Good morning, everybody. I'm here today with Rob Medved, Chief Financial Officer, and Todd May, VP Legal Counsel.

Before we begin, I will have Todd read our forward disclaimer.

Certain statements made may be forward-looking. By their nature, such forward-looking statements are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including those in Enghouse's continuous disclosure filings such as its AIF, which could cause the company's actual results and experience to differ materially from anticipated results or other expectations.

Undue reliance should not be placed on forward-looking information, and the company has no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise.

Thanks, Todd. Rob will now give an overview of the financial and business results.

Thank you, Steve. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us today.

I'll begin with a brief overview of our first quarter results for fiscal 2026. Overall, the first quarter reflects a continuation of the operating environment we've seen over the past several quarters.

Customer decision-making remains somewhat cautious in certain markets, and activity levels continue to vary throughout the business. Against that backdrop, our results reflect stable operations, continued profitability, and strong cash generation.

Revenue for the first quarter was $120.1 million compared to $124 million in the same quarter last year. The year-over-year change reflects a combination of factors within our operations, including the timing of product and services activity and normal variability in customer purchasing patterns across our customer base.

Maintenance services revenue was lower year over year, reflecting expected levels of churn within portions of the installed base, which is characteristic of this type of revenue and something we continue to manage over time. Looking sequentially, revenue was also lower than in Q4.

That primarily reflects the timing and inherent variability of hardware-related transactions, which can be uneven from quarter to quarter, as well as software professional services activity as some customers deferred or delayed project starts. We continue to see a degree of customer caution in certain markets, particularly around the timing of larger or more discretionary services engagements, and visibility remains somewhat limited.

Recurring revenue, which includes SaaS and maintenance, was $84.6 million and represented 70.4% of total revenue for the quarter. While modestly lower than the prior year, recurring revenue continues to represent a substantial and important portion of our overall business.

It contributes meaningfully to the predictability and stability of our results and remains a key focus as we manage the business through the current environment. From a profitability perspective, adjusted EBITDA was $31.1 million, representing a margin of 25.9%.

Operating income was $28.3 million, and net income for the quarter was $17.5 million. These results reflect continued attention to cost management and operating efficiency across the organization while maintaining the flexibility needed to support our various product lines and customer bases.

During the quarter, we also continued with targeted alignment and efficiency initiatives in specific areas of the business. These actions are consistent with our long-standing operating model and are intended to ensure that our cost structure remains aligned with current activity levels while preserving the ability to respond as conditions change.

We remain focused on maintaining margins and supporting our recurring revenue base across the portfolio. Cash generation remains a consistent strength of Enghouse.

Net cash provided by operating activities, excluding changes in working capital and income taxes, was $31.4 million in the quarter, and we ended the period with $260.2 million in cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments. This level of cash generation and balance sheet strength supports our ongoing capital return activities, including dividends and share repurchases, while also providing flexibility to fund internal initiatives and evaluate acquisition opportunities as they arise.

Reflecting the strength in cash generation, yesterday the board approved a 3.3% increase in the company's eligible quarterly dividend to 31 cents per common share, payable on May 29, 2026, to shareholders of record at the close of business on May 15, 2026. This represents the 18th consecutive year in which the company has increased its dividend.

It's also helpful to consider the business mix when looking at quarterly results. Enghouse operates across a range of software markets and solution areas, and performance naturally varies by product and customer group from quarter to quarter.

In the Asset Management Group, revenue was $52.8 million for the quarter compared to $50.8 million in the same quarter last year, reflecting steady performance and the inclusion of SeaChange, which was acquired during the quarter. Elsewhere in the portfolio, activity levels were mixed, reflecting normal variability in license sales, professional services timing, and recurring revenue across a broad installed base.

Overall, this mix continues to contribute balance to the consolidated results. Turning briefly to technology trends, including AI, this continues to be an area of active discussion with customers.

We are increasingly seeing customers ask how AI-enabled functionality might be applied within their existing systems to improve efficiency, automation, or insights. At the same time, many of the environments we serve are operationally complex or regulated, and adoption tends to be gradual and use case driven.

In parallel, we are also using AI internally in targeted ways to support efficiency and decision-making across parts of the organization. Our focus remains on identifying practical applications of AI within our platforms where there is clear customer value and a path to monetization, rather than treating AI as a stand-alone offering.

In summary, we are continuing to operate the business with a focus on stability, profitability, and cash generation while remaining disciplined in how we invest and allocate capital. The fundamentals of the business remain sound, and we believe we are well-positioned to manage through the current environment.

With that, I'll now turn the call over to Steve.

Thanks, Rob. The markets in which we operate today continue to be difficult as our customers try to understand the impact of changing tariffs, the impact of the global conflicts, and how to best implement AI to monetize their substantial investment.

We use AI in a hybrid strategy model, leveraging industry-leading external models for immediate productivity while building solutions on targeted investment. We continue to implement practical AI, like Rob said, and we've done this for years when new technology comes out.

Our recently established AI teams have started to implement applications to improve efficiency, and many internal solutions, which are now being called AI software, that we've developed over the years again using technology. When looking at AI, you've got to ask, when someone says they've laid off staff or done something, which AI solution allowed this to happen, as many are just attributing AI to all things to cost reductions, revenue, etc.

I thought I'd give a few of the ones we've used over the years and are continuing to use in some form. Virtual agents, which can be monitored, measured, and reported on, just like human agents.

This is an early activity for us as AI still does not provide the accurate answers in all cases. Agent Assist, which is designed to make human agent handling conversations more efficiently, and we use the Google technology for this aspect.

Quality Management System, which connects our own transcription service to translate voice, emails, and chat, which allows for analysis of every conversation and will handle the analysis of virtual communications as well. Smart Quality, which enables communication center supervisors to analyze how each call is handled, and to listen on problematic calls, for example, when a customer or someone raises their voice, it roots it to the supervisor, who then can listen to the call.

Of course, the one that's in the news a lot today, R&D development and quality assurance of programming code continues to develop using new AI tools, sometimes with different platforms. For example, Claude recently came out and is proving to be a little better in developing code than some of the prior AI platforms.

On our video features, they also include summarization of videos and automatic multilingual subtitles. This also is a continuing development of our AI usage, again only to improve profitability and increase productivity and efficiency.

We don't do it for fun; we do it because it gives us results. Back to capital deployment.

With respect to capital deployment, we are purchasing Enghouse shares using our internally generated funds and our substantial funds on hand. We believe purchasing our company's shares is a good use of our funds.

As noted, we have only increased our dividend very slightly this year, reallocating the historical dividend increase to repurchase of our shares. We believe that purchasing our own Enghouse shares seems to be a good allocation of our capital currently.

We continue to see acquisition opportunities which will have a good return on our investment as well, but the completion of such opportunities requires further risk-based due diligence to ensure our ROI will be achieved and the business of the opportunity will not be seriously disrupted. I would now like to open the call for questions.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking the questions.

I just wanted to start right there on capital deployment and M&A activity, maybe if you can expand a bit further on just what you're seeing from an acquisition perspective. Are targets still expecting higher multiples in this environment?

Are you seeing owners holding off on hopes of market recovery? Just how should we think about the pace of deployment for M&A here?

You've got a lot of questions there, but I'll see if I can cover them all. In the public markets, software, as you can tell, is getting beaten up virtually everywhere.

Initially, when AI came out, it said contact centers would go to zero, where you wouldn't need people. A lot of not our clients, but a lot of contact centers who tried that are now hiring back the staff, because it doesn't really work as well yet that they believe it to be, and the applications seem to be more promotional than actual reality.

However, how does that impact, of course, acquisitions or capital deployment? Public company software are reasonably priced, i.e., we believe if there's an opportunity there, but they're larger acquisitions, and that's why we tend to hold our funds.

In the private market, they're still looking back a year to 18 months, they just still believe that the value is right. They're waiting for higher values, but they also haven't really done a lot of work to understand how AI could disrupt their business.

It's taking us a little bit longer to again examine and do better due diligence, because we don't want to make a mistake. Our commitment is if we do acquisitions, they'll add to shareholder value, and we want to make sure we do the right ones.

There's quite a few to look at today. It just takes time to go through them.

Fair to say that in summary, the acquisition environment does remain attractive, just the due diligence process that you're undertaking in evaluating acquisitions is a bit longer in this environment?

It might even be better than attractive, okay? Only because everyone's believing AI's going to take over everything, okay, and the promotion exceeds the reality in our view, so that impacts the market.

It will have some impact, we've got to analyze that impact when we're looking at acquisitions, which adds another flavor to it, because as you also know, AI is changing rapidly every day. It's not a matter of what it's doing today; we've got to sort of make some assessment what will it do to a business tomorrow.

That's helpful. Then I just wanted to switch gears on some of the churn that you called out in the MD&A.

Churn from Lifesize, it was mentioned again as a headwind this quarter. Churn there just seemed to be a bit persistent.

Is there anything specific to call out there? You did acquire that acquisition a couple years ago now at this point, just want to see if there's anything else to call out.

It's flattening out on the Lifesize part. Again, a lot of people are trying to assess, should you buy today or wait to see when all this noise clears, as there's a lot of noise in the marketplace.

There's nothing really different than before; it's just more of the same, and people are getting more nervous, and they just don't know where the future is going. They're being more careful with their dollars, as are we.

Thanks, Steve. I'll pass the line.

I was wondering just on on the decision for the dividend increase this year, obviously being less than the 10% plus that we've seen historically. It sounds like it it's more being driven by some allocation that you guys are focusing on the share buybacks, obviously given how the share share prices is performed.

Is the right way to think about is that maybe there's a is there like a fixed amount that you you kind of want to allocate to dividends and and share buybacks versus M&A?

Not really. How we looked at the dividend part, we usually increase the dividend, as you pointed out, for 10 years by 10% to 20%, 15% to 20% usually.

When we look at things today and we didn't do a lot of buybacks. I generally don't believe in the buybacks, because what I do is I'd rather use that for M&A or dividends rather than just buy back our own stock.

However, looking at where our stock price is today, we always assess where we should deploy the capital, and we concluded that our current stock price is better than a lot of the acquisitions, the value of it is better than a lot of the acquisitions we're seeing, especially in the private market, we believe it is better to put more to the buyback program, which again we haven't done much of, but we're doing more of now. Where to take that from, we decided it was better not to take it from acquisitions, but take it from the dividend part where we've always had substantial increases.

We still wanted to increase the dividend a little bit, which we did. The reason why is because we have a commitment to shareholders that we've increased their dividend every year for over 10 years.

We didn't want to change that, because I think they expect some increase. We just lowered the amount so we could apply more to buybacks rather than to the dividend.

We just went through

an analysis of where we best can best deploy our capital, and we believe our own shares is better, in some ways better than some acquisitions we're seeing, and better than paying more out in a dividend, which is really high because our stock has come down and makes it look very high. It isn't really more in dollar value than we paid, let's say, last year, but it's high now.

We just used we're going to use our cash in a different form, which we always look at. It just so happens this year it's now changed to say the buyback is better than doing any more dividends, but we have a commitment it will increase every year, we did increase a little bit.

M&A, our own stock seems to be a better buy than some of the acquisitions we're seeing, which is unusual.

No, that's helpful, Steve. I guess it sounds like you're kind of holding some ammo back for M&A as well versus reallocating it to the dividend?

Yes, that's right. The other thing I think if you look at the marketplace, some of our very large competitors are having trouble, okay?

Their stocks are down quite a lot, but more so, you have a company like Mitel, a competitor, went into bankruptcy a couple of months ago. You have Avaya that tries to get out, which is a $2 billion contact center side company, can't really get out in the market these days.

You've got many of them going out of the small business area that we're in because they can't make it profitable. We're making it profitable, and we're running things well to do all those things.

Although it's tough, you can't pick on you can't take on any business just to make yourself look like you're growing at a loss. We are careful in that area.

We continue to be. When it comes down to our capital allocation, we believe more should be, as a result, in repurchasing our shares than are adding to our dividend.

We aren't taking the dividend down; we just aren't adding like we have in the past. We still want to keep our powder dry for acquisitions.

There's some pretty large ones out there that are reasonable value for us, but you've got to convince people to sell at that value, because although it might look like a good value on the market, often they say they're worth more than what they are, just like we do. That's why we're buying back our own shares.

No, that's great. I guess in that vein, just kind of looking at the buybacks versus M&A versus dividends and just the opportunities you see to deploy more capital on the buyback side, would you not consider then a substantial issuer bid?

We always look at a substantial issuer bid, but then I'd give up a lot of my cash, and as I just said, there's some larger opportunities that I might need that cash for. They're not here, you can never depend on them, but if you look in the market, there is opportunity to do larger deals.

The question is what benefit you're going to get if everyone believes contact centers are going to be eliminated, which we do not. We do not see that.

We see that changing, actually, as I said. The AI has moved on from contact centers because now, after saying it for so long and it not happening, they've got to come up with a new thing, and now it's all software is going to be eliminated.

We'll see. I don't see that happening either.

We see AI as another tool that helps us do things better, both software development, makes the contact center better, makes our agent ask the customers better. We see it as a valuable resource in a hybrid model with the other things that we do.

We're seeing a little differently, but we don't see the market's treating like it's going to eliminate contact centers as an example. We don't believe that will happen.

It's like the driverless cars today. I'm looking out the window right now.

I don't see very many, but I see a lot of cars where there's digital features looking in your blind spot, stopping automatically if you're backing up if someone's behind you. There's a lot of things that has enhanced over the last 10 years as they talked about having driverless cars and we'll all be sitting in the back seat while cars drive us around.

That may happen in the future. You have to be in the game, but it takes a lot longer than the market thinks, and sometimes it doesn't happen.

You look at electric vehicles. They were all be-all and end-all, and as I was coming in this morning, I heard again of another company, I think it was Honda or something, writing off billions of dollars again because their EV isn't quite working, because in all these systems and software, people are involved.

Sometimes people want to talk to a person, not a machine, when they call into a contact center, unless it's a very easy question, because they want to explain it and get the proper answer back, and that still is a little ways off. We're working towards it.

We have to be in it. It's an important thing to be involved in.

It's an important thing to look at, and we are certainly doing all those things to keep up with the technology, but in a practical way, not a promotional or I'll call it hype way, where the promotion far exceeds the reality today. That doesn't mean that won't change in the next couple of years, and we therefore have groups to do AI, we have people learning AI, if it changes, we can catch up quickly and be involved.

No, that's great color. Then just last question for me, how much, I guess, of the targeted $2 to $2.5 million cost savings from the restructuring did you realize this quarter?

How should we think about margins playing out for the balance of the year? We still have we were still

It's interesting. When we do restructuring, because we're in many countries, sometimes it takes six months.

You've got to keep the people on and pay them. Again, you'll see some restructuring we're continuing to look at and do.

Some have to have consultations with them, and that can take a month or two to do, it delays some of it. Again, that's another item that we've got to look at.

We're approaching it, again like everything we do, we try and approach it in a practical manner, and it's continuing to do. We still have some more restructuring still to do going forward.

We match cost and revenue. If revenues get tougher or something happens, we have to match the cost to that revenue, and we look through all our businesses.

We measure everything. We're like a baseball team.

We know how many times they're up, how many did they hit for her, how many time did they walk. We measure everything in our business, and we always look at it to see where we can make further efficiencies improvement.

The other thing I'll say is turnover is minimal in this market now, at least for us. I hear write-offs of everyone else that they claim to be AI is why they're doing those layoffs.

What I would say to you, which is an interesting question, when they say that, you should ask what software solution did they actually do in AI that allowed the layoffs. You might find that AI wasn't the cause of the layoffs in many cases.

That's a good question to ask. You did some AI.

What's that solution that caused Amazon to lay off 30,000 people? tell us what it was if the cause of the layoffs were AI.

We find AI isn't doing it, but not those type of numbers, unless they just were overstaffed and they're fixing a problem. we get that.

Great. Thank you.

Great, thanks so much, and really, really helpful context. Hey, I wonder, obviously AI's been in the market and obviously there's a lot of questions on it, but just from a different perspective, from a funding perspective and from a budget perspective, are the clients deploying it in parallel with your solutions, just in terms of any shifts in behavior you'd call out, because I happen to agree with you that it's going to be an enabler as opposed to wholesale displacement.

Are you seeing, in terms of running parallel with you folks or, any specific behaviors you'd call out?

I'll give you a this is an odd thing to say, but I'm going to tell you anyways, because we're pretty open. The applications are hard to see how to monetize AI.

We set up these two consulting groups, and we believe if we work with customers, maybe we'll see an AI application that works. There's an study done by 55 major companies, and we're in the small business lower end of the market, it's harder for us to do, where 95% of the proof of concepts didn't work.

At least today, it's improving every day, and didn't work. We believe if we do work for customers, we might come up with a terrific application that we can take to all our customers, because maybe we're not smart enough to see it, but maybe there's somebody there who can point us in the right direction.

Part of that is why we set up the two AI professional services groups to work with our customers to help them with proofs of proof of concepts, because we have the talent to do it, and we want to learn AI. From that, maybe we'll pick up some good ideas.

It's always good to get good ideas from others. You just don't know where they come from, but we find if we do those services, we might find some that we can use throughout the whole business.

That's why we did that. On our own, we're having difficulty seeing today how that works.

In the virtual agent, people are getting frustrated, and after about three times of asking things, they actually hit a button, "Get me to a human being. I want to talk to about this."

There's still some of that. That can change, because it's growing rapidly.

We understand that, and we're trying to take a practical approach to it, so that's why we're doing it the way we're doing it.

No, that makes a lot of sense. Then just if you think about when obviously another change in the industry a long time ago, shift from voice to some software, right?

Has it been at the same pace in terms of how you're recognizing the revenue, or I guess more so just the I guess the cost and what you're able to charge for the because obviously that almost feels like a more dramatic shift when you went from live agent to software. Just any thoughts on, just some perspective, because I always try to understand what's happened in the past to try to parallel what could potentially happen with the AI.

The good news is, at least for our management group, there's gone a lot of changes over the years. Used to be called a help desk, where you phoned in and got a help.

Now it's we have many things. It could come SMS messaging, it could come in as an email, or they could call in.

In fact, when they do call in, I'll give you a little example, we use software that translates that voice into digital so we compare everything together to see how an agent's doing. We don't want to miss out on that part of it.

Now in doing that, we started using Google to do that translation. Too expensive.

We couldn't do it. We wrote in about 3 months our own system which does the translation.

Costs went down by 80%, 8-0%, not 8%, 80%. There's a lot of things we're trying to learn by doing this and how to get efficient in doing it.

Some of it we use the platform people, because they're very good at it, but some areas it's too expensive to do. We are looking at all those aspects, how to analyze better.

When we have a virtual agent, you've got you're going to charge more for a virtual agent than you are for one that is because you're taking they're taking advantage of not having a person there. You've got to be careful; the virtual agent has to be reasonably good or else they're saying, "What am I doing here?"

We're developing it over time. That's a very early stage on a virtual agent for us, because we're still trying to get the software to do that properly.

Remember, you've got to tie that to a say a large language model. We actually use a small language model, because our customers are smaller.

We don't have giant contact centers be of thousands of people; they generally average between 50 and 250 agents. It's a smaller base on which to deliver, and therefore a smaller timeframe.

You don't want to take history for 10 years. We can do something like an agent monitor them for a month or two and do an analysis on how well they answered calls.

Even the virtual agent, how many times did it actually answer, or did it move you over to a real person? We're still it's still new.

We're trying it all. You have to be there.

We're learning a lot by doing it, but there's a lot of moving parts right now. It takes some time.

In doing that, you're doing that in while still marketing and still trying to add revenue and value with what you've got today. Again, I think 70% of our revenue is recurring, but some of that is older revenue on-prem.

There's some customers who are going back on-prem. The latest thing for AI is they don't think SaaS is going to work anymore.

You can read all this stuff. I'm reading it trying to learn as I go, and there's a lot of different views out there right now, and the true answer is they don't know, we don't know, we're trying to keep our finger in all the games so we're there.

When a trend sees it's really working, we want to be there to get on it quickly. That's what we're trying to do rather than just expend a lot of money trying to experiment with stuff.

We're more like to make money, and we'll be there a little late, but we'll get there quickly because we're still involved in the game.

Very helpful, and congratulations on the execution.

Thanks, and good morning. Just a question on you mentioned earlier that you're expanding the due diligence on acquisitions disregarding AI.

Can you share some thoughts around what your checklist is or evaluation criteria to assess AI risk or AI resiliency for acquisitions?

To get that, Paul, you're going to have to give me an acquisition and be involved in it, because it's not a little list. Again, it's not just doing AI.

We're looking at all aspects of the business, but we've got to sort of see what's the risk of it the business being disrupted by AI. That's a lot of things to look at, so that also means you've got to know what AI can do and what it can't do right now, but what's that going to be like in a month?

What's that like going to be in a year? We're taking it a little slower on that when we're looking at some of the deals.

Some of them aren't in even AI we don't think will change much there, and maybe we're wrong, we've got to assess that in looking at the risk of of any deals now. Another factor you have to look at, one of the key things they do in valuations, they always say what's the terminal value?

That could be at 5 or 10 years out. If you if you do a valuation, there's always a terminal value.

It's pretty hard to tell what that is today, and therefore we're probably a little risk-averse. That may be positive, and it may be a negative, because it means we should be a little if we took a little more risk, we might get more done.

Investors might like that, shareholders might like that, but I have to live with it. They don't have to fix it if it doesn't work.

We're careful, and maybe that slows us down more than it should, but opportunities are actually greater because everyone's worried. Remember, the promotion by everyone out there is contact centers, as an example, are going to be eliminated.

That's not going to happen, okay, just like cars aren't eliminated, drive driverless cars haven't taken over. That's 10 years when they told me that initially, because as an old guy, I go through all that stuff and and and remembers.

There is, there's a lot of work still more work to be done to say, and if you do do it, is the ARM investors going to say, "What'd they spend their money on that for? Keep the cash, because we don't think it's in 5 years it's going to be worth anything."

We we've got to assess all those things, and we do it the best we can, and it changes very rapidly every day.

Thanks for that. The second question is just on the AMG side of the business.

I think a lot of the talk has been on IMG and the dynamics there with AI. In terms of AMG, what have you been seeing in terms of customer interest in AI and either uptake or delays regarding new software deployments just related to AI uncertainty?

Certainly, and I should mention this too. We always talk a lot about contact center, because it seems to be the thing in the market.

Our contact center revenue is down quite a bit in the sense of our total revenue these days, because the other revenue from our transportation, our new deals that we did, and our networks have been increasing while the contact center has been going down because of Lifesize and things that we bought in that space that we're trying to fix up. Our contact center is a little bit smaller.

Your question about let's say networks or AMG, AMG is really networks and transportation. There's less of an issue there right now, but there's a lot, if they want to have a system AI that goes through and maybe guesses if a person's going to go off the system.

You're talking let's say a person renewing their internet or even their phone, 30 bucks a month, that's what they so it's not as big to really apply to know that one or two customers go off, you've got to do it slightly differently. There's less comments from our other areas on AI, but it still impacts them.

They still wonder where it's going. The big one in networks is how do you detect fraud?

How do you detect cyber? How can AI do that?

That's the plus. The negative is how is AI going to change that, you've got more risk on cyber, etc., because the bad guys are going to use AI as well to disrupt your organization.

If you use more of it, they might be able to implant it somewhere and get it. All these factors are still talked about, a lot of thinking going on them.

We look at it, we did it, we've set up groups in both AMG and IMG to do AI, small groups, 4 to 5, that we want to do. We have people who've been doing it internally, we're just going to focus their knowledge a little bit more and go out to customers and say, "Look, we have a group who knows this stuff.

We're not as expensive as the California teams who are out selling this service where it costs millions. We can help you with your projects, and maybe we learn something by it.

We may get an application from it, and we're on top of the direction of where a lot of people are going." We have I we did it by having this service that we just set up in January.

It's starting to show a little bit of traction, but it's very new. It's really done to help us learn more and help us come up with good projects that customers want that we can apply AI to and maybe take to other customers that we have as we learn from work we're doing with customers.

The good news for me is they actually pay for it, so that's good, too. I don't it isn't a big cost to do the AI like many are doing and spending money on.

We actually at least cover our costs in doing that type of professional services business. Then

just one last question for me, just on Lifesize. I believe you had a updated version of Lifesize coming out early this year.

Could you speak to the customer interest and feedback and then maybe pipeline for that new offering?

Sure. I think Look, Lifesize was an interesting project.

We made our payback very quickly on that one, because if you remember, we bought it out of bankruptcy. We didn't take on liabilities, and even though the revenues dropped, we're still doing quite well.

The new product, their product was a good start that we had for that business, but as we get into it, they had some third-party products incorporated, and they're taking a little longer to get out so we can get better margin on that product, we're still doing that. It's still got some work to do.

Again, then we've got to introduce the sales staff how to sell this new type of product. All that's going on.

It all takes a little longer than everyone thinks. We're trying to build some AI into it.

It's just taking a little bit longer, but that's still our plan. We're very close to doing better there, and hopefully we'll get better traction from our revenue side from it, because virtually right now we haven't done that much, because you don't want to put it out there in a customer with third-party products that cost a lot and then tell the customer you want to take those out and put a new one in.

They aren't so happy with those type of changes. In some ways, it's slowed down as we make those changes and get the product better before we start putting it in customers.

We are starting to do that now. Hopefully, we'll show some traction on that, but there hasn't been much on it yet.

Okay. Thanks for taking the questions.

I want to thank you all for attending the call and your continued support. It's a very interesting technology environment today, and we're handling it in the usual manner, trying to practically do it, not at the bleeding edge, but we're certainly in the game, and we certainly are positioning for the future as well as for the present.

Again, you can see that even with the platforms. 3 weeks ago, Copilot was good, Gemini was good, and now it's Claude.

If you start picking on one, putting it in all your systems, and they change that, what are you going to do? Go change all your systems?

It's still in a new area, and we're certainly believe that it will help. We believe it will improve efficiency.

You've got to find the right application to do it, and you can't die in the process, which, again, many of our competitors are having some trouble. They're all doing AI because they believe that's what investors want to hear.

We're trying to say, live through it, do the AI, but let's at least make our cash flow from what we're doing. It's a little different approach, maybe not as fancy as the others, but steady, and if it all blows up, we'll be the last man standing.

That's what we're want to make sure that we're going to be there no matter what. If it takes off, we're going to get there quickly, because we are spending time and money trying to get paid a little bit for it by the professional services group.

We're spending time and money trying to at least keep up with the technology, which is going very quickly. We'll have to see where it all goes.

I think as another company said in one of their calls, we're in inning one, and not at the end of inning one; we're at the start of inning one. We've got to see how it all pairs out and where you can use technology like we have in the past to make the investment.

This time that technology is called AI; in the past, it's been called other things. For example, we had to go on-prem with SaaS.

Now they're saying SaaS will be eliminated. I'm not so sure.

We've just built that area up, so that'd be a little unfortunate. We are still trying to figure out how best to use it to add value for shareholders, and it's not easy, and it's in a very fast-changing environment.

That's sort of where we're at on it as an honest view. We're not being left behind, and I haven't said much in the past because I don't want to promote something that I'm really experimenting with in many ways right now.

Thank you, everybody, and again, look forward to seeing you in the future.