) in the market around AI, AI deployment. There's been companies burned heavily. I think it was Walmart. I read a story on Walmart deploying AI or just letting everyone in the company do AI and the cost was just breathtaking and the productivity decline because it became such a distraction. I'm looking at it saying, "Okay, are CIOs willing to bet their careers on AI right now, or are they going to be a little bit sensitive because they've touched a hot stove once." I almost think we're in that hot stove touching phase. The token costs were unprecedented and unpredictable. Companies have to figure that out before they're going to return to just deploying things. Once they do, this is where I start seeing Oasys and SoundHound's approach being valuable because I do think it helps companies do a reset.

00:38:33] Regarding CIOs' [chief information officers'] willingness to adopt and implement AI at scale, do you think we're reaching full-scale, production-level AI deployment? If we're not, how far away are we in terms of timeline? Is this also a moment for SoundHound to prove that it is a safe solution to the CIO? Do you have faith in the company's leadership and executive team to execute on these opportunities, particularly integrating the acquisitions, driving cross-sell and scaling Oasys, or do you think there's a bit more risk there on historical performance doing those things with the acquisitive model?

MA [00:39:46]: CIO-wise, I'll share an anecdote. Participating in meetings around AI and just some deployments with organisations, even senior level people, SVPs, C-levels, you hear these kind of mixed messages as feedback. You're like, "Oh, this is awesome. This is exactly what we need." Then you hear the next sentence, but we need to get buy-in across the organisation. It becomes kind of a conversation on almost what you're hearing is I don't want to necessarily push forward with this until I have other people on board with me because I'm risk-averse. You hear these types of conversations in organisations. I think that is because of what we discussed before. There's just been some unexpected costs, not the best outcomes, harder than they thought, issues have come up that hadn't been predicted prior. The CIOs and the AI leadership are very cautious moving forward. I can see that probably existing going into middle of next year. I think where you'll see AI adoption in various industries within different departments. I think R&D teams are less risk-averse. They'll play with AI to try to gain an advantage. That can be a lever to sell AI throughout the entire organisation.

You had an automaker, I was at a presentation two years ago, the automakers saying how they've been using AI to streamline their internal process around product development. It wasn't anything earth-shattering. It was somewhat like a Copilot, but for two years ago, that was pretty good compared to others in the industry. They got some results. It doesn't necessarily mean they're going all in on it. End of the year, we should have a better feel for what token burn looks like in these companies and how meaningful is that to the organisations. The CIOs will be able to start budgeting and likely get their arms around a process to roll out some AI projects and move forward in that regard. Yes, it's going to be a little bit of a challenge, but I think it's a shorter window than I would have said three or four months ago. I think organisations are recognising they have to move forward, which should open the door for the SoundHounds of the world.

One of the disadvantages, I think, that third parties have is that they don't sit on the MSAs of a Google or a Microsoft or an Amazon. You have to come in and carve out your own contract with these organisations where Google already has an MSA with most of the enterprise organisations out there of any size. It's just easier to go down paths where they have those kind of contractual elements in place already. That will be a little bit of a challenge for third parties to overcome. Again, they need to sell the value proposition, not the technology. Just second part of your question on the leadership and driving this. I think the leadership that SoundHound's pulled together a good mix of organisations. I haven't seen anything that's been negative as far as the integration of those groups, which is surprising for any time you acquire companies. Normally, there's some kind of family fighting. I just haven't seen that. I don't know if it's just Keyvan and company have done a really good job of finding leadership that aligns with them and is in the same mindset, which very well could be the case or if everyone really is just happy about the direction.

That said, that's one element. Are the acquired companies getting along? It appears that they are, which is significant, which means you don't have the distraction of dealing with political infighting. Now the management has done a good job of that level of acquisition management. They has also done a good job of I don't want to say changing the direction of the company, but adapting the direction of the company as the market shifted over the past five years or so. I think they've recognised where they could do improvement. They were too weighted in automotive. They took steps to move to other industries. Makes perfect sense, and I think they've executed on those well. Going forward, again, I believe that the management company will do a decent job. Again, the concern, I don't think this is unique to SoundHound is, is there a disruptor that hits the industry that just invalidates everything that you can't really bank on one way or another. Yes, I think the management team in place seems to be doing a good job.

Execution-wise, it appears that it's things are coming together that they've been able to either integrate new technology or take existing technology and spread it into the acquired groups. You'd have to look at some of the metrics on cost too, to validate some of those. I'm not certain how granular the filings are, if you could pull that out. I think there's a lot of reason to be optimistic on the move forward window here, what did you say, 2-3 years.

00:47:40] SoundHound's acquisition of LivePerson was fully completed in early September 2026 and definitely adds some enterprise customers to SoundHound's customer base, especially adding relationships with a lot of the Fortune 100 companies as well. What do you think about this acquisition and SoundHound's ability to stabilise what looked like a declining business with weak retention in LivePerson?

MA [00:48:56]: My understanding on LivePerson, and I'm not an expert on them, but it appears that LivePerson brought to the… Their main focus was kind of a multimodal approach, web, mobile, SMS, that type of infrastructure. SoundHound acquiring them expanded that base quite a bit. LivePerson was from what I've seen on them, you're right. I think their business was declining somewhat. I think prior to that, LivePerson was a highly regarded organisation. I think SoundHound's addition there will help bolster that or the value point, I think I see here is the access to the enterprise base. The enterprise base fits very well with the direction that SoundHound is going. Honestly, this could be a play where LivePerson, just access to their existing clients, having the opportunity to stabilise that revenue stream and possibly grow it may make the acquisition worthwhile and then some. It also may be a short path to establishing an additional level of credibility in that space in the enterprise. There's a couple of interesting positives there. Obviously, it will be measured by customers, and they'll decide if the acquisition makes sense in the long run, but it fits well into the wheelhouse of where SoundHound is going. It seems to be a natural fit and probably can be used as a measuring stick to say, if they're successful in these customer base, then the directional model will have been validated to some extent.

00:51:25] Management believes the existing combined SoundHound-LivePerson customer base could eventually generate USD 500m of revenue. Do you think that's realistic? Over what time period do you think the company could achieve that goal? Is that a 2028 and beyond goal?

MA [00:51:57]: I'm really hesitant as an outsider to take, okay, what would be a reasonable revenue for a company. I do think that the company has plenty of headroom for growth on the revenue side. If management is putting that out there, I would measure that against accuracy on prior and just make an assessment there's organisations, and I'm not speaking specifically to SoundHound or anyone directly here. If I'm running an organisation and I'm putting out numbers and I'm constantly exceeding those numbers, I get a reputation for being a conservative organisation. If a company does throw out a number of 10 and they're coming in at 12 and then they say, well, in three years, we're going to be at 50. My gut would tell me if they've been exceeding them over time that that pattern likely will continue. There's always the asterisk unless market dynamics substantially shift. That can be positive or negative. You can have disruptive market forces that really propel the business too unexpectedly.

I would measure it against the track record of other forecasts and apply a reasonability test to it and go from there. I do think there's plenty of headroom in this space. It's just not capped. This is similar. When relational databases rolled out many years ago, people… We've got databases. We've got mainframes. We've got this. We've got that. The relational database market did quite well for a long time, and it was basically a new market. I think we're at an inflection point. It's greater than the relational database market. It's probably closer to the mobile technology inflection point for… I'm guessing well, it exceeds the mobile technology. There's no question about that because we're seeing that already. Yes, headroom, sure. Absolutely. Is USD 500m an accurate number, maybe on the low side.

00:54:38] We've talked a lot about the acquisitions SoundHound has made, such as LivePerson, Amelia and Synq3. Do you think the goal is to tie these into one consolidated platform? Do you see that being an easy engineering task to do, or are these going to continue to run separately and independently? Which approach is winning with enterprises today? How do you see that shifting?

MA [00:55:40]: Any time you have acquisitions, it's always a challenge. If you merge your platform together fully, have you invalidated your existing customer base or how do you build a bridge so you can pull existing customers along into the new platform or do you just say, okay, we'll maintain existing platforms and then roll out the new platform and people can migrate as part of the upgrade path. It becomes a business decision on how much it's going to be disruptive to your customers and your revenue base as far as that goes. I don't think any level of integration is ever easy. I think there's challenges, and I think the challenges aren't known until you're neck deep in the integration process because you and I could write code for the same thing, but the way you write code will be different than the way I write code. We won't know if our code will work together until we actually try it.

If you're looking at a platform like SoundHound, there's elements that certainly can integrate quickly. The voice piece can integrate relatively quickly. You can add on the voice. You can add on the different capabilities on the back-end side. Agents may be able to simplify some of this integration as well. You might not be doing traditional integration. You may put in an orchestration layer type integration to help simplify this and to help maintain those prior implementations. There's some options here. I don't think any of them are risk-free. I think they're all… It's a series of trade-offs. I don't think any of them are risk-free. I think it makes sense that they will try to standardise or commonise the platform as much as possible and reuse technology across the acquisitions as much as possible. You have to from a cost perspective, you can't acquire companies and then expect to maintain the same cost basis or even a higher cost basis, because if you're supporting legacy and you have that tech debt out there, it makes it really hard to spend money to develop a go-forward platform to replace it.

DK [00:58:42]: I think that's a good place to end things for today. I want to thank you for your great inputs over the last hour. I really appreciate all of the time and help today. Thank you for that, and thank you to our clients for listening and reading Third Bridge's Interview on SoundHound today.

MA [00:59:02]: Yes. Thanks. I really enjoyed it. I do think SoundHound and a number of other companies have some great opportunities ahead of them. I'm really looking forward to see how all this plays out in the industry over the next 3-5 years.

Transcription ends at 00:59:18 of the recorded material