I have been using TomTom’s XXL 540S World Traveler for the past two months in multiple locations in the U.S. as well as in the U.K., Germany and France and I can safely say this is a dangerous device. It is dangerous because it effectively leverages historic speed profile data to deliver accurate routing and travel time without live traffic data. The XXL 540S is dangerous because the effectiveness of its routing, without accessing live traffic data of any kind, turns the growing traffic data industry on its head. The historic speed profile data calculates routes based on historic speed measurements for every time of day and for every road segment, from large highways to small local roads, and includes TomTom’s IQ Routes technology. In comparison to on-board systems with enhanced traffic data, the routing and time of travel on the TomTom was comparable. I am sure I am not the only user of navigation devices and technologies who has been frustrated with the traffic information experience. I have had both positive and negative outcomes and, in spite of the negatives, I am still a believer in the power and necessity of traffic information. I recently steered clear of purchasing an opening price point PND for the very reason that it lacked traffic information. But sometimes, one is willing to accept sacrifices to achieve a greater good. In this case, that greater good is a single device for automotive navigation in North America and Europe. The sacrifice of traffic data is a small price to pay especially considering what the cost of adding traffic information for both geographies would likely represent in added subscription fees covering multiple suppliers. (Hint: The first traffic supplier with a universal solution will gain a huge advantage.) For anyone seeking a single device for vehicle navigation in North America and Europe with built-in traffic camera data and 7M POIs, the XXL 540S is ideal. (The device was even able to locate a runner’s specialty store buried in a mall in Sindelfingen, Germany, as well as functioning in a pedestrian mode trying to locate the next nearest towns in the French countryside outside Geneva.) On the downside, a shortcoming of the device is its rigid programming. It is not possible to use it as one would Google maps to pick a starting point and destination unrelated to a current location, for example. A more flexible solution will be necessary as user expectations change. If PNDs like the XXL 540S cannot offer functional equivalence to other navigation solutions, consumers will be disappointed. Switching between maps is also less than intuitive. But I can understand TomTom’s disinclination to add yet another layer to its busy user interface. When entering a destination for a new geography, the user eventually has the option to change the map. The device stores prior routes separately for each different map, which is a nice touch. In addition, the integration of user evaluations so widely available in competing connected solutions certainly pose a threat to disconnected PNDs like the TomTom device. But as a single function device, the XXL 540S delivers in spite of the missing traffic info and connectivity.. For the XXL 540S World Traveler the combination of on-board data and the access to software updates perfectly substitutes for a more robust offering of regionalized live traffic information. More importantly, the device points the way toward future product development at TomTom and other PND makers. The pocketable device (yes, even with a five-inch display) is convenient enough for world travel and amazingly, the user will make no sacrifices in POI content or even map updates – additional POIs can be added via the Home application. The device connects to the TomTom Home software application for map updates and other enhancements. Flash has clearly displaced the HDD as the preferred storage medium for PNDs and the XXL 540S has 4GB of storage. At $299.99 retail (a little pricy) the device also includes TomTom’s “Help Me!” button and lane guidance. The TomTom even showed a roundabout where the on-board system against which it was being compared only showed a standard intersection. Of course, with the map update capability, the TomTom should always have superior map data. Even as PND makers experiment with larger screens, as in the case of the XXL 540S, the devices themselves will get smaller and prices will continue to fall. Connectivity and more creative deployment of location-aware applications will be critical to the future success of the segment. Additional Insights: http://bit.ly/cMw4f1 Solid Q4 for PNDs, but ‘Free’ Navigation is Shaking Up Monetization (AMCS) – Canali http://bit.ly/a8WqRJ - A Role for PNDs…If They Get Connected - Blight http://bit.ly/c5f65I - Automotive and Portable Navigation Market Forecast 2008-2016 (AMCS) - Blight

BMW’s wholistic EfficientDynamics campaign is the latest and clearest manifestation of an industry movement that is propelling telematics technology adoption. In a recent presentation to the International Motor Press Association (IMPA), BMW executives clearly defined an integral role within the EfficientDynamics agenda for navigation, embedded vehicle connectivity and even smartphone integration. The company has already made impressive gains in fuel efficiency and CO2 reductions while preserving or enhancing performance via mechanical means, such as optimizing transmissions and adopting brake energy regeneration and auto start-stop functions. Now, BMW foresees even greater gains coming from the integration of on-board sensor inputs. BMW seeks to extend efficiency gains from the fusion of data inputs from navigation systems, adaptive cruise control and parking distance control systems, cameras and light/rain sensors, DME and DSC systems and V2X communication. The output of this data fusion will lead to the prediction of upcoming driving situations and optimized vehicle conditioning (ie. charging or discharging of the battery). These system enhancements will help optimize operating strategy and determine optimal driving distance for available consumption. The integration of navigation and safety system inputs means that in the future both the navigation set-up and the portfolio of safety systems will increasingly be standard equipment. They will be integral to the efficient operation of the vehicle. And connectivity will be necessary so that the very latest information on road conditions (including traffic) is available. While a growing proportion of cars will have embedded connectivity, smartphones will still play a vital role in the drive for more fuel efficienct cars. The company has already learned from its Mini E field trial that smartphone applications have a key role to play. Drivers will use smartphone applications to remotely check the state of vehicle charge as well as to signal the car to begin heating or cooling batteries while still connected to the grid. OnStar has foreseen this as well, showing just such an application at the recent Consumer Electronics Show. It is true that range anxiety is a very real customer concern with electric vehicles. In fact, it is yet another reason for such vehicles to be equipped with standard navigation systems. But BMW executives told the IMPA delegates that customers in the Mini E trial found that “charging (was) not a big issue even without (an) extensive network of public charging stations.” According to the results of the trial, the range of the Mini E was sufficient for most trips. This finding corroborates GM’s finding that 78% of people drive 40 miles or fewer per day. In the end, therefore, the role of the on-board map and navigation will likely have more to do with maximizing vehicle range as opposed to easing driver anxiety. And road elevation data will no doubt play a greater role as well in route planning. The drive for fuel efficiency and electrification will combine to bring cars to market that are not only more efficient and emitting less carbon dioxide, but that are also safer with the additional sensor content and map data. Further insights are available: http://bit.ly/bv3Q0B - Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: OEM Strategies Reviewed – Kevin Mak http://bit.ly/alm4vK - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 – Joanne Blight

The state of Maryland’s approval of a cellphone ban yesterday – by a slim 24-23 margin – perfectly encapsulated all that is both right and wrong with the current mobile phone ban hysteria. Will people be safer driving cars without mobile phones? Probably. Is it reasonable to ask people to use hands-free technology in the car? Definitely. Is the law enforceable? Maybe. Can all drivers be expected to completely give up mobile phone use in the car? No. The bigger issue, though, is that the objections to mobile phones in cars masks a movement opposed to an even wider array of emerging and existing automotive technologies and in-cabin interfaces. If the industry does not step forward to defend these technologies, consumers will lose and safety will suffer. This is a topic of legitimate concern given the federal interest in in-vehicle interfaces in both the U.S. and the European Union, among other geographies. Twenty states and the District of Columbia currently ban text messaging while driving and six states plus the District require hands-free devices. (Stricter laws are already in place in many European countries.) Advocates for the bill dragged out multiple statistical justifications for the legislation calling to mind the apocryphal phrase attributed to Samuel Clemens, among others: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. The Washington Post reported that the push to require hands-free devices is seen as a step toward an outright ban on cellphone use by drivers, a prohibition endorsed by the National Safety Council, which blames 1.4M crashes annually on drivers talking on their phones, according to the paper. The Post continues: “Two-thirds of drivers interviewed by AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety said they thought hands-free cellphone use was less risky. But "scientific research shows that's simply not the case," said Fairley W. Mahlum of the foundation.” The article further cites a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that “found no declinen in collision rates” once states went hands-free. This leads to the argument surrounding the cognitive equivalence of talking on a mobile phone held to the ear or speaking over a hands-free system. Many experts argue that the two are equivalent, although a similar number disagree. Virginia Tech’s Transportation Institute has weighed in on the cognitive equivalence side finding no added safety in hands-free operation. The Post quotes Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association: “There's no indication that hands-free is risk-free. You're still on the phone, you're still focused on the conversation, and you're still a distracted driver." The bill approved Wednesday by the Maryland Senate bans handheld use of cellphones except to begin or end a conversation. First-time offenders can be fined $40. Emergency calls would be exempt. Opponents took some of the teeth out of the legislation with a secondary enforcement requirement that prohibits a police officer from stopping a driver solely for using a mobile phone. The officer must have another reason for finding the driver at fault before enforcing the ban. The push to completely ban mobile phones in cars is real and is embodied in Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone campaign. Is the motivation legitimate? Sure it is. Lives are at stake. But I’d strongly argue against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The supporters of an outright ban on mobile phones in cars have a larger agenda. They are not just opposed to Ford’s social media integration in cars. They also argue that the OnStar service, with its embedded phone, is too distracting. OnStar!? A recent statement from AAA of New York reflects this anti-technology philosophy: “Technology improvements and applications present a real double-edged sword for motorists. On one hand, improved driver interfaces for essential vehicle controls hold the potential to make driving safer. Voice-activated climate control systems, for example, can help keep motorists’ eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel. “Applied irresponsibly, however, these technologies might actually make driver distraction worse by giving drivers access to even more non-driving activities (voice-driven e-mail and text messaging, for example) that draw their attention away from safe driving.  Safety concerns must be paramount when technology advances might encourage motorists to spend more time engaged in risky, non-essential tasks like talking on the phone or sending e-mails via voice recognition software. Technology applications that introduce new distractions for drivers work at cross purposes with the many positive things automotive engineers have done for safety. “We’ve seen auto manufacturers miss the mark before with improvements that weren’t really improvements. For example, more than twenty years ago a manufacturer made some models with a touch screen control panel that required drivers to look at the screen to change the radio station or adjust the heat. More recently, another manufacturer’s “all in one” vehicle control system was widely criticized for the visual and mental distraction involved in controlling temperature, radio, navigation, and phone using one knob, several buttons, and a display screen. We must make sure that one step forward in the name of convenience doesn’t take safety two steps backward.” It’s true that we ought to make sure we continue to move forward. But moving forward means embracing technology and harnessing its power to improve safety and convenience in the car. Based on the AAA statement the touchscreen, the iDrive and a host of other innovations might be banned. But why? People can change radio stations today with voice commands as opposed to reaching out for a knob while calibrating the movement of a needle across a dimly lit display. To return to the matter of safe operation of a phone in a vehicle, multiple solutions have been introduced that leverage technology to control mobile phone use in the car including DriveSafe.ly, SafeReader, tXtBlocker, and Auto TxtBak. But most of these applications lack the policy management elements of a ZoomSafer – which allows for the disabling of phone functions while in a moving vehicle. In fact, Zoomsafer's Voicemate has application in both consumer and commercial applications for monitoring, managing or controling driver use of connected devices. The solution recognizes the need for access to connected devices and provides the means for facilitating safe uses. Zoomsafer is offering a technology solution to a technology problem, but it is just one example. New solutions using new interfaces will help the industry steer its way through the challenge of enabling communication in a vehicle. Voice, touch, haptic, gesture, facial recognition, sensor inputs and fusion-based technologies that process all of these inputs are how enhanced safety will be achieved.

SYNC sells. Ford’s SYNC connectivity and infotainment system, built on the Microsoft Windows Embedded Automotive software platform, has reached the 2 million unit sales mark 10 months after Ford delivered its 1-millionth SYNC-equipped vehicle in 2009, the first SYNC systems were delivered in fall 2007. SYNC’s evolution is paralleling the consumer’s evolution in a connected world. Ford’s latest version of SYNC that debuted at CES 2010 presented a solution dubbed MyFord Touch, which truly shows the convergence of consumer electronics and the automobile. As consumers interact with the web and media devices with more regularity each year, Ford seeks to help the consumers replicate this behavior in the car. Examples include:

• Consumers have apps stores for their smartphone; Ford opened a market for car apps.
• Consumers have come to value internet radio, twitter, and social networking sites; Ford has worked with Pandora, Twitter, and Stitcher to make automotive applications.
• Consumers have become accustomed to being able to record and rewind live TV, Ford had come up with a solution where Sirius XM can be recorded and played back.
• Consumers are used to 5 way controls popular on iPods and numerous other consumer devices; Ford has employed similar technologies in its HMI.
• Consumers often look up driving directions while in front of a computer, SYNC users can now send MapQuest directions to their cars and the SYNC system will navigate the driver to their destination.
• Consumers like shopping at iTunes, users can now tag songs for purchase through HD Radio and the SYNC system.

SYNC adds value to vehicles. Ford data analysis indicates that SYNC-equipped models of the 2008 Focus are worth more than those without SYNC. After one year in service, the SYNC-equipped models sell for a $240 premium on average. This premium over a non-SYNC-equipped vehicle indicates consumer demand for SYNC is real. Ford has delivered the message to consumers that SYNC is a desirable product that makes the in-vehicle experience better and is worth a premium price. The upgrades to SYNC for the 2010 model year including the addition of MyFord Touch, Pandora, Twitter and Stitcher apps, iTunes tagging, mobile Wi-Fi hotspot capability, MapQuest directions and other features and applications indicate that Ford intends to protect its lead in the connected infotainment market despite competition from most every other vehicle OEM developing or offering competing solutions. http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=32262

When is Internet radio not Internet radio? When it’s a music service or programming guide. That’s one of many problems with Internet radio, nobody seems to understand what it is, which means marketing messages are confused and confusing. But the market leaders are finding success in spite of themselves with music service Pandora boasting a subscriber base of 45M; competing service provider Slacker claiming 15M; and programming guide supplier RadioTime reporting 40M listening sessions/month and rising. Pandora has captured the imagination of car makers and the creators of automotive infotainment systems. Both Ford and QNX have announced plans to bring Pandora to in-vehicle solutions. Nearly everyone in the automotive industry considers Pandora to be so-called Internet radio. Even Pandora calls itself Internet radio, but, in fact, it is a music service, not unlike Napster and Rhapsody or even iTunes. Note that no one would normally refer to Napster, Rhapsody or iTunes as Internet radio services – yet they perform many of the same functions of Pandora. The point is important to understand because there is a battle for the ears of listeners “trapped” in their cars. Today, these ears have more choices than ever before including traditional AM and FM, satellite radio, digital radio, recorded content (disc-based and digital) and streaming content from music services, podcasts, and, yes, Internet radio. And Internet radio is presenting an emerging challenge to music service providers. With vehicle connectivity being enabled via broadband and narrowband technology embedded or carried-in, consumers have access to virtually the entire conceivable spectrum of live and recorded content. The newest arrival, following Pandora’s debut, is RadioTime, an Internet radio programming guide. RadioTime arrives on the scene just as engineers and programmers are facing the monumental challenge to enable access to these services and their content. The objective is to organize and manage that content in an intuitive manner that can be easily and attractively communicated to consumers. The challenges are formidable. Slacker, a music service that competes with Pandora, claims millions of songs for a library 5x the size of Pandora’s and based on direct relationships with the “labels” responsible for the music. Slacker’s content is packaged in 120 genre stations and 10,000 artist stations. Both Slacker and Pandora have their own strategies for packaging their music offerings, with Pandora’s based on the increasingly ubiquitous thumbs up/down approach in contrast to Slacker's stations. And neither of these companies possess the licenses necessary to operate outside the United States and Canada - even Pandora is not available in Canada. This is where RadioTime comes in. RadioTime, the Internet radio programming guide selected by BMW for its Mini integration, provides access to 65K Internet radio stations from around the world. And the access to those stations is global, which helps to explain BMW/Mini’s choice. For in-vehicle delivery of these new music experiences the first steps are apparent in the latest iterations of Microsoft Auto which provide for song look up by voice regardless of source. QNX has also shown Internet radio integrations though generally focusing on Pandora – a lead that has been followed by Tier One suppliers (and QNX customers) such as Visteon, Continental and Denso, all showing their Pandora solutions at recent trade events. The importance of BMW/Mini’s RadioTime announcement revolves around the fact that RadioTime is a programming guide for Internet radio and is NOT a music service. RadioTime offers one of the first radio programming guides, focused as it is on Internet radio, yet it also includes non-Internet radio sources such as traditional FM and digital radio. RadioTime’s competitors include Reciva and vTuner, which have comparable offerings on a much smaller scale and lack regular FM or digital broadcast content. The only element missing from the RadioTime proposition is the personalization capability that distinguishes Pandora, Stitcher and others (ie. the thumbs up/down aspect). But RadioTime does uniquely offer localized content with local stations broadcasting audio and text in the local language. It is still early days in the Internet radio and music service business as far as automotive and mobile app implementations are concerned but there are already dozens of mobile applications available for nearly every mobile platform. For music services the business model revolves around subscriptions, paid downloads and advertising. The business models range from free (often with advertising) to paid (without advertising) and include sales of music and other access privileges such as caching or "skipping" songs. The major music services are Slacker, Pandora, Rhapsody, Spotify, iTunes and Napster. The major programming guides are RadioTimes, Reciva, vTuner and Radio Locator. The available Internet radio stations include: iHeartradio, RadioParadise and a host of individual and bundled stations ultimately encompassing the entire 65K stations available worldwide. Mobile radio apps include Flycast, Stitcher, Radiolicious, and WunderRadio amidst a long and growing list. Most listeners enjoy these services over their personal computers or televisions but a growing population are accessing content via mobile devices and, soon, will be plugging into Internet music sources via embedded systems. For now, though, car makers are preferring to maintain an arms-length relationship with these services by enabling access via a customer’s own phone and data plan. To achieve this requires either streaming Bluetooth connectivity via A2DP access or a hardwired connection. Slacker stands out in this crowd as offering a third path of storing content for later play instead of streaming, not unlike some of the portable satellite radio devices currently available. Slacker can be streamed or cached, giving it a unique advantage in the market. Despite this unique position, though, Slacker has yet to garner any visible design wins in the automotive market, though it is available on most popular smartphones. Ultimately, the market will favor low-cost Internet radio and music service solutions. This means that the battle today is between content aggregators such as RadioTime, Flycast, Stitcher, vTuner and Reciva and their ability to compete or co-exist with music service providers. Whatever the outcome, drivers with smartphone applications stand to benefit handsomely. For additional insight see: CES 2010: The Arrival of Converged Automotive Multimedia Products - John Canali -  http://bit.ly/9gq4yo Automotive Bluetooth: Profile Strategy Key to Infotainment Success - Mark Fitzgerald - http://bit.ly/9qEXbU Internet Radio: Ready for Prime Time - Mark Fitzgerald - http://bit.ly/ZBXzd

In the new Roman Polanski movie “Ghost Writer” there is a scene which perfectly captures the cultural divide between the U.S. and Europe over in-vehicle human machine interfaces. The lead character, played by Ewan MacGregor, enters a BMW X5 and is verbally greeted by the ConnectedDrive system. The system has stored the last route driven by the vehicle and proceeds to attempt to navigate to that destination. The MacGregor character tries futilely to terminate the navigation by touching the screen.* Aye, there’s the rub, or maybe I should say, there’s the smudge. European HMI mavens are almost universally opposed to the touchscreen, although some cracks in the wall of resistance to touch interfaces have appeared in recent years – most notably at Volkswagen. BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz, however, remain in the haptic camp and announcements at the recent Geneva Motor Show reinforced their stance. Audi introduced gesture recognition enhancements to its HMI, Mercedes showed a gesture recognition interface enhanced with a camera and BMW showed a toggle interface for managing its new Mini iPhone integration. Following Geneva, Audi provided an elaborate defense – or maybe I should say explanation - of its MMI approach at the Nuance Automotive Usability Forum (http://bit.ly/c6omG2). In its consumer studies, Audi found “track deviation” during testing to be most severe for touchscreen interfaces, followed closely by “turn push knob” devices. Touchpad technology, normally situated at the front of the console under the driver’s right hand, had minimal deviation. Additionally, Audi found that “eyes off the road time” was at least twice as much for the “turn push knob” type of interface for actions including “input of destination” and “dial a number.” Audi performed a further analysis of driver assessments of interfaces before and after using them and found a positive assessment of touschscreen and negative assessment of touchpad prior to driving that was completely reversed, after driving, to negative for touchscreen and positive for touchpad. Conclusions from Audi’s global study included: “high potential of innovation for touchpad” (Germany); “simplicity in operation and handwriting recognition is convincing” (USA); and “high customer friendliness especially while driving through optimal position” (China). Audi’s conclusion: The input by touchpad surprises by its error robustness and exceeds clearly the expectations of our customers. Of course, as these conclusions were being expressed at Nuance’s voice-centric event, Audi proceeded to describe the ultimate automotive interface as a multimodal solution with robust speech recognition. It appears that everyone can agree about the importance of voice, but prying Americans away from their touchscreens will be a challenge. *A note on the BMW X5 appearance in "Ghost Story". The character who last drove the car the Ewan MacGregor character was driving is presumed to have made it to his destination and was on his way home when he met his demise. Therefore, the destination should not have automatically activated when the car was started. Trying to figure out how to terminate unwanted navigation assistance is one of the great conundrums facing the industry and drivers. So MacGregor’s hopeless poking of the navi screen represents a moment many people can identify with. And to think, all he had to do was press the “voice” button on the steering wheel, wait for the “beep,” and say: “Stop guidance.” Additional insights: Automotive Bluetooth: Profile Strategy Key to Infotainment Success - http://bit.ly/9NwxfC CES 2010: The Arrival of Converged Automotive Multimedia Products - http://bit.ly/baUnoV

Thanks to Meta Systems and its Octo Telematics subsidiary, the Italian market has become the de facto European proving ground for pay-as-you-drive insurance products. Octo Telematics pioneered pay-as-you-drive insurance in Italy and elsewhere in southern Europe with a connectivity box capable of providing tracking and stolen vehicle recovery services. As a result, it is no surprise that Allianz chose Italy for the launch of its Service Pack and Pay Per Use services more than a year ago. Many insurers in Italy provide PAYD products and services. By some estimates, as many as 800,000 drivers are enrolled in such programs. Allianz has set itself apart from the existing competition in a number of significant respects, but it is similar in also making use of a Meta System supplied “black box.” Both the Service Pack and Pay Per Use services from Allianz are enabled by this connectivity box. Service Pack offers customers eCall, bCall, theft notification and vehicle tracking applications via the Meta Systems box. The service is 99 Euro/year and requires the free installation of the box on the vehicle by a network of professional installers. The customer surrenders the box when the service is terminated. Allianz does not claim to offer stolen vehicle recovery, only theft notification. This notification is achieved through the use of an RF keyfob device, not unlike the way LoJack works in the U.S. If the vehicle is moved without the keyfob being on-board, the customer will be notified by Allianz representatives via the company’s wholly-owned Mondiale Assistance call center subsidiary. Vehicle recovery is left to the public authorities after the customer notifies the police. The Mondiale call center also support the bCall and eCall applications. Unlike the eCall services of competing insurance companies, the Allianze system provides for call center reception and processing of both eCalls and bCalls via an embedded SIM. Calls are activated manually via a single button or automatically in the event of a crash. Competing insurance companies that offer eCall-like features typically set up the application with the customer’s home or mobile phone number, with no connection to a call center. As a result, customers receiving these calls are responsible for seeking assistance for the driver. In this way, Allianz has put itself squarely in the eCall business for its Italian customers who choose Service Pack. Switzerland is expected to be the next market to be activated. The Pay Per Use product is an add-on service for customers who have already chosen Service Pack. The Pay Per Use service is targeted at low mileage drivers who can achieve savings of as much as 25% on their premiums based solely on the amount of driving they do – ie. mileage. Allianz is thought to be satisfied with the response thus far, though it has not been overwhelming. The 99 Euro/year price was introduced in 2009 as a promotional offer but remains more than a year later. The next steps for Allianz are to bring its solution to more European markets. The range of savings on the Pay Per Use product  will vary based on demographic and geographic calculations. The Allianz initiative shows a maturing in the PAYD market as location-aware insurance products begin to move into the mainstream. The Allianz offering is significant for its integration of eCall and bCall services along with theft notification all enabled via the customer’s phone, though the theft notification is enabled by an embedded connection.

Autoliv has announced the return of night vision technology in the automotive industry with a forecast of as much as 200K/year by 2014. The company shared its plans at a recent meeting of the International Motor Press Association. While the outlook may seem modest, it reflects a $100M+ opportunity for the industry and the potential for significant life saving in the future. If these expectations are fulfilled, it will represent vindication for a technology first introduced with much fanfare by Cadillac and other makes, but which never caught on. The consumer appeal of night vision technology is significant. More than half of consumers recently surveyed by Strategy Analytics (http://tinyurl.com/y8jalzh) reported a willingness to pay for the technology, the highest proportion in the survey for any safety technology. Consumers also indicated a willingness to pay more for night vision than nearly any other safety system. Unfortunately, on average, consumers indicated they were only willing to pay $400-$500, well below the cost of current systems. In addition to broad consumer interest, industry data related to traffic fatalities suggests a powerful role for night vision to play in saving lives. Source:  Autoliv To make its case for night vision, Autoliv cites data from the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute which breaks vehicle fatalities into four categories and assesses the percentage of fatalities within those categories that occurred at night. The report shows 30% of “other vehicle in motion” fatalities occurred at night, 70% of pedestrian, 50% of “overturn,” and 60% of “tree.” Time of day pedestrian fatality data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shows most fatalities occurring during the hours of darkness or dusk. And data gathered around the world and reported by Autoliv shows substantial percentages of pedestrian fatalities occurring at night-time and away from intersections – which might provide better lighting. The greatest challenge for broad acceptance of night vision has been and remains cost. Consumers looking to add the technology to their vehicles are still paying upwards of $2,000 for the privilege. Pricing has not come down much, but the solution itself has changed considerably. Night Vision 2, as Autoliv refers to it, has benefited from enhanced imaging technology (ie. clearer pictures), the integration of other sensor inputs such as pedestrian detection, the wider deployment of larger in-vehicle displays, extended range, and improved sensitivity. Taken together, these improvements have made for a more acceptable and effective – though still expensive – solution. Autoliv’s solution is based on far infrared camera technology from Flir, not to be confused with near infrared technology supplied by Bosch on the 2010 Mercedes S Class. Autoliv’s Night Vision 2 is able to “see” 50% further down the road and the enhanced images can now be displayed in head-up, driver information, center stack or other navigation displays. Autoliv the increased sensitivity in the system allows it to detect pedestrians in a “static warning” or as they move into the vehicle path. Warnings to the driver are speed dependent, the company says. Night Vision 2 has been implemented on the 2010 BMW 5 and 7 Series, Rolls Royce Ghost and Audi A8. The next challenge for Autoliv is animal detection. The company cites a wealth of data from multiple sources pointing out the number of fatalities related to animal strikes, which are particularly suited to a night vision solution since they tend to occur at night and away from well lit intersections. Night Vision 2 has arrived, according to Autoliv. It is now up to OEMs to determine if this technology will find a permanent home in the automotive market on its second visit. Related Report: Consumers Interested in Advanced Safety Features, but not at Current Price - Schreiner - User Experience Practice Source:  Autoliv Technorati Tags: audi,autoliv,bmw,bosch,fatalities,infrared,mercedes,night-vision,pedestrians,rolls-royce,safety

Nokia, BMW and Daimler highlighted mobile phone integration in their Geneva Motor Show announcements this month. But each company took a different path with its own merits and shortcomings. The most flexible solution was shown by Daimler, but the BMW and Nokia solutions will influence future integration decisions.

 

The solutions – two iPhone-based and one Nokia specific - reflect the three fundamental paths to integration. Nokia’s terminal mode emphasizes leveraging the vehicle human machine interface via a bi-directional data exchange that transfers the device display into the vehicle head unit; hands control of the device over to the vehicle HMI; and makes use of vehicle CAN data for contextual feedback to the driver.

 

The BMW Mini iPhone integration puts iPhone applications, most notably Internet radio from RadioTimes, behind a large-screen embedded interface. Availability of this new connected solution is unclear, although the implication is that additional functions will ultimately be enabled and the vehicle HMI – in particular, a multidirectional, finger-sized toggle – will allow the driver to interact with phone-based applications without touching the phone.

 

The Daimler solution, offered for its Smart cars, is the closest to market – due this summer with a $400 price tag – and represents the most elaborate offering. It is also a third path to integration, providing a dash mounted iPhone holder with a suite of automotive applications – the first such suite developed by an OEM. Daimler has even gone so far as to customize the on-device interface with larger fonts and buttons.

 

Among the big differences between the Daimler integration solution and the competing offerings is that the driver mainly makes use of the on-device interface. Included in the application suite in the Smart iPhone application are hands-free calling, access to the on-device music library and Internet radio, Bing Internet search, a car finder function, and navigation with a “smart touch” feature. The cradle acts as a control unit, charger and microphone with stereo integration for muting during calls.

 

An additional enhancement due later in the year is a Smart drive kit camera, for fitting on the windscreen. The device will be able to transmit pictures of the area in front of the car to the smart drive kit via Wi-Fi and will thereby provide traffic sign recognition functionality including speed limits – a feature offered on a handful of portable navigation devices.

 

The smart drive app for the iPhone can be downloaded from the App Store at a one-off price of €9.99 for the basic version. The navigation upgrade with up-to-date maps costs €49.99 per year. Daimler says its researchers are currently putting the final touches to the smart drive kit camera functions.

 

The Daimler solution for its Smart car line-up is particularly appropriate since Smart cars in Europe are quite often sold without a head unit. In this case, the customer’s iPhone indeed becomes the vehicle’s on-board car radio, hands-free phone, navigation and driver assist system.

 

In contrast, the BMW Mini offering requires an embedded solution which will limit its scalability and upgradability, although the display real estate is substantial and the use of the vehicle’s HMI elements is preferable. The Daimler unit requires the driver to use the iPhone screen as the main interface. All three of these solutions will benefit from voice interfaces.

 

Like the BMW solution, Nokia’s Terminal Mode is intended to hand off HMI responsibility for smartphone functionality to the car. While the solution is promising, and Nokia is working with partners including Alpine, Magneti Marelli and Harman Becker, it is proprietary. As a proprietary solution, Nokia will face challenges to achieve market adoption despite working closely with the Consumer Electronics for Automotive (CE4A) coalition of German car makers.

 

Concept vehicles using the Nokia technology were shown at Geneva by Fiat and Valmet Automotive. In fact, the solution shown by Fiat, mounting a Nokia phone on a dash board as a navigation device connected to the Blue&Me system was significant given Fiat’s existing relationship with TomTom for a Blue&Me integrated PND.

 

Nokia’s terminal mode is promising, especially given its anticipated ability to obtain CANbus data for integration with different applications, but as a proprietary solution it is likely to be geographically challenged (ie. Eurocentric). A good example of an equally elegant solution with limited distribution is Novero’s proprietary Bluetooth interface developed for Ford. This solution is at risk of being marginalized once Ford finally decides to bring Sync to Europe.

 

Nokia has the right idea in pushing hard at smartphone integration, but the company would do well to enable standards-based technologies already deployed rather than seeking proprietary solutions. Even in the best of scenarios, the deployment of a proprietary Bluetooth profile on handsets and in cars is a years-long proposition. Daimler’s solution arrives in a matter of months with upgrades and enhancements to come before the end of the year, no doubt. Mini won’t be far behind.

Intermap Technologies continues its steady advance on the automotive market, though many of its latest successful initiatives are focused in the consumer electronics market. The big payoff for Intermap will likely derive from the gathering enthusiasm for electric vehicles - and related green navigation and routing applications - and the emerging opportunity within advanced safety systems. In the meantime, the emergence of advanced safety and EV-related applications are creating an industry debate over whether vehicles will have one or more maps on board. The latest win for Intermap is an agreement to furnish Garmin with 3D elevation data for the United States and Western Europe for consumer electronic devices set to arrive in the market in the first half of 2010. The objective of the integration of Intermap's NEXTmap elevation data is to allow Garmin to create elevation sensitive content and applications across the company's product line. Intermap struck a similar deal with Tele Atlas to allow the company to integrate Intermap's 3D elevation data for its range of navigation products and services. Tele Atlas says the Intermap data provides a geospatial base layer enabling TA to conflate other visual assets such as building models, roads and landmarks to create a realistic visualization  product. Targeted launch into equipped automobiles is set for late 2010, the company says. Intermap's initial steps in advanced safety systems are focused on predictive lighting and partners include Visteon and Hella KGaA Hueck & Co. Intermap's concept is to combine its 3D elevation data, derived from its airplane overflight capture methodology, with map data for lighting systems that will conform to the twists, turns and changes in elevation of different roadways. The strategy puts Intermap in direct conflict with Navteq which has its own elevation data and is working with STMicroelectronics and Magneti Marelli to offer a similar solution. Intermap points out that its approach provides comprehensive coverage of road elevation data including secondary and tertiary roads, which Navteq's vehicle-based elevation data capture approach means it is focused on major roadways. No system has yet made it to market, but both systems are being closely watched by car makers and their suppliers. Most existing adaptive lighting systems are tied to steering wheel operation, which the map-and-elevation-based solutions integrate elevation and curvature and anticipate road conditions. Intermap has an equivalent development activity with Visteon and has demonstrated the solution at recent trade events. The real brass ring for Intermap, though, is efficient vehicle operation in the context of emerging hybrid and fully electric vehicle executions. Knowledge of road geometry, ie. elevation, is more critical than ever in a world of range anxiety, energy management and regenerative braking. Intermap has yet to claim any OEM design wins, but the proliferation of interest in efficient vehicle operation both for the large volume passenger vehicle market and commercial applications promise ample opportunity. Intermap and Navteq will no doubt engage on this battle ground as well. As a side note: With map data being applied to multiple vehicle solutions there are two camps emerging around the question of whether vehicles will have a single or multiple maps on board. Navteq's original offering for advanced safety applications was in the form of a module with its own on-board map. Some questioned the ability to easily update this map, while others wondered whether each vehicle can get by with a single map for multiple functions. Recent conversations with tier ones suggest a concensus of opinion around the single-map approach. But only time will tell how the industry resolves this debate. Of course, if there will be a single map in the car and it will be shared by safety systems, higher speed networking technology may be required such as Ethernet, MOST or Flex-Ray. And, of course, attach rates for safety systems will not correlate directly with on-board navigation attach rates. Let's hope the latter issue is sorted out by lower cost navigation systems and the growing variety of location-related applications in the vehicle.