OK. The reservation for future maintenance remains unchanged. Horrifyingly, if I'm not mistaken (and I might be mistaken), the deferred revenue *isn't* currently on the books as deferred revenue, due to GAAP being crazypants. So in real economic terms this replaces deferred revenue with current revenue, maybe at a profit but possibly at a loss, but in terms of GAAP it looks like a great big profit because it replaces *unrecognized* revenue in the future with *recognized* revenue in the present. This is my belief and I could be wrong because every one of these deals seems to have slightly different accounting. This is a problem which the new "revenue recognition" and "lease recognition" standards were designed to address -- under current GAAP it is possible to structure two lease-related deals which are economically essentially identical to have revenue and costs recognized in different years for the two deals, which is open to abuse. It took me a lot of reading to reassure myself that SolarCity wasn't deliberately abusing this (I really think they weren't) but merely organizing deals however their financing partners wanted them. Anyway, the new accounting standards are supposed to actually measure the economic results of the deal in accrual terms and should do so better than the current standards.