Thanks for proving to me why this audience won't be as empathetic to some of those concerns that were expressed as other audiences. So, first off, let me just acknowledge something about the communications with the AEC industry, and the architects in particular. One, they have legitimate concerns about the functionality in Revit. And we take those incredibly seriously. And the fact is, is that from an architectural standpoint, Revit hasn't gotten a lot of incremental investment, a lot of the AEC investments have gone to construction, it's gone to revenue enhancements targeting the engineering component, the workflow – structural workflows, in particular. So, there's some real legitimate concerns there. The other concern they have is the move from multiuser to named users. These are large multi-user clients and they've seen multi-user prices drift up. They really want a pay per use model. We want them to have a pay per use model, which they would prefer to a cloud licensing. So, those are some things I just want to make sure that we acknowledge. And we're all on the same page with. But that said, like you said, and it was important that I make this clear, these customers come from a highly privileged, roughly 20% of our subscription base that moved from maintenance to subscription and have really pretty deep price protections, okay, relative to the rest of the base. And if you look at their expenditures over a five-year period, frankly, even over – moving out another five years, as they add seats, they are actually paying less to Autodesk than they would have under the old perpetual model. And that was a deliberate part of the transition, even as multiuser prices go up in everything. If you add up what they would have paid for us for adding users over time, they actually end up paying less over a five-year period and, frankly, as they add users over a 10-year period. We're not concerned about that. We went out very early on that we were going to take care of these maintenance customers that were out in front of us. We did that. Lots of debates with all of you about the maintenance subscription program and 10-year price lock. It wasn't exactly something that all of you were behind. Alright? But we think it was right. And yes, it has resulted in this. So, we're never going to be on the same page with this audience about that particular part of the equation. But remember, this is a shrinking bit of our subscription base, the protected 20% now. There'll be less than that later. But, over time, they pay less than they used to in the old perpetual model. It's true. But we're not worried about that. There's no concern there.