u/Samseem

Intel provides the hardware and enterprise ecosystem. SoundHound provides the voice/agentic intelligence. Companies building kiosks, drive-thrus and embedded systems now have a validated Intel/SoundHound architecture instead of having to design everything themselves.

Imagine Intel + SoundHound eventually getting into vehicles, TVs, kiosks, appliances, retail terminals and other embedded devices.

REVENUE (that’s what always in question, and it’s a right question)—
If Intel/SoundHound announces the first major named customer or deployment volume, that’s when we can replace these hypothetical $50–$500 assumptions with something much closer to a real revenue model.

Estimate the potential SOUN revenue if Intel-enabled Polaris/OASYS reaches 10,000, 50,000, 100,000 and 1 million endpoints.
A simple revenue model
Suppose the average SoundHound revenue associated with an Intel-powered endpoint eventually works out to $50, $100, $250, or $500 per year:

10,000 endpoints
$50/year → $0.5M revenue
$100/year → $1M
$250/year → $2.5M
$500/year → $5M
50,000 endpoints
$50/year → $2.5M
$100/year → $5M
$250/year → $12.5M
$500/year → $25M
100,000 endpoints
$50/year → $5M
$100/year → $10M
$250/year → $25M
$500/year → $50M
500,000 endpoints
$50/year → $25M
$100/year → $50M
$250/year → $125M
$500/year → $250M
1 million endpoints
$50/year → $50M
$100/year → $100M
$250/year → $250M
$500/year → $500M

Important:
What you think 🤔

One thing I’m genuinely trying to understand about SoundHound and Keyvan Mohajer: We often hear about the relationship between Mohajer and Jensen Huang, including stories that Jensen would send Mohajer research papers and ask for his thoughts and feedback. If Mohajer is technically respected enough that someone like Jensen values his perspective, how do we reconcile the dramatically different outcomes of their companies? NVIDIA went on to become a multi-trillion-dollar company, while SoundHound, after many years, is still working toward roughly $250M in annual revenue and has relied heavily on acquisitions, capital raises, and stock-based compensation to scale. Obviously NVIDIA and SoundHound operate in very different businesses and started from very different positions, but I’m genuinely curious what explains such a huge gap between Mohajer’s apparent technical credibility and SoundHound’s business execution. Is the issue commercialization, timing, capital, management/execution, or simply that voice AI has historically been a much harder market to monetize?

Would appreciate hearing from anyone who has followed Mohajer/SoundHound for a long time and can provide some perspective.

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has dug into the acquisition documents or management commentary. **What am I missing in the $243.7M → \~$100M revenue bridge?**

—
LivePerson reported **$243.7M in total revenue for 2025**, compared with **$312.5M in 2024**.
2025 revenue by region:
Americas: **$134.4M**
EMEA: **$70.1M**
APAC: **$39.2M**
Total: **$243.7M**

LivePerson also reported that **no single customer accounted for 10% or more of 2025 revenue**, meaning no individual customer represented $24.4M+ of annual revenue.

So what exactly happens to the other \~$144M of LivePerson’s 2025 revenue?

Is SoundHound intentionally acquiring/retaining only certain LivePerson customers or business lines? Is a large portion of LivePerson’s existing revenue expected to churn or be discontinued? Is the \~$100M figure referring to a specific type of recurring revenue rather than LivePerson’s total revenue? Or is SoundHound simply giving an extremely conservative post-acquisition estimate?

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who has dug into the acquisition documents or management commentary. What am I missing in the $243.7M → ~$100M revenue bridge?

—
LivePerson reported $243.7M in total revenue for 2025, compared with $312.5M in 2024.
2025 revenue by region:
Americas: $134.4M
EMEA: $70.1M
APAC: $39.2M
Total: $243.7M

LivePerson also reported that no single customer accounted for 10% or more of 2025 revenue, meaning no individual customer represented $24.4M+ of annual revenue.

So what exactly happens to the other ~$144M of LivePerson’s 2025 revenue?

Is SoundHound intentionally acquiring/retaining only certain LivePerson customers or business lines? Is a large portion of LivePerson’s existing revenue expected to churn or be discontinued? Is the ~$100M figure referring to a specific type of recurring revenue rather than LivePerson’s total revenue? Or is SoundHound simply giving an extremely conservative post-acquisition estimate?

This was probably one of the most confident interviews I’ve seen from Keyvan Mohajer in a long time. He seemed extremely confident about SoundHound’s technology, the opportunity ahead, the LivePerson acquisition, and where the company fits in the much bigger AI race.

For those who watched the full interview, what were your biggest takeaways? Did anything he said change your view of SoundHound’s long-term potential? More importantly, do you think this confidence is supported by what SoundHound is actually executing today, or is there still a significant gap between the vision and the numbers?

Curious to hear what both bulls and bears took away from this interview.

https://youtu.be/oF-0E76f-Yo?is=hy0NVkWdKyKi33Ad

OASYS was officially launched on May 5, 2026, which means it had barely been in the market for two months by the end of Q2. Yet management is already saying that “strong topline growth this quarter was driven by signing major enterprise AI deals attributed to OASYS.” That really caught my attention, too fast to impact revenues. OASYS is obviously built on years of SoundHound/Amelia technology rather than something created from scratch in May, but seeing major enterprise traction this quickly after launch is encouraging. With OASYS expanding SoundHound beyond traditional voice AI into agentic AI, enterprise automation, and end-to-end conversational workflows, could this be the product that changes SoundHound’s growth trajectory? Are we looking at OASYS becoming a major turnaround/growth catalyst for SOUN, or is it still too early to draw that conclusion? What do you guys think?

Stock-based compensation
$21.5M
Depreciation & amortization
$11.1M

One thing that changed my perspective today was comparing SoundHound’s headcount with Deliverect’s.
I used to think SoundHound didn’t have enough employees to support the scale they’re targeting. But after looking at Deliverect, my view changed.
Deliverect serves 95,000+ restaurant and retail locations across 78 countries with only about 450–510 employees.
SoundHound, on the other hand, has around 950 employees roughly twice as many.
Looking at those numbers, SoundHound’s employee count actually seems reasonable. They’re building voice AI across restaurants, automotive, healthcare, telecom, retail, financial services, and enterprise AI, so having around 950 employees doesn’t look small anymore.
I used to think their workforce was a weakness.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Soundhound/s/dcKrXYwhFu

After comparing it with Deliverect, I see it differently. Modern AI software companies can operate at a much larger scale with lean teams than I originally assumed.

SoundHound has approximately 954 employees and generated around $169 million in annual revenue. NiCE has about 10× more employees and generates roughly 17× more revenue.

NiCE has approximately 9,626 employees, generates around $2.9 billion in annual revenue, and has a market cap of roughly $6 billion.

In comparison, SoundHound has impressive conversational and voice AI technology and is expanding across automotive, restaurants, enterprise customer service, healthcare, and other industries. However, how will it scale globally with such a small workforce?

I see occasional SoundHound job openings in Canada, Beijing, India, and other locations, but sometimes only one or a few positions. Is SoundHound intentionally following a lean, AI-driven model and relying on scalable technology and partnerships, or will it eventually need much more aggressive hiring?

Could SoundHound’s smaller workforce become a major efficiency advantage or eventually create a bottleneck as global adoption grows?

I know the partnership was announced to help expand SoundHound’s enterprise sales and customer reach, but has anyone seen any tangible results yet?

Have they helped close even a single enterprise deal or customer that has been publicly disclosed? Or is it still too early since enterprise sales cycles can take months?

I’m genuinely trying to understand what impact this partnership has had so far. If anyone has information or examples, I’d appreciate it.

One thing I find interesting about SoundHound is the disconnect between Wall Street analysts and Reddit sentiment.
Most analysts seem to rate SOUN as a Buy or Moderate Buy, with price targets that suggest meaningful upside. Yet when I read Reddit discussions, the overall sentiment often feels much more negative, focusing on dilution, cash burn, competition, and execution risks.
I’m not saying either side is right or wrong. Analysts appear to be looking at revenue growth, partnerships, and long-term AI opportunities, while Reddit seems more focused on short-term stock performance and profitability concerns.
For those following SOUN closely, why do you think there is such a big gap between analyst ratings and retail investor sentiment? Is the market being overly pessimistic, or are analysts being too optimistic?

I’ve been looking into SoundHound’s recently announced OASYS (Orchestrated Agent System) and I’m trying to understand how other investors are thinking about it. From what I read, OASYS is not just another voice-AI feature. SoundHound is positioning it as a self-learning agentic AI platform where businesses can build, deploy, orchestrate, and improve AI agents across channels like phone, chat, kiosks, drive-thru, TV, and even in-vehicle systems.

What do you all think? Is OASYS a meaningful competitive advantage for SoundHound, or is it still too early to call it a catalyst until management shows measurable business impact over the next few quarters?

I’ve noticed something interesting about my own investing style. I naturally gravitate toward companies where the CEO has a very strong executive presence, clear communication skills, and the ability to confidently represent the company to investors and the market. For example, leaders like Anthony Noto at SoFi Technologies or Daniel Schreiber at Lemonade. Whether people agree with them or not, they come across as highly polished, confident, and capable of selling the long-term vision of the company.

With SoundHound AI, this is the first time I’ve invested in a company where I genuinely feel the CEO seems like a very hardworking, intelligent, and sincere person, but the overall executive presence and communication style doesn’t feel as strong from an investor-relations perspective. Sometimes it feels like the company could benefit from someone with stronger public-market communication skills to help represent the vision, attract institutional confidence, and drive broader market momentum.

My question is more general and not meant as an attack on the CEO personally: in founder-led companies, do founders sometimes hold onto the CEO role too long because of emotional attachment or insecurity about bringing in a stronger public-facing operator? And can that potentially slow down growth even if the founder is technically brilliant? Or is authenticity and product execution ultimately more important than charisma and presentation skills in the long run?

Curious how others here think about this when investing in founder-led companies.

SoundHound feels like a restaurant with a world class chef who keeps creating incredible new dishes, redesigning the menu, and buying neighboring kitchens, but barely spends time bringing customers through the door. The company is clearly focused on product expansion, acquisitions, and building a broad AI ecosystem, but commercialization and GTM execution still look weak. Technology alone doesn’t scale revenue; distribution does.

What concerns me even more is that employee growth has remained relatively flat while management keeps talking about scaling into multiple industries. Enterprise AI adoption requires sales teams, implementation teams, customer success, partnerships, and aggressive market penetration. You can’t realistically expect hypergrowth with limited operational expansion.

Also surprising: during the Q1 2026 earnings call, there was basically no meaningful discussion around the Bridgepointe partnership. Investors were repeatedly told Bridgepointe has access to 12,000+ enterprise customers, but there was no roadmap, no pipeline commentary, no conversion targets, and no mention of expected enterprise traction from that relationship. Even landing 50 to 100 enterprise customers over the next couple of years through that channel could materially change the growth narrative, yet management stayed silent.

Right now, SoundHound looks like a company building an elite AI engine without proving it can consistently monetize and distribute at scale. Great technology wins attention. Great sales execution wins markets.