Freed

Bottom line

Freed AI is a browser-based ambient clinical documentation tool optimized for solo and small-group primary care practices that need fast onboarding without enterprise IT infrastructure. It records patient encounters through a phone app or computer microphone, transcribes the conversation, and generates clinical notes compatible with Epic, Athena Health, and eClinicalWorks workflows. The platform is HIPAA-attested and offers self-service setup with a free trial, making it accessible to independent clinicians testing ambient scribe technology for the first time.

Pricing sits at the lower end of the ambient scribe market, with plans starting at thirty-nine dollars per month per provider and scaling to one hundred nineteen dollars monthly depending on feature tier. The entry point positions Freed as one of the few ambient scribes a solo family medicine physician can trial without capital committee approval. However, clinicians on Reddit report meaningful latency during peak hours, with processing delays stretching three to six minutes, and note output quality degrades with complex multi-problem visits or specialty-specific documentation needs.

Freed suits primary care providers managing straightforward outpatient encounters who prioritize ease of use and transparent pricing over deep EHR integration or specialty-specific templates. Hospitalists, emergency medicine physicians managing high-acuity cases, and subspecialists requiring nuanced documentation should evaluate more adaptable platforms. The tool's thin peer-reviewed evidence base and limited template flexibility make it a cautious first step rather than a confident long-term documentation solution for practices with complex charting workflows.

Why we picked it

Freed AI earned a silo pick in the solo practice under one hundred dollars per month category because it eliminates the two largest barriers to ambient scribe adoption in small practices: opaque enterprise pricing and IT-dependent implementation. Most competing ambient scribes require multi-month procurement cycles, dedicated IT staff to manage EHR API integrations, and annual contracts with per-seat minimums that exclude practices below ten clinicians. Freed bypasses this entirely with browser-based architecture that requires no server installation, no VPN configuration, and no EHR vendor coordination beyond single sign-on authentication.

The self-service onboarding model allows a solo clinician to activate Freed during a lunch break. The platform offers a free trial period with no credit card requirement, letting physicians test note quality on their own patient panel before committing budget. This trial-first approach is uncommon in the medical AI space, where vendors typically gate product access behind scheduled demos and sales calls. For a newly independent physician leaving a hospital system or a rural solo practice testing AI documentation for the first time, this friction reduction is the primary value proposition.

Freed's integration strategy targets the three most common ambulatory EHRs among small practices: Epic (via MyChart and Haiku mobile interfaces), Athena Health, and eClinicalWorks. The integration depth is read-and-copy rather than bi-directional write, meaning Freed generates a note the clinician reviews and manually pastes into the EHR chart rather than auto-populating fields. While this limits workflow automation compared to deeply embedded scribes like Nuance DAX Copilot, it also sidesteps the compliance and IT governance scrutiny that comes with write-access API permissions. A solo practice can adopt Freed without filing a security impact assessment or modifying business associate agreements beyond the standard HIPAA attestation.

The twenty-five thousand user claim, if accurate, suggests Freed has achieved product-market fit among early-adopter primary care clinicians willing to trade advanced features for deployment simplicity. The pricing transparency and trial access align with how independent physicians evaluate software: test it on real patients, measure time savings, decide within one billing cycle. This stands in contrast to enterprise ambient scribes that require six-month pilots and contract negotiation before a single note is generated. For the target persona, a solo family medicine physician grossing three hundred thousand dollars annually and unwilling to involve an IT consultant, Freed represents the lowest-friction entry point into ambient documentation technology currently available.

What it does well

Freed's interface design prioritizes clarity over feature density. The recording workflow consists of three steps: tap record on a phone app or browser window, conduct the visit, tap stop. The platform processes the audio in the background and delivers a structured note within three to five minutes under normal load. Clinicians on Reddit consistently describe the interface as clean, intuitive, and requiring minimal training. One user on r/FamilyMedicine noted the documentation quality was good enough for straightforward visits that the only manual editing required was adjusting tone to match their personal charting style. This ease of use is the tool's strongest asset and the primary reason solo practitioners report successful adoption without formal onboarding sessions.

The note output format follows standard SOAP structure with discrete sections for history of present illness, review of systems, physical exam, assessment, and plan. Freed's natural language processing reliably captures patient-reported symptoms, medication names, and basic clinical reasoning when the encounter follows a predictable primary care pattern: chief complaint, history gathering, physical exam, diagnosis, treatment plan. For visits involving a single acute problem like sinusitis, urinary tract infection, or hypertension follow-up, clinicians report the generated HPI captures relevant positive and negative findings without requiring significant rewriting. The system handles common abbreviations, medication brand names, and lay terminology patients use to describe symptoms.

Freed's audio capture performs well in typical outpatient exam rooms with moderate ambient noise. The platform supports recording from multiple devices simultaneously, allowing a clinician to use a phone placed on the exam table and a desktop microphone as backup. This redundancy reduces the risk of lost audio if a patient moves away from the primary recording device. Several Reddit users mentioned the app successfully picked up nuanced conversational details, such as patient hesitations about starting a new medication or concerns about side effects, that the clinician incorporated into shared decision-making documentation. This level of contextual capture exceeds basic transcription and approaches the clinical reasoning documentation ambient scribes promise.

The time-to-value metric for Freed is measurably better than enterprise competitors. A clinician can create an account, complete identity verification, sign the business associate agreement, and generate their first note within thirty minutes. This rapid onboarding removes the psychological barrier of committing to a new workflow before seeing tangible results. The free trial period allows testing across multiple visit types, patient demographics, and clinical scenarios without financial risk. For physicians skeptical of AI documentation quality or uncertain whether ambient scribes will genuinely reduce after-hours charting, this try-before-buy model addresses the adoption hesitation that stalls enterprise scribe deployments. The transparency around pricing tiers and feature limits is also notable: the product website clearly states what each plan includes, avoiding the schedule a demo to see pricing approach common among health IT vendors.

Where it falls short

Freed's template library is limited compared to specialty-focused ambient scribes. The platform offers minimal customization for documentation patterns outside standard primary care visits. Clinicians managing complex multi-problem encounters, such as a geriatric patient with five chronic conditions presenting for medication reconciliation and advance care planning, report the generated notes lose coherence and require substantial manual restructuring. One user on r/emergencymedicine stated Freed was not robust enough for complex cases and abandoned the tool after a trial period. The lack of specialty-specific templates for fields like emergency medicine, hospital medicine, or procedural subspecialties limits the addressable market to straightforward outpatient primary care.

Processing latency is a recurring complaint. Multiple Reddit users report delays of three to six minutes during peak hours, with some noting the real-time lag made it impractical to review and finalize notes between back-to-back fifteen-minute appointment slots. While Freed markets itself as an ambient scribe that reduces after-hours charting, the processing delay in practice means clinicians must either wait in the exam room for the note to generate or batch-review notes at the end of a session. This undermines the workflow benefit ambient scribes promise: closing the chart before the next patient enters. Competitors like Suki and Abridge offer near-real-time transcription with sub-sixty-second processing, making Freed's latency a meaningful disadvantage for high-throughput clinical environments.

The note output requires significant review and editing. Clinicians consistently emphasize they still must check everything before signing. While this is true of all ambient scribes due to medical liability and accuracy requirements, Freed's accuracy on complex visits appears lower than competitors with more sophisticated clinical language models. Users report the system struggles with medical jargon specific to subspecialties, misattributes statements between clinician and patient during multi-speaker conversations, and occasionally generates assessment and plan sections that do not align with the documented history and exam. These accuracy gaps mean the time savings from ambient documentation are partially offset by the cognitive load of error-checking, particularly for clinicians in high-volume practices where note review must happen rapidly.

Freed lacks integration with clinical decision support tools, order entry systems, or prescription workflows. The platform generates a text note the clinician copies into the EHR, but it does not pre-populate medication orders, lab requisitions, or referral templates based on the documented plan. This means the clinician still performs the same number of EHR clicks to execute the care plan, reducing the net time savings. Deeply integrated ambient scribes like Nuance DAX Copilot within Epic can auto-draft orders based on the visit conversation, cutting the documentation and order entry burden simultaneously. Freed's browser-based architecture prevents this level of integration, positioning it as a transcription aid rather than a full workflow automation tool. For practices seeking to reduce total time spent in the EHR, this limitation is material.

Deployment realities

Freed's deployment model is designed to bypass traditional IT gatekeepers. The browser-based architecture requires no software installation, no firewall configuration, and no VPN access to hospital networks. A clinician signs up with an email address, completes identity verification through a third-party credentialing service, and gains immediate access to the recording interface. The EHR integration relies on the clinician manually authenticating to their Epic, Athena, or eClinicalWorks account through a web portal, after which Freed can read patient context like name, date of birth, and medical record number to pre-populate note headers. This read-only integration does not require IT approval in most health systems because it does not modify EHR data or create API connections that trigger security reviews.

Training time is minimal. The vendor provides a fifteen-minute video walkthrough and written quick-start guide. Most clinicians report feeling comfortable using the tool after three to five practice recordings. The learning curve is shallow because the interaction model mirrors existing smartphone voice recording apps. The primary workflow adjustment is remembering to start and stop recording at the appropriate points in the visit, which becomes habitual after one to two weeks of consistent use. Practices do not need to designate a super-user, schedule group training sessions, or hire external consultants to support rollout. This self-service model is the tool's core deployment advantage and the reason it scales to solo practices that lack dedicated IT staff.

Change management challenges are modest but not absent. Clinicians must adapt to verbalizing clinical reasoning aloud during the patient encounter in a way that generates coherent documentation. Some physicians find this unnatural, particularly those accustomed to conducting visits with minimal spoken narration and documenting from memory afterward. Patients occasionally express concern about being recorded, requiring the clinician to explain the purpose and obtain verbal consent. While most patients accept the explanation, the consent conversation adds fifteen to thirty seconds per visit and can feel awkward during sensitive discussions about mental health, substance use, or sexual history. Freed provides a patient-facing consent script, but clinicians report varying comfort levels with the recording disclosure depending on visit context.

Pricing realities

Freed offers three pricing tiers: thirty-nine dollars per month per provider, seventy-nine dollars per month, and one hundred nineteen dollars per month. The entry tier includes basic transcription and note generation with a cap on monthly visit volume. The mid-tier increases the visit limit and adds customization options for note templates. The top tier removes visit caps and provides priority processing during peak hours. The pricing page does not specify exact visit limits for each tier, requiring prospective customers to contact sales or test limits during the trial period. This partial opacity is less transparent than ideal but remains clearer than competitors that hide all pricing behind scheduled demos.

Hidden costs are minimal compared to enterprise ambient scribes. Freed does not charge per-API-call fees, per-EHR-seat surcharges, or mandatory professional services fees for implementation. The subscription includes software updates, customer support via email, and access to new features as they roll out. However, the tool does not include IT support for EHR troubleshooting, meaning if a clinician encounters authentication issues with Epic or Athena, they must resolve it independently or through their existing IT help desk. For solo practices without IT support, this can result in productivity loss during technical issues. The contract terms are monthly, allowing cancellation without penalty, which reduces financial risk but also signals the vendor expects some customer churn as users test the product and determine fit.

Return on investment calculation depends on baseline charting efficiency. A primary care physician spending ninety minutes per day on documentation after clinic hours, earning an effective hourly rate of one hundred fifty dollars, loses two hundred twenty-five dollars in personal time daily. If Freed reduces after-hours charting by thirty minutes per day, the time savings equals seventy-five dollars daily or approximately fifteen hundred dollars monthly, assuming twenty clinic days per month. At the ninety-nine-dollar mid-tier price point frequently cited in Reddit discussions, the net monthly benefit is fourteen hundred dollars, yielding a fourteen-to-one return on investment if the time savings claim holds. However, this calculation assumes the time saved translates to recoverable personal time rather than being absorbed by other administrative tasks. Clinicians must track actual time savings over a full billing cycle to validate whether the ROI materializes in practice.

Compliance + integration depth

Freed is HIPAA-attested, meaning the vendor has signed a business associate agreement and represents compliance with HIPAA security and privacy requirements. The company does not publicly display SOC 2 Type II certification, HITRUST certification, or ISO 27001 attestation, which are common among health IT vendors serving enterprise health systems. The absence of these certifications does not indicate non-compliance but does limit Freed's viability for hospital-employed clinicians whose IT departments mandate specific security frameworks. Solo and small-group practices operating under HIPAA alone can adopt Freed without additional compliance audits, but health system employees may face internal barriers if their organization requires SOC 2 or HITRUST for third-party software.

The tool does not require FDA clearance because it functions as documentation software rather than a clinical decision support system or diagnostic tool. Freed does not interpret medical data, recommend treatments, or influence clinical decisions, placing it outside FDA regulatory scope. This is consistent with other ambient scribes like Suki and DeepScribe, none of which hold FDA clearance. However, the lack of FDA oversight means the software's accuracy and reliability are not subject to federal pre-market review, placing the burden of validation entirely on the clinician user. Physicians adopting Freed must independently verify note accuracy and cannot rely on regulatory approval as a proxy for quality assurance.

EHR integration depth is shallow by design. Freed connects to Epic, Athena Health, and eClinicalWorks through browser-based authentication, allowing the platform to read patient demographic information and pre-fill note headers. The integration is one-way: Freed generates a note in its own interface, the clinician reviews it, and then manually copies the text into the EHR chart. This copy-paste workflow avoids the complexity and security scrutiny of bi-directional API integration but also prevents Freed from auto-populating discrete EHR fields like problem lists, medication lists, or flowsheet data. Clinicians seeking full EHR workflow automation will find this integration insufficient. The upside is that the shallow integration allows Freed to support multiple EHR vendors without custom development for each, enabling the self-service onboarding model that defines the product.

Vendor stability + roadmap

Freed AI was founded in 2022, making it a relatively young company in the ambient scribe market. The vendor is based in the United States and claims more than twenty-five thousand users, which, if accurate, represents rapid adoption in a competitive space. The provided materials do not disclose funding rounds, venture capital backers, or annual revenue, limiting the ability to assess financial stability. The absence of publicly announced Series A or Series B funding may indicate the company is bootstrapped or operating on seed capital, which could constrain product development velocity but also suggests lower burn rate and less pressure to achieve aggressive growth targets that sometimes compromise product quality.

No acquisitions, leadership changes, or rebrandings are documented in the provided sources, suggesting operational continuity since founding. The company has not been featured in major health IT trade publications like Healthcare IT News or Becker's Hospital Review in the provided dataset, which may reflect either low media engagement or limited enterprise traction outside solo and small practices. The lack of customer case studies, health system references, or published ROI analyses is notable. Most enterprise health IT vendors publish white papers or customer testimonials within two years of launch. Freed's absence of these materials may indicate a deliberate focus on direct-to-clinician sales rather than institutional buyers, or simply early-stage marketing capacity.

The likely product roadmap, inferred from competitive dynamics and user feedback, will focus on reducing processing latency, expanding template customization, and adding specialty-specific documentation patterns. The platform's current limitations in complex case handling and multi-problem visits are addressable through improved natural language models, which are advancing rapidly across the AI industry. Integration depth with EHRs is less likely to improve significantly without abandoning the self-service deployment model, as bi-directional write access requires EHR vendor partnerships and IT governance workflows that conflict with Freed's core value proposition. Physicians considering long-term adoption should assume the tool will remain best-suited for straightforward primary care visits rather than evolving into a universal documentation platform for all specialties and acuity levels.

How it compares

Nuance DAX Copilot is the primary enterprise competitor, deeply integrated into Epic workflows through a formal partnership with Microsoft and Nuance. DAX Copilot offers bi-directional EHR integration, meaning it can read patient context, generate notes, and auto-populate discrete fields like medication orders and lab requisitions. Processing latency is lower, typically under ninety seconds, and the platform supports specialty-specific templates for hospital medicine, emergency medicine, and surgical subspecialties. However, DAX Copilot requires enterprise procurement, multi-month implementation cycles, IT governance approval, and pricing that typically exceeds two hundred dollars per provider per month. Freed wins on deployment simplicity and cost. DAX wins on integration depth and specialty support. A solo primary care physician should choose Freed. A hospital-employed hospitalist should choose DAX.

Suki Assistant targets the same solo and small-group practice segment as Freed but offers deeper customization and faster processing. Suki supports voice commands for EHR navigation, allowing clinicians to dictate orders, open charts, and send messages without touching the keyboard. This command-and-control functionality extends beyond documentation into full EHR workflow automation. Suki's pricing is higher, typically starting at one hundred fifty dollars per provider per month, and the platform requires scheduled onboarding sessions rather than self-service setup. Freed wins on entry-level pricing and trial accessibility. Suki wins on workflow automation breadth and hands-free EHR control. A clinician seeking the lowest-cost ambient documentation trial should choose Freed. A clinician seeking to eliminate keyboard use entirely should evaluate Suki.

Abridge focuses on patient-facing engagement, recording clinician-patient conversations and generating a summary the patient receives via email or patient portal after the visit. This patient education angle differentiates Abridge from pure clinician-facing documentation tools. The platform integrates with Epic MyChart and provides patients with a plain-language visit summary that reinforces care plan adherence. Pricing is similar to Freed, starting around one hundred dollars per provider per month. Abridge wins when patient engagement and care plan adherence are priorities. Freed wins when the clinician is solely focused on reducing their own after-hours charting burden without adding patient-facing communication workflows.

DeepScribe offers mobile-first ambient documentation optimized for high-volume primary care and urgent care environments. The platform emphasizes real-time transcription with sub-sixty-second note delivery, making it viable for clinicians managing fifteen-minute appointment slots with no gap time between patients. DeepScribe's template engine is more flexible than Freed's, supporting multi-problem visits and chronic disease management documentation patterns. Pricing is higher, typically one hundred fifty to two hundred dollars per provider per month, and the platform requires a minimum commitment of three months. DeepScribe wins in high-throughput clinical settings where processing latency directly impacts patient flow. Freed wins for clinicians with longer appointment slots and lower daily visit volumes. A family medicine physician seeing twelve patients per day in thirty-minute slots should consider Freed. An urgent care physician seeing forty patients per day in fifteen-minute slots should evaluate DeepScribe.

What clinicians say

Clinicians on Reddit describe Freed as dead simple to use with a smooth, clean, and intuitive interface. A user on r/FamilyMedicine reported the tool worked really well so far and expressed hope it would save time, though noted they were still in early adoption. Another on r/medicine stated the documentation quality was good for straightforward visits and that they reduced chart time reasonably after implementing the tool. The recurring theme is that Freed meets expectations for uncomplicated primary care encounters but struggles when visit complexity increases. One emergency medicine physician on r/emergencymedicine tried the platform but found it not robust enough for complex cases and ultimately abandoned it.

Pricing perceptions are mixed. Several users describe ninety-nine dollars per month as pricey for a solo practitioner, particularly when weighed against uncertain time savings during the trial period. Latency complaints are consistent: multiple clinicians reported processing delays of five to six minutes during peak hours and noted real-time lags of three to five minutes that disrupted workflow. One user mentioned they still have to check everything, reinforcing that ambient scribes do not eliminate the clinician's responsibility to verify note accuracy. The sentiment on Reddit reflects cautious optimism: clinicians appreciate the low barrier to entry and are willing to trial the tool, but they remain skeptical about long-term value and whether the time savings justify the monthly cost.

The Reddit sample size is modest, with approximately fifteen substantive mentions across multiple subreddits over the past year. This thin discussion volume suggests Freed has not yet achieved widespread adoption or generated strong word-of-mouth momentum among physician communities online. The absence of detailed case reports, practice transformation stories, or enthusiastic endorsements contrasts with the vocal advocacy some competing scribes have generated. Prospective users should interpret the limited clinician discourse as a signal that Freed is early in its adoption curve and may lack the proven track record necessary for confident long-term commitment. The tool is worth trialing, but physicians should enter the trial with realistic expectations and a plan to measure time savings objectively rather than relying on vendor claims or peer endorsements.

What the literature says

The peer-reviewed medical literature contains zero publications evaluating Freed AI as a clinical documentation tool. A PubMed search returned five results, but manual review confirms none are relevant. The studies reference FREED as an acronym for an emergency department falls prevention program, mention the word freed as a verb in unrelated contexts, or discuss speech pathology outcomes unrelated to medical scribing technology. This absence of published evidence is notable given the tool has been in market since 2022 and claims more than twenty-five thousand users.

The lack of peer-reviewed validation means clinicians cannot reference independent studies assessing Freed's accuracy, time savings, or impact on clinical outcomes when making adoption decisions. All performance claims rely on vendor-provided data or anecdotal user reports. This evidence gap is common among new health IT products, particularly those targeting individual clinicians rather than academic medical centers where research collaborations are more likely. However, competing ambient scribes like Nuance DAX have published peer-reviewed studies documenting time savings and clinician satisfaction, giving those platforms stronger evidence foundations for institutional adoption.

Physicians considering Freed should recognize they are participating in an uncontrolled real-world pilot without published benchmarks for expected performance. The absence of literature does not indicate the tool is ineffective, but it does place the burden of validation entirely on the individual user. Clinicians should track quantitative metrics during their trial period: minutes spent charting before and after implementation, number of notes requiring significant editing, patient complaints or concerns about recording, and net change in after-hours work time. Without peer-reviewed evidence, these self-collected data points are the only basis for an informed adoption decision. Practices affiliated with academic institutions should consider contributing usage data to retrospective studies that could build the evidence base this product category urgently needs.

Who it's for

Freed is best suited for solo and small-group primary care physicians managing straightforward outpatient visits with predictable documentation patterns. The ideal user is a family medicine, internal medicine, or pediatrics clinician seeing twelve to twenty patients per day in appointment slots longer than fifteen minutes, working in an independent practice without dedicated IT staff, and seeking to reduce after-hours charting burden without navigating enterprise procurement. A newly independent physician leaving a hospital system and establishing a solo practice is a strong fit. A rural family medicine physician operating a cash-pay or direct primary care model with limited administrative infrastructure is another strong fit. The tool's self-service onboarding, transparent pricing under one hundred dollars per month, and HIPAA-only compliance requirements align with the resources and risk tolerance of these personas.

Freed is less appropriate for subspecialists, hospitalists, or emergency physicians whose documentation requires specialty-specific templates, high-acuity clinical reasoning, or multi-problem complexity. A geriatrician managing patients with five chronic conditions per visit will find the note output too generic. An emergency medicine physician managing high-acuity trauma cases will find the processing latency disruptive. A hospital-employed internist working within an Epic instance managed by a large IT department will face internal barriers due to Freed's lack of SOC 2 or HITRUST certification. Practices with established IT governance processes and budget for enterprise software should evaluate more deeply integrated competitors like Nuance DAX Copilot or Suki.

Physicians who thrive with Freed are comfortable with technology, willing to adapt their verbal communication style during patient visits, and able to independently troubleshoot minor technical issues without IT support. Clinicians who prefer silent observation during visits or feel uncomfortable verbalizing clinical reasoning aloud will struggle with ambient scribe workflows generally, not just Freed specifically. Patients who express discomfort with recording may pose workflow challenges, particularly in mental health or substance use contexts where recording could inhibit candid disclosure. Clinicians managing sensitive populations should carefully consider whether ambient documentation aligns with their patient engagement philosophy before committing to any tool in this category.

The verdict

Freed AI is a serviceable entry-level ambient scribe for independent primary care physicians willing to accept limited customization and modest processing latency in exchange for low cost and fast deployment. The tool delivers on its core promise of reducing setup friction and making ambient documentation accessible to solo practitioners who cannot justify enterprise software investments. Clinicians managing uncomplicated outpatient visits will likely see measurable reductions in after-hours charting time, though the magnitude of savings will vary based on baseline documentation efficiency and visit complexity. The pricing transparency, free trial access, and month-to-month contract terms make Freed a low-risk experiment worth conducting for any primary care physician curious about ambient scribe technology.

However, the thin evidence base, limited specialty support, and persistent latency complaints signal this is a first-generation product still maturing. The absence of peer-reviewed validation means adoption carries higher uncertainty than competitors with published performance data. Practices should approach Freed as a trial tool to test the ambient scribe concept rather than a definitive long-term solution. Physicians who find value during the trial period may choose to continue while monitoring for product improvements, or they may use the trial insights to inform evaluation of more feature-rich competitors. The tool's current state is good enough for early adopters but not yet polished enough to recommend without caveats.

Decision rules: If you are a solo primary care physician under fifty patients per week with straightforward visits, a monthly software budget under one hundred dollars, and no IT support, trial Freed immediately. If you are a hospitalist, emergency physician, or subspecialist requiring specialty templates, evaluate Nuance DAX Copilot or DeepScribe instead. If you are employed by a health system with strict IT governance, confirm your organization permits HIPAA-only vendors before trialing. If the trial demonstrates thirty minutes per day or more in charting time savings sustained over one month, continue the subscription. If savings are marginal or latency disrupts workflow, cancel and reassess in twelve months when the product has matured. Freed represents progress in democratizing ambient scribe access, but it is not yet the finished solution the market needs.