Nuance’s Automotive Summit, which took place in Detroit last week, highlighted the leadership position Nuance and one of its most prominent customers, Ford Motor Company, now command in the area of automotive interfaces. While battles may continue to be fought over voice, touch, haptic, and other in-vehicle interfaces, these two companies are positioned at the vortex of the debate leading the charge to develop and deliver safe vehicle interfaces and redefining the automotive branding process. The assumption of this leadership mantle occurs at a time when car makers and their suppliers have been running for cover under heavy fire from regulatory powers in Washington, DC. And the Feds have taken on the added support of lobbying groups and some research organizations. The Federal government’s regulatory arm has stepped into the roadway seeking – like a speed-gun wielding traffic officer – to impede the industry’s headlong advance toward connectivity and smartphone integration in cars. Car makers and the supplier community, by and large, have taken one of two courses. Most have remained silent on the issue of the day – driver distraction – hoping it will either go away or that some white knight, such as the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers or some other group will calm the waters for them. Others, such as General Motors’ OnStar division, Volkswagen, and QNX have chosen to hit the accelerator. In recent weeks, OnStar has announced its plans to enable Facebook connectivity in the car. Volkswagen and QNX have posted YouTube videos showing early executions of terminal mode smartphone connectivity. These videos show all forms of smartphone images displayed in-dash with no context – ie. no discrimination between what will and won’t be accessible when the vehicle is in motion. In contrast, Ford has been reaching out to regulatory authorities on multiple fronts. The very same week OnStar was announcing Facebook connectivity, Ford representatives – together with Nuance executives – were meeting on Capitol Hill in Washington with legislators explaining the state of the art in voice-based in-vehicle interfaces. Prior to this outreach effort, which is ongoing for both legislators and regulators within the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Ford also responded to complaints from the DOT’s now-famous director, Ray LaHood, and altered some of its advertising imaging and messaging. This was LaHood’s first missile fired across the bow of Ford’s Sync interface. The advertising messages are critical. Both Ford and OnStar are running some of the most highly visible television ad campaigns in the U.S. showing off their in-vehicle systems – at a time when both firms are fighting their way out of the steep sales decline of 2009. It is absolutely essential that both companies communicate effectively with so much unwanted attention being focused on these systems and with important sales and market share on the line. OnStar bears the added burden of embedded telematics industry leadership. No other auto maker has taken the embedded telematics approach as far as OnStar which now, after 15 years, has nearly six million subscribers. But with diminished vehicle sales and a virtually unchanged renewal rate, OnStar is facing a potential erosion of its subscriber base. In spite of all it has done to offer compelling solutions to consumers, the company now feels pressure to do more to boost its subscription renewal rates. The company is also swimming against a strong demographic current as GM’s historical customer base has aged. The company is clearly looking to OnStar to not only maintain its previous status as a profitable division by maintaining and adding to its existing subscriber base, but also as a potential source of demographic stimulus to reach out to younger car buyers. GM is not alone in reaching out to younger buyers. Almost every car maker is in a perennial campaign to tap into the next generation of car buyers. And with smartphone purchasing demographics corresponding with this target market, the smartphone connectivity proposition has become essential. (GM and OnStar are somewhat limited by the current vehicle offering which lacks for a robust line-up of small cars targeted toward a younger demographic.) The advertising targets can hardly be missed in the existing television spots which show young people interacting with OnStar systems to obtain location or vehicle information. (A minor pet peeve of this analyst is that it seems that not all these young people, even when they are in the front seat, are seatbelted in the ads – but company executives insist they are all safely secured.) The OnStar television campaign dovetails nicely with GM’s parallel social networking marketing initiatives on Facebook, Twitter and other Web-based communication channels. The smartphone application for controlling vehicle functions and accessing vehicle data on the Chevrolet Volt is another manifestation of these efforts. What is lost in this campaign, though, is the rock solid safety and security message that brought OnStar to this industry leadership position in the first place. Ford has also been youth-oriented in its embrace of connectivity technology. Ford’s ads emphasize the safe use of technology in cars using voice interfacing technology. Watching these ads as a participant in the industry is mesmerizing given the degree of focus on the human machine interface in the car. (While this analyst would prefer the driver not touch the display while the vehicle is in motion, Ford has made clear its adherence to AAM guidelines and the limitations of this functionality in a moving vehicle.) What OnStar and Ford both realize is the need to reach out to younger car buyers. The key motivator here is the need to provide for smartphone connectivity, both for safety and functionality. Younger smartphone, and car, buyers are primary targets for location-aware applications ranging from traffic and navigation to social networking, according to Strategy Analytics research. The drive to connect smartphones is behind the enthusiasm for Nokia’s Terminal Mode initiative along with Apple’s iPod Out, Delphi’s D-Connect, Ford’s AppLink and similar solutions. But only Ford has stepped to the forefront with a vision and implementation of a walled garden-type approach to application deployment. There is a recognition in the industry of the appeal of both smartphone connectivity and application deployment. Ford talks about the beamed in, brought in and built-in strategies for delivering content, applications and services, but the underlying philosophy is control. The power of the Ford solution lies in five value propositions: Distraction mitigation: The voice-based interface minimizes eyes-off-the road time. Demographic targeting: The smartphone interface appeals to social networking young people. Future proofing: The Microsoft-based platform allows for application development and deployment thereby enhancing the value of the solution over the life of the vehicle. Subscription anxiety: The connectivity solution allows the consumer to defer the subscription decision and places the burden of data transport on the consumer’s existing wireless subscription. Branded HMI statement: Ford IS Sync. Ford IS MyFord Touch. The interface has become the brand. A new era in the automotive industry has arrived. At last week’s Automotive Summit, Nuance emphasized all of these points. Whether the solution being shown was the company’s touchpad character recognition, hybrid on-board/off-board speech recognition, enhanced echo cancellation/noise reduction, or focused search all were targeted at reducing distraction while providing a branding pallet for car makers and their suppliers. Presenters at the event, including Nuance executives and partners, pointed to research demonstrating the efficacy of voice and touch interfaces for specific types of tasks. Presenters raised questions regarding interfaces such as BMW’s i-Drive and touch screens generally, favoring voice and console-mounted touchpads (ie. the Audi A8). The consensus opinion appeared to be that touchscreens will survive, thanks in part to Ford’s success in proving the value of the solution. On the other hand, i-Drive-like interfaces will likely continue to come under fire as what one executive described as a “linear keyboard.” Now more than ever, though, rigorous research is being applied to weigh critical HMI decisions and eyes off the road time is more than ever a deciding factor. Conclusions: The next step in the process of realizing the potential of smartphone integration is enabling application downloads. Several solutions have been proposed including: Direct handset display: Nokia Terminal Mode approach. Walled garden: Ford application deployment approach. Application validation: Delphi et. al. provide application validation. Single application: Handset application controlling access to all apps. App store validation: Apple, Blackberry et. al. provide application validation. Carrier validation: See above. What is likely to emerge is a hybrid of on-board/off-board application control shared between the vehicle and the mobile device within the context of an OEM’s walled garden. When available, server resources will assist with application functionality such as search or streaming data or content. But regardless of the source of data or service, the entire solution on-board and off-board will be encompassed by the OEM’s walled garden. The vehicle and data security associated with OEM control will increasingly be non-negotiable. Challenges to this ecosystem are already emerging as application developer candidates for the Ford platform are expressing frustration with the process of putting the Ford software developer kit to work. Ford is seen as slow to respond to developer needs, a problem that is not expected to be resolved soon. OEMs will never be able to move at developer speeds especially where vehicle safety, security and integrity are at stake. So, new voice-based interfaces and Bluetooth wireless connections have enabled a new branding proposition in the industry coinciding with growing demand for safe mobile phone connections, a youth-oriented demographic outreach (particularly in compact car segments), and the need to future proof cars to keep up with consumer electronics market advances. More than ever cars are defined by their human machine connections. Ford and Nuance have much for which to be thankful and many of those thanks ought to be directed to Ray LaHood in the Department of Transportation. Much as most industry executives are want to complain and criticize the DOT for its single-minded anti-distracted driving campaign (when drunk drivers are actually responsible for more damage), the effort has focused consumers on their risky behaviors, opened the door to creative solutions, and stimulated demand following the industry’s worst ever downturn. Additional insight: http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://tinyurl.com/34hidb5 - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://tinyurl.com/2qx88eo - Automotive Connectivity: Beyond Bluetooth Solutions - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/aGJHDj - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications -Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

The battle is on to capture the most and the most accurate traffic incident data on a global scale. Several strategies are being deployed to collect this information including traditional journalistic traffic reporting and a growing variety of technology-based solutions including GPS-based probe solutions or GPS Floating Vehicle Data (GFVD) from smartphone and connected PND makers and carriers to cellular network-based probes (CFVD), video cameras, mobile phone camera probes and crowdsourcing. GPS-based probe data networks are particularly popular with companies ranging from TomTom and Nokia to Inrix, Google and RIM. The significance of the emergence of probe data is the fact that any organization with connected devices, applications or vehicles on the road is a candidate for delivering probe data. The industry is facing a proliferation of probe data sources encompassing everyone from Waze, Skobbler and Navigon to OnStar, TeleNav and TeleCommunications Systems. The CFVD crowd includes TomTom, AirSage, iTIS Holdings, Cellint, Intellione, TrafficCast and a few others. The inaccuracy of probe data, GPS or otherwise, is stimulating interest in license plate scanners, tolling networks and Bluetooth roadside scanners from companies such as Bluetoad. In fact, TrafficCast has already deployed or received approval to deploy Bluetoad scanners in 20 states. The Bluetoad technology with its range of up to 200 feet picks up signals from passing Bluetooth devices which have become nearly ubiquitous in mobile devices. The beauty of Bluetooth scanners is that they can precisely identify both the roadway and speed, making them ideally suited to creating flow data. The downside, of course, as with all sensor-based sources, is the high cost of deployment – usually borne largely by local DOTs who gain access to the data – and the not infrequent failures to which they are prone. Of course, all of these solutions are only really able to act as proxies for identifying incidents as they can only identify the results and not the causes of backups. That is where cameras and observers and journalistic data from companies such as Clear Channel, Westwood One and Navteq’s Traffic.com come into the picture. Two years ago this analyst was a strong believer in the power that video could bring to the traffic data reporting and interpretation game. When I met the team at TrafficLand I came to believe that I had found the ultimate solution for the driving public: show people what the traffic disturbance is rather than tell them. TrafficLand had – and has – a near monopoly on DOT traffic camera installations, but its real value add is managing those images on the back end. TrafficLand not only captures most of the data but it also serves it up to handheld devices and Websites and, soon, to automotive head units. Alas, a lot can change in two years. Cameras do play an important role in traffic reporting and interpretation, but the cameras that are likely to make a difference are not the ones mounted along highways. Front-facing mobile phone cameras are the new frontier waiting for a clever entrepreneur. More than one industry executive has talked to me about the potential power of a network of camera probes transmitting real-time traffic camera information from the road. The user interface is a potential issue as is the required bandwidth, but what is a market changing proposition without a few challenges? There is more than one way to make such a network come to pass, these executives suggest, including everything from a dedicated dashboard camera to a smartphone-mounted device to a forward-facing camera on a PND or even the use of existing on-board cameras. Solutions already exist. Navigon has shown augmented reality navigation solutions using forward-facing cameras and Imaginyze has a lane-departure warning app based on a similar device. There is even a company, Apollo Video Technology, with an iPhone app to allow transit officials to view live video feeds from buses, trains, police cars and transit vehicles. Even the execs working on the Next Generation 911 solution for the U.S. are looking for ways to integrate video and text reporting of incident information from smartphones or other devices. It shouldn't be too long before a crowd-sourced traffic solution is introduced for smartphones that allows for the automatic uploading of photos and video stills from a dashboard perspective of traffic conditions under predetermined circumstances. To make such a crowd-sourced solution effective requires a sufficiently large and connected network of users and an automated application. In fact, it is almost shocking that neither TomTom nor Nokia have taken the leap into crowd-sourced traffic video feeds. Or is it? While I was a big fan of integrating traffic video feeds into navigation solutions two years ago, with today's emphasis on mitigating distracted driving the idea has lost significant traction. In fact, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is on a personal jihad to ban even voice calls while driving. Video is important and can be powerful, but the time is not right and the concepts currently in the oven - including Visteon's TrafficLand app - need more time to reach maturity. What is available today, however, is crowd-sourced traffic data from Inrix via its iPhone app (and soon on Android). The app-based Inrix system is the most complete solution, designed around one-touch incident reporting along with the ability to validate the entries of nearby drivers as well as to share the resulting data with local departments of transportation. Aha Mobile has been combining its own crowd sourced inputs with Inrix flow and Clear Channel incident data since late 2009. In fact, Inrix's approach stands as a model for future crowd-sourced traffic solutions with its tools for ranking participants and identifying "trusted sources" and the integration with local traffic authorities. Since June, 47 of 50 state DOTs in the U.S. have adopted Inrix's agency model for sharing this user-generated data, which the DOTs are able to view on the large screens in their traffic operations centers and then check by dispatching their own responders. Inrix says it is processing these crowd-sourced traffic feeds in real time thereby revolutionizing traffic reporting. In this way, Inrix is distancing itself from the existing competition through the integration of an entirely new source of data and a closed loop approach. The challenge for Inrix, though, is the limited size of its probe network, based on users of the downloadable iPhone app.  To have an impact Inrix, mainly seen as a white box supplier to the industry, will need a little help from its industry friends. Crowd-sourced traffic information has become the new standard and Inrix is setting the bar. Waze may claim to have the largest user population worldwide, but the company has chosen not to integrate other corroborating traffic information sources. Fusion of multiple types of data sources is a critical foundation for using crowd-sourced data, along with building  validation processes. Inrix has the largest North American population of users and has recently rolled out its apps in Europe. It is collaborating with ClearChannel in North America and other incident providers internationally for journalistic data. Crowd-sourcing of traffic data is nothing new. Crowd-sourcing by mobile phone users has been around for decades. It is only recently, though, that smartphone apps have enabled the automation of the process and, now, with Inrix's system, the integration of crowd-sourced data into local DOT traffic feeds - although Inrix traffic app users get the data right away, including inputs from nearby drivers. What is curious is that Inrix, while not the first to market with crowd-sourced traffic, is the first to take it to a level where it is integrated with official traffic feeds. While the crowd inputs are validated or rejected by other users on the network, the local DOT is also involved in the validation process. The open line of communication with local DOTs also means that real time street closings and openings can be transmitted along with incident validation. Inrix is not alone. TeleNav has a crowd-sourcing function for its app and TrafficTalk has been testing a crowd-sourced offering. Harman's Aha Mobile and competing mobile platforms will no doubt seek to bring their own offerings to market as well. Looking at the Inrix model, one has to wonder why TomTom, OnStar, ATX, Google, Nokia, RIM, TCS or TeleNav haven't moved in the same direction. OnStar has its good Samaritan function for reporting accidents, but there is no provision for instantly integrating an OnStar user-reported accident on the in-vehicle navigation/traffic display  - let alone sharing it with public authorities in real-time. The same is true for ATX. Conclusion: The automotive environment is ripe for crowd-sourced applications, which already include the reporting of speed traps (Trapster). The world of thumbs up/thumbs down, check-ins and trusted providers of reviews/data is rapidly proliferating on mobile devices and migrating into embedded automotive solutions. It is fitting that traffic information lead this migration since this form of data is of the highest relevance to drivers and rapidly changing. The power of crowd-sourcing of traffic data has the dual effect of creating a new source of incident data along with its own validation process. One of the greatest challenges to creating reliable traffic information systems is validating journalistic data inputs. The crowd is able to view live traffic data, create new data and validate that data. The next step is to open the taps to other data types from parking and gas pricing to weather and event information. Eventually, crowd-sourced video will work its way into the mix as well - and probably sooner than anyone expects. Additional insights: http://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/deumcd -# Traffic Data Quality Will Determine #Telematics Winners - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics

IntelliDrive, the USDOT program intended to create intelligent highways, stands at the crossroads of major funding and deployment decisions but may be overlooking a solution capable of realizing the smart roadways dream in the twinkling of an eye – relative to current timelines. To do so, though, may mean setting aside, for now 5.9GHz DSRC technology in favor of a technology most recently associated with bad driving behavior. Smartphones and the cellular network hold the key to the deployment of wireless systems and services capable of revolutionizing automotive safety and achieving the dream of safe connected highway systems. This goal can be achieved through opt-in solutions that provide for the sharing of device data and could serve as a transitional technology between existing systems and the DSRC technologies not likely to be deployed for another 5-10 years. Alternatively, the government could step in with its regulatory and legislative powers and mandate the provisioning of cellular data transmissions for connected vehicle communications. (Such a scheme was described to me by an ITS America member at the recent Distracted Driving event in Washington, DC. The executive asked to remain anonymous because his proposal may actually be at odds with the short-term interests of his employer.) So cellular technology, which is already part of the IntelliDrive vision along with DSRC and Wi-Fi, can be used as a transitional alternative to DSRC on a voluntary or involuntary basis. (DSRC is universally preferred for safety applications because of its low lacency.) On the involuntary side, concept is to require smartphones to share their location data and to be used for the reception of targeted emergency or road sign messages. The proposition involves a monthly charge to the subscriber of approximately 10 cents – not unlike the current eight-cent charge for mandated 911 calling on mobile phones – to cover the cost of the first 500Kb of monthly data use on the phone for ITS purposes. (It is worth noting as an aside that Wi-Fi technology has already been pioneered – notably by Dash Navigation – as a V2V technology for communicating highway and traffic conditions. With Wi-Fi technology proliferating on smartphones it will not be long before this same capability emerges in the handset space.) Confronted with this opportunity opponents are quick to note the privacy and liability concerns associated with cellular (and Wi-Fi) technology and the need for, at the very least, an opt in mechanism. The bottom line is that these concerns are not insurmountable and a mandated system is feasible. Opening up a data channel on all phones for location data and automatic crash notifications (transmit) and in-vehicle messaging (receive) will open the door to wide adoption of telematics technology and achieve the goal of connecting vehicles to the infrastructure, in-vehicle messaging and to emergency services. The business models to support the service rationale are not unlike those for RDS-TMC, 911 and 511 services, which means this solution is designed to be low cost but still requires some third party support from private companies. The barriers to be overcome are numerous and include – inter-carrier cooperation, the creation of a data clearinghouse for processing and filtering data, and the creation of a broadcast mechanism most likely via multiple private entities. Achieving comprehensive deployment on mobile phones will also require federal legislative and regulatory action. Because the mobile phone-based system will pay for itself while also taking advantage of ubiquitous handset technology and the cellular network it has massive advantages over the proposed DSRC-based system. The 5.9GHz DSRC technology will require BOTH auto maker support for an added module and antenna AND a huge deployment of transmitters and receivers along roadsides and the corresponding data processing infrastructure. DSRC is inevitable, but why must the driving public wait for a solution that will save lives. If the mandated approach is too onerous, then it is more or less left to private enterprise to implement their own prove networks along the lines of Waze and the CloudMade communities which are multiplying around the world. These emerging networks have the capability to bring these services to market almost immediately. More importantly the proliferation of OBDII connections (admittedly using wireless communication protocols claimed by Hughes Telematics) means smartphones are also capable of communicating vehicle sensor and camera data, further enhancing the value of the proposed systems. The proliferation of low-cost sensor and camera systems means there is a wealth of available inputs such a system can put to work to enhance safety, reduce congestion and hazardous driving conditions, and improve the overall driving experience. In fact, the proliferation of smartphones and inexpensive cameras and sensors are rapidly combining to mitigate the demand for the IntelliDrive DSRC vision. Consumers and industry representatives may discover after the implementation of a smartphone based network sharing vehicle and sensor data and communicating traffic conditions, the incremental enhancement of DSRC deployment is unnecessary. The concept also suggests that those car makers with embedded systems should be able to gain an advantage from having more direct and complete control of the user experience. And those car makers with existing probe networks will gain the first-mover advantage of having a larger volume of inputs to process for the benefit of their subscribers. Facilitating the implementation of this vision will be the rapid development and deployment of handset connectivity technology. From terminal mode to Delphi’s D-Connect and Apple’s iPod out, the technology is rapidly falling into place – alongside OBDII communications and sensor proliferation to facilitate the communication of traffic and other urgent messages to primary and secondary displays in the car. In fact, the mobile phone industry is facing the prospect of a handset FM receiver mandate that will create yet another pathway for communicating information into the vehicle either via the on-board radio or via the mobile phone. The handset FM mandate is intended mainly for the transmission of emergency alerts, but will also enable regular FM transmissions. Conclusion: The concept of using mobile phones and cellular technology to supplant or serve as a transitional solution to the proposed DSRC network for V2X communications is radical and lacks an advocate as a mandate but is already emerging as a voluntary solution in the form of discreet smartphone applications and related user communities. The mandate path is likely to die since the very companies that most recognize its value – those with currently deployed embedded telematics systems  - have the most to lose from its implementation. Other market participants such as content and applications providers and even telecommunications carriers may also be opposed to a mandated proposition as it threatens existing business models and relationships. But all parties are beginning to recognize the mobile phone as the key to solving multiple safety challenges in the vehicle. Whether anticipating hazardous intersections (Global Mobile Alert) or sharing probe data (Waze, TrafficTalk) the smartphone has established its credentials as a safety device. The phone also benefits from the support of a rich developer community rapidly moving smartphone technology into realms not previously foreseen. Additional Insights: http://bit.ly/aWhNuC - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/9QCIVw - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Datatables - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights

Driving has never been safer, with vehicle crash-related fatalities at an all time low in most areas of the developed world. But public authorities are pushing for zero fatalities and these efforts are helping to bring enhanced safety technologies to the market through a combination of embedded and off-board solutions. Still, not everyone agrees on how to make cars safer. The latest high-profile debate revolves around distracted driving and mobile phone use. Some argue that hands-free interfaces help drivers by allowing them to keep their hands on the steering wheel and their eyes on the road while interacting with their mobile phone. Others believe that no mobile devices should be in the car at all since they represent a driver distraction. Acknowledging the role of distraction (a suddenly loaded noun with many potent and potential meanings) in accidents, a purist might argue for an in-vehicle experience bereft of distracting displays. In this context, a shift to head-up display technology might make more sense than in-dash displays, MMI/i-Drive-type interfaces and touch screens. Even voice interfaces might take a backseat in this scenario. Companies such as General Motors and Microvision are among those leading the way down the head-up path. In an environment where regulators want drivers’ eyes on the road it is the only logical way to go. But the industry and consumers may not be ready for this leap. And with so much industry focus on in-car mobile phone use as part of the U.S. Dept. of Transportation’s Distracted Driving Initiative, the head-up display conversation is likely to be deferred, ignored, or simply drowned out. (It is important to note that head-up displays are no longer available from Buick or Cadillac, as recent dealer visits have confirmed. BMW is now the leader in head-up display technology in North America. The technology remains expensive and, generally, a special order item.) The USDOT’s Distracted Driving Initiative will see its second summit conference this year in Washington, DC, September 21^st. The goal of the event is to raise awareness of distracted driving resulting from in-car mobile phone use generally and texting in particular and to seek solutions to the problem in a public forum. Ford Motor Company stands in the eye of this storm with its high profile Sync hands-free system and the MyFord Touch upgrade arriving later this year. Ford is carrying the flag for hands-on-the-wheel/eyes-on-the-road driving in a struggle with Dept. of Transportation director Ray LaHood, the National Safety Council, the American Automobile Association and Oprah Winfrey, all of whom oppose the use of mobile devices in cars under any circumstances. (Ophrah may have changed her tune recently to allow for hands-free interfaces.) The debate raises fundamental questions regarding safety systems and automotive interfaces. Distracted Driving campaigners implicate the two-second glance to an iPod, iPhone or other mobile device as the culprit in more than a million roadway accidents (http://bit.ly/6uP3wu). All parties agree that there is a problem, but disagree on its nature and magnitude. There is also definite disagreement on the solution. And if a two-second glance is the culprit, what about all of those OTHER two-second glances in the car? Ford’s eyes-on-road-hands-on-wheel message could not be clearer and the company has backed up its position with its own research along with the results of both independent and industry-sponsored studies. Ford’s Sync and the unfortunately named MyFord Touch (which is intended mainly for voice, not touch, interfacing – in spite of the touch screen) represent the solution to a long-standing problem. Driver Distraction has been an issue confronting automobile designers from the very earliest days of the industry. The emergence of car radios in the 1930’s, for example, led to the introduction of push button channel selection to ease the distraction of locating stations with a dial. Multiple international standards-setting bodies and industry associations have long ago specified the appropriate viewing angle (30 degrees) of dashboard displays to minimize eyes-off-the-road time.  Designers regularly do battle over the question of touch screen or no touch screen, debating the finer points of changing focal lengths and distraction. Audi delved deeply into this issue before launching its touchpad interface. Yet all of the i-Drive and MMI-type interfaces still require a glance at a display in the car. Strangely, no one in the industry seems to be taking this distraction debate to its logical conclusion. If a two-second glance to an in-vehicle display is a source of potentially fatal crashes, the industry needs to be taking an entirely different direction. If displays of all kinds are the problem, then let’s do away with on-board displays completely. At the very least the industry should commence an initiative to explore a shift to head-up displays. But, wait, before we undo more than a century of HMI refinement let’s go back to the beginning. Highway fatalities are at an all-time low throughout the developed world and are especially low when indexed against the extraordinary increase in miles driven. During this time of declining road fatalities smartphone penetration has grown at an equally extraordinary pace. Smartphones, therefore, are not an obvious source of highway fatalities, but anecdotal evidence suggests these devices are not blameless. Ford is an interesting organization to find at the nexus of the debate. Not only has the company led the way in bringing voice interfaces into the car for safe operation of mobile devices, it has also pioneered the safe implementation of those interfaces. Examples of safe voice implementation by Ford: #1 Software development kit (SDK) enforces Sync constraints such as no keyboard entry or video while moving and list length limitations. This “policy management” layer is also being implemented within Apple’s iPod out, Delphi’s D-Connect, and Nokia’s Terminal Mode (http://bit.ly/b22buN), among other solutions. #2 When a vehicle is in motion, Ford locks out features and functions such as pairing a Bluetooth phone, editing or adding contact info, POI reviews, detailed sports scores or movie times, manual destination entry, all demo modes, keying in or editing messages, Internet access, external keyboard, editing settings, setting up short-cut buttons. #3 Ford limits list lengths (contacts/recent calls/POIs), the number of canned text responses and Sirius Travel Link information when the vehicle is moving. Ford’s recommendations for mitigating distracted driving include: #1 Passage of Jay Rockefellers’ anti-texting Senate Bill (http://bit.ly/aLMKL4) providing incentives for states to pass anti-texting legislation; #2 Primary enforcement of existing mobile phone bans; #3 Limiting mobile phone use for holders of graduated driver’s licenses – ie. teens; Ford also offers its MyKey technology for parents to limit vehicle speed, stereo volume etc. for teen drivers. #4 Education/public awareness campaigns – ie. Ford’s Driving Skills for Life (http://bit.ly/8TcMpn); #5 Elevate Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers’ “Driver Focused Telematics Guidelines” to regulatory status (http://bit.ly/ddCpRd); #6 Increase funding for research – handheld vs. voice; relative risks of distractions including cognitive; and review real-world driver compensation behaviors. The embedded, policy management side of Ford’s smartphone-based effort has been Volvo’s IDIS workload management solution. Not surprisingly, Ford is working on similar on-board solutions that take into account driving conditions and vehicle status based on messages on the vehicle CAN network including stability control and windshield wiper engagement, speed, and traffic. There is a small irony in Ford’s sale of Volvo given Volvo’s leadership in vehicle safety. The timing was rendered especially poignant given the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s shift in the middle of last year toward a focus on preventing rather than simply surviving accidents (http://bit.ly/9L6MFi). Volvo has been a leader in bringing technologies to market that anticipate and attempt to avoid accidents. IDIS (for Intelligent Driver Information System) is intended to shut down distracting in-vehicle functions – such as mobile phone access or even warning lights - in the presence of hazardous driving conditions – intersections, overtaking etc. IDIS takes into account such driving circumstances as acceleration, speed reduction, turn signal indicators, steering wheel angle, reverse gear engagement and infotainment controls. Its primary output is to delay/manage incoming calls and vehicle alerts. The next step for IDIS will be the integration of map data along the lines of map-based advanced driver assist system designs from Navteq (with partners Magneti Marelli and STMicroelectronics) and Intermap (Visteon). The integration of map data with vehicle safety systems will allow for curve over-speed warnings or pro-active braking when approaching sharp turns. One can expect more solutions to block mobile phone access – as in the case of Global Mobile Alert – in the proximity of hazardous intersections, school zones or rail crossings. Strategy Analytics research shows that consumers want safer cars. Recent Strategy Analytics surveys reveal high consumer interest in night vision, pre-crash safety, adaptive front lights, blindspot detection, adaptive cruise control, driver attention monitors, lane departure warning, parking assistance, V2V communication and automatic speed limiters. The challenge of course, is getting consumers to pay for these technologies. This reluctance to pay creates the conditions for Federal mandates. And Federal mandates are likely to change the public’s perception of safety from an exploding airbag to a pre-emptive braking experience. Auto makers are already responding to this shift. Infiniti, Toyota, Mercedes-Benz, Opel and Volvo are all actively touting active vehicle safety systems with the best and most advanced of these taking driving context into account. These systems are also increasingly taking distraction, inattention and even driver fatigue into account. Conclusion: In an ideal world, there would be no distracting displays inside the car to divert the driver’s attention from the eyes forward concentration on the driving task. In this ideal world, head-up displays would be widely deployed and traffic fatalities would be continuing their downward trajectory. We do not live in an ideal world. Therefore, everything else in the world of automotive HMI is a compromise. In the context of that compromise, vehicle systems that take into account driving circumstances and device connectivity are preferred to those that do not. This means that systems and devices – Apple’s iPod out, Nokia’s Terminal Mode, Delphi’s D-Connect – that provide a contextual policy management layer will be in demand. More importantly, with NHTSA shifting its focus to crash avoidance, perhaps the entire automotive industry will begin to rethink what safety is and what safety means. And when it comes to distracted driving, there will hopefully be a federal and industry embrace rather than a rejection of technological solutions such as hands-free interfaces. Additional Insights:http://bit.ly/94Mn1V - Delphi Emerges at SAE with Answer to Nokia Terminal Mode - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analyticshttp://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as ‘Apps’ Competition Mounts - Joanne Blight – AMCS http://bit.ly/b5XEJM - Advanced Driver Assistance Systems: Supply And Fitment Database - Kevin Mak - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/cVcENg- Consumers Interested in Advanced Safety Features, but not at Current Price - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/b9oVAt - CTIA 2010: Distraction Mitigating Apps on Display - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/9BYNeR - Smartphones Bringing Safety Systems to Cars - Roger Lanctot - blog - Autmotive Multimedia and Communications Service

Gewi, an 18-year-old German-based company with an off-the-shelf software solution for managing roadway information for DOTs, car makers and device manufacturers, has entered the U.S. market and introduced TIC3, the latest version of its software. The company is known for its TIC (Traveller Information Center) software platform used to collect, create, store, monitor, view, manage and distribute information such as traffic data from a wide range of sources. The company's solution is designed to be used as an out-of-box solution or as a server-based or hosted service delivery platform. The TIC platform is capable of producing outputs in any required format, including including RDS-TMC, TPEG, radio and TV traffic reports, PDA, and web. Gewi clients include Nokia, BMW, Navteq and Daimler. While the company's software is in use in more than 100 projects worldwide, it has most recently been manifesting itself in embedded and portable devices for processing traffic information. But the Gewi platform is content agnostic, so the next phase for Gewi will likely be the integration of data sources such as gasoline pricing, hotel reservations and anything else related to movement on a roadway. The flexibility of the Gewi platform is likely to put the company into competition with companies such as Airbiquity, Google and even Hughes Telematics. These potential competitors have already demonstrated the power of a flexible back end to enable their clients to deploy new content and applications. It is possible that companies might even choose to make use of Gewi's software. Whether or not OEMs turn to Gewi to process other types of non-traffic data, the company is well positioned to enable new traffic applications from companies such as TrafficLand, Aha Mobile, Waze and TrafficTalk. Whether the data source is traffic cameras or crowd-sourced traffic information, Gewi's software can help process and distribute the new data sources in an integrated manner, allowing customers to prioritize different data feeds depending on circumstances. Gewi may well find itself partnering with Tier One suppliers such as Visteon, Continental and Denso to enable the range of applications envisioned by these organizations (gas pricing, parking, movie times) as well as to enable application stores. Precisely how Gewi will fit into the changing automotive software landscape remains to be seen. The company's solutions are hardware and operating system agnostic and command a substantial market position in the critical traffic information space. The challenge for Gewi will be to see if it can build on this essential piece of the in-vehicle content portfolio to broaden its reach.

The marketing battle between traffic service providers will continue into 2010. The good news is that 2009 firmly established the value of traffic data. The turning point came with the introduction of multiple mobile phone navigation solutions, most of which arrived through the aegis of the application store model pioneered by Apple. But new, unusual and creative solutions will arrive in 2010 and change the existing balance of power.

 

Users of these new navigation systems and the developers quickly discovered that reliable traffic information was the real killer app that mobile users were seeking. In the process they discovered that to deliver reliable travel times they needed a wide variety of traffic data including real-time, historical, predictive and incident data. Unfortunately, one of the key sources of traffic data – radio and television stations with cameras, ‘copters and spotters to report incident information – have suffered in the current downturn. In fact, there are anecdotal indications that radio stations are dropping traffic reporting. A model for delivering nationwide incident data that was previously fueled by advertising and sponsorships is becoming frayed at the edges as TV and radio advertising suffer.

 

Traffic.com, ClearChannel and Westwood One/SmartRoute, among others, are all seeking new funding, new business models or new owners in a bid to preserve or enhance their market positions. In the meantime, Google has barged into the market with its own traffic data raising questions over the viability of incumbent players. Google’s entry into any market raises these questions, although the reliability or robustness of Google’s traffic solution has yet to be proven. Inrix, on the other hand, has not based its model on sponsorships or advertising and, as a result, has for the most part avoided the negative impact of the downturn in advertising activity. But with Google getting into the traffic data aggregation and algorithm business, no traffic data supplier is safe including Microsoft's ClearFlow.

 

Of more immediate concern than Google entering the traffic market is the changing role of mobile-phone based navigation. Google is a player here as well, but it has more company in the form of Networks in Motion and TeleNav and their carrier partners. (TelMap's efforts in Europe have been hindered by the fragmented nature of the market and the negative impact of roaming charges.) While companies such as Cellint, AirSage, and IntelliOne have been seeking to integrate cell-tower triangulation data for probe traffic inputs, expect the carriers to introduce GPS-based probe data in the new year – representing a key added-value advantage. GPS-based probe data derived from mobile phone handsets will not replace triangulated data, which will always represent the greatest volume of “anonymized” location data, but the GPS data is likely to be more timely and accurate, critical to traffic reporting and analysis. The GPS-based data will likely require opt in participation vs. the triangulated data which to date has been applied involuntarily.

 

Still, good probe data is almost worthless without incident data. Without incident data the system is unable to interpret slowed or stopped traffic – ie. is it weather, volume, construction, a fallen tree limb, an uphill grade? The battle for reliable traffic data will come down to good incident data. This means the industry will see vastly enhanced probe data in 2010, but the gap between reliable flow and reliable incident data will suddenly become much clearer.

 

Through all the enhancements to traffic reporting consumers have been expressing their interest in better and more timely information and, in particular, more real-time incident information. As an example, RDS-TMC is notorious for the 5-10-15-minute delays in incident reporting, sometimes worse. Drivers want to know what is happening in real time.

 

In 2010, drivers will begin to get real-time information. Whether that information comes from Twitter, TrafficTalk, Aha Mobile, Waze, TrafficLand or some other solution is not clear. What is clear is that drivers want to know BOTH what has happened in the past and what is happening now. But what they really want to know is what is happening right in front of them.

 

The solutions will come in 2010 from three key sources: mobile-phone-based crowd-sourced info, traffic cameras and, perhaps, vehicle-mounted cameras. The challenges to delivery include the creation of traffic reporting “crowds,” something TrafficTalk, Waze and Aha Mobile are working on; and camera input interpretation and delivery platforms. Developments in 2009 clearly indicated that drivers must spend less time looking away from the road to navigation interfaces. More information must be conveyed via voice.

 

Traffic information suppliers will still be looking at a combination of subscription-based and sponsored traffic information. Consumers have clearly indicated a willingness to pay for traffic data, both in Strategy Analytics surveys and in the combined 10 million subscribers to Networks in Motion, TeleNav and XM/Sirius traffic information.

 

The industry will see some outlandish innovations ranging from delivering traffic camera info to mobile phones to – in 2-3 years – aftermarket in-vehicle cameras to capture traffic incidents. Two things are clear. Better incident data is required and solutions are in the pipeline.