At CES 2011, OnStar made headlines showing an aftermarket telematics solution which is now called, FMV (For My Vehicle).  Along with this announcement, OnStar also announced that it had secured the retail giant, Best Buy, as a distribution partner.  Securing Best Buy was a key win for OnStar, but questions remain about the extent to which Best Buy will promote FMV, how much knowledge Best Buy's staff will have about FMY, and if the staff can sell this technology to consumers?  While Best Buy was a key win for OnStar, Best Buy's motives seemed a bit unclear.  Electronic stores have been moving away from aftermarket automotive systems for a while.  These systems take up key real estate on the floor as well as additional real estate and staff for installation bays.  Even PNDs, which do not require installation, have been receiving considerably less floor space as they were quickly eclipsed by tablets as the new hot item.   Furthermore, the move seems a bit strange given Best Buy's recent push into the mobile handset market.

In contrast to OnStar, Hughes Telematics has targeted other channels of distribution.  In July, Hughes announced its partnership with American insurance company, State Farm, to bring insurance telematics to consumers.  Today, Hughes announced another breakthrough partnership, this time with AAA Club Partners.  AAA Club Partners is holding company comprised of 10 American Automobile Association (AAA) Clubs and the combined membership is almost 12 million across 20 states.   Unlike FMV, Hughes' solution can be self installed and features two-way voice connectivity for emergency services, enhanced AAA roadside assistance, and hands-free calling as well as vehicle diagnostics, location and speed alerts, vehicle diagnostics, and stolen vehicle locations assistance.  The solution offered by Hughes is also less intrusive, as it does not require replacing the OEM installed mirror, and instead plugs into the OBD-II port.  

The approaches to distribution differ in many ways.  Hughes appears to be creating strategy partnerships with organizations that are potentially stakeholders.  These companies are not just trying to profit on hardware and service but differentiate their service and enhance customer experience.   Furthermore, these organizations understand their customer base and can attempt to entice the right consumers into adopting telematics services.  This approach is very focused and alligning interested stakeholders could help reduce cost for all parties.   Given that OnStar has spent considerably on advertising to build its brand, perhaps its broader approach will work out, but Strategy Analytics' remains dubious given concerns about the current cost of FMV and early empirical data suggesting little consumer interest.  

Additional Insights:   OnStar: Time to Hit the Reset Button?

State Farm, Hughes Raise Usage-Based Insurance Bar

Yamei Puts Dealers in the Telematics Driver’s Seat

Usage-Based Insurance Brings New Competitors to Telematics Market

The conventional wisdom in the industry is that 50 percent (or more) of OEM profitability occurs after the sale of the vehicle. The dealer plays a critical role in this process as the primary customer interface. Unfortunately, dealers and OEMs have never been on the best of terms. And when it comes to leveraging service opportunities to crank up profits there remains much room for improvement.

The good news for dealers is that there are a proliferating range of suppliers and solutions to make the connections between car buyers and their dealers more “sticky” and more profitable. These solutions are focused on either vehicle diagnostics or service scheduling or both. This is not a new challenge for the industry, but new technology is altering industry relationships and changing the customer experience.

The increased interest is actually supported by recent findings published by JD Power and Associates in its 2011 U.S. Automotive Emerging Technologies study. According to the results of a survey of nearly 18,000 vehicle owners, remote diagnostics was the feature with the highest degree of interest after the market cost was revealed.

Interest after market price is revealed

                Remote vehicle diagnostics – 55%

                Non-branded premium sound system – 52%

                Wireless connectivity system – 50%

                Rear-vision camera system – 46%

                Blind spot detection – 45%

                                                                SOURCE: JD Power & Associates

A handful of companies are leading the way in closing the diagnostics/service gap.  Xtime, is the market leader in what it calls ServiceCRM.  GoPoint Technology has an iPhone app and OBDII connection to allow dealers or consumers to diagnose vehicle problems.  And Vinvox has an OBDII plug-in to allow dealers to manage and monitor customer vehicles needing repairs or maintenance.

GoPoint and Vinvox are new to the market, with Vinvox in the very earliest start-up stages.  Xtime, on the other hand, already boasts a robust following among OEMs.  In fact, Xtime is unique among these three companies in pursuing relationships with OEMs, while GoPoint and Vinvox are designed to be offered directly to dealers – and GoPoint as the only direct to consumer play.

Xtime says its ServiceCRM automates and integrates electronic service menus as well as online/dealership/call center/smartphone/telematics scheduling, online bill pay, electronic service notifications, comprehensive shop control, greeter boards, management reporting and certified DMS connectivity into a unified, web-based platform.

Xtime says it delivers its ServiceCRM product via the Internet to over 3,200 dealers today.  This “Software as a Service” or SaaS business model  empowers the dealer to schedule customer service visits and promotional campaigns.

The company is also piloting a Mobile Service Advisor (Q3) to enable a full check-in solution.  Xtime says its MSA includes electronic inspections, advisor appointment views, trim-level menus, vin scan, photo/video capture, automated customer signatures and electronic notifications, for fast customer check-in.  All functions are delivered on a tablet computer.

Xtime says it is the exclusive provider of these functions for car companies such as Infiniti, Nissan, Lexus, Toyota Canada, Southeast Toyota, Chrysler and Hyundai and is the preferred provider at BMW, Toyota USA and Audi.  Xtime is also the exclusive provider for many of the industry's leading dealership groups, including AutoNation, Group 1 Automotive, Sonic Automotive, West Herr, Luther, Ferman and Checkered Flag.  CustomerTraac, The Market Store, DME (owned by JM Solutions), Aspen Marketing and Dealer’s Greatest Assets (DGA) all use Xtime to power their centralized call centers for service scheduling.

Xtime is actually an important element of Hyundai's Blue Link telematics eco-system providing a critical link between Hyundai, the customer and the dealer.  The ability exists within the Xtime implementation with BlueLink for automatic notifications to go to dealers in the event of a vehicle DTC (diagnostic trouble code) occurrence.  If the consumer opts in - to share vehicle information - and if the feature is enabled dealers will be notified of the DTC and can then reach out to notify the customer.

This capability is an industry first when and if it is enabled at the launch of Hyundai's Blue Link solution.  The Hyundai implementation stops short, however, of providing dealers a proactive view of the status all customer cars.  Privacy concerns are likely impeding this next step.  But privacy is not interfering with advances in the aftermarket.

GoPoint’s iPhone-based solution is unique in putting diagnostic capabilities in the hands of the consumer or the service manager.  Unlike a competing solution from CarMD, which is a dedicated device, GoPoint combines a free downloadable app for the iPhone with a diagnostic cable for the OBDII connection to tap into the vehicle codes on the Can bus.

But there is more to the GoPoint solution than meets the eye.  The solution is also being used in four U.S. states by SpeedEmissions as a certified emissions testing application called Carbonga.  And for car servicers or car dealers there is a cloud based solution, FuzzyLuke, which puts the application in the hands of customers to enable them to diagnose vehicle problem codes and upload them to a Web-based application for service scheduling. FuzzyLuke claims the iPhone application and OBDII connection cable help car dealers and service operations tap into the $60B market in unperformed maintenance.  

Vinvox also integrates with smartphones and offers Web-based means for both consumers and dealers to view vehicle history and warranty and repair status along with vehicle codes, but Vinvox dispenses with the cable in favor of an OBDII plug-in with a cellular connection.  VinVox’s Retriever provides real-time notifications of required service or maintenance to the dealer and driver giving the dealer a powerful customer relationship management tool.

Implications:

What is clear is that OEM telematics systems have failed to fulfill the promise of customer/vehicle relationship management.  Aftermarket providers are diving into this yawning gap with clever solutions intended to empower dealers to better manage their fixed servicing assets while also enabling consumers to better understand that functional status of their vehicles.

How the OEMs could have missed this opportunity is hard to comprehend.  There is no doubt they see the money being left on the table now, though.  Within a few years, car makers will have refined their dealer service integration solutions and, maybe, they will win dealers back.

The goal is a centralized CRM/VRM model that gives the OEM a view to global vehicle servicing activities while giving the dealer the tools he or she needs to manage and measure customer service opportunities and, at the same time, creates a Web-based window for the consumer to better understand the service and maintenance status of their own car.

The vision has been at least partially described in the past by telematics service suppliers such as Hughes Telematics.  And Yamei Electronics has a fully realized solution in use with 1,800 car dealers in China.  (http://bit.ly/mSEUsB - #Yamei Puts Dealers in the Telematics Driver’s Seat – Insight)  It’s time for OEMs to plug into the customer’s interest in their own vehicle and the value of the dealer interface.

 

The measure of a creative and powerful marketing organization is often best taken when the chips are down. For Hughes Telematics that measure might have been taken two years ago when Chrysler and Hughes agreed to part company with Chrysler in the throes of a Chapter 11 filing.

 

The loss of Chrysler meant that Mercedes-Benz (Mbrace) might be left as Hughes’s lone OEM customer in North America. The loss of Chrysler also looked like the final straw that might bring down Hughes’ once-grand vision of a cross-OEM hybrid telematics system integrating cellular and satellite connectivity. That vision included a hardware module, call centers, service partners and an integrated three-screen solution enabling Web and smartphone access to vehicle information along with remote control.

 

Today, all of those pieces – except the satellite connectivity – are still in play, but Hughes has repositioned itself to address a wider scope of potential verticals (including healthcare and insurance) while still addressing automotive OEM and aftermarket opportunities.  Hughes is approaching the market with a less grandiose and more flexible offering – in-Drive.  

 

in-Drive to the Rescue

 

In-Drive allows Hughes to pursue fleet, insurance or aftermarket vehicle tracking and recovery solutions as a white label provider of software systems capable of supporting wired or wireless modules or even smartphone-based solutions.  The introduction of in-Drive, heralded at the 2010 CES show and even more advanced at the 2011 show in January, showed Hughes bouncing back with a new vision.  

 

Paramount to that new vision is an emphasis on the insurance side of telematics.  Thanks to intellectual property acquired from NetworkCar, Hughes has the most flexible and extendable platform available in the insurance telematics market.  Also thanks, in part, to that technology positioning, the company is engaged with unidentified insurers to bring a next-gen telematics solution to the market.  (Hughes declines to identify any potential partners or the nature of any systems that may be in development.)

 

The importance of the insurance telematics angle ought not to be underestimated by car makers.  Progressive’s launch of its Snapshot usage-based insurance product (http://bit.ly/fu1JCa - Usage-Based Insurance Brings New Competitors to Telematics Market) has the potential to fundamentally change the relationship between insurance companies and their customers.

 

Progressive’s Snapshot product tracks vehicle miles driven, amount of time driven and time of day and calculates speed, though it does not correlate speed to posted speed limits.  The online reporting tool shows these figures along with a calculation of the number of “hard braking” incidents. 

 

The Snapshot reporting tool also displays a graph characterizing the driving behavior as to whether the driver is maximizing MPG correlated to the time of day of that driving activity.  In this way Progressive is opening the door to a new relationship with the customer.  To Hughes’ credit, the company described its own solutions around eco-routing and eco-driving three or more years ago.

 

Hughes Enabling Next-Gen UBI Solutions

 

Hughes’ insurance offering, like Snapshot, might be an OBDII plug in, or it can be implemented in a variety of ways including wireless connectivity.  Hughes is not wed to a particular platform and is capable of deploying its solution on any platform.  More important is the back-end analytical tools Hughes brings to the proposition allowing for everything from traditional safety and security to vehicle diagnostics, emissions, concierge services or family monitoring.

 

The system/service bundles offered by Hughes via in-Drive (http://bit.ly/hOgPcV) include:

 

Automotive Data Services

Telematics

Family Co-Pilot

 

Hughes’ newfound flexibility means the company is free to pursue opportunities in the fleet market as well as in the consumer market.  In fact, thanks to its wireless patents, Hughes could launch its own OnStar-like aftermarket telematics mirror with CAN connectivity for capturing vehicle data if it so chose.  In other words, Hughes could out-OnStar OnStar.

 

Working through insurance partners, Hughes is in position to help its partners redefine that customer relationship.  An insurance telematics device is perfectly capable of providing vehicle tracking and recovery – like LoJack – roadside assistance, navigation and POI assistance, or any of a variety of concierge and vehicle diagnostics capabilities.

 

The vehicle diagnostics capabilities offered by Hughes include vehicle emissions monitoring for inspection purposes as well as the checking of error codes.  In the event of a breakdown, a Hughes-based insurance telematics solution could provide names of nearby approved service or repair providers.

 

The same kind of functionality is true for emergency circumstances.  A Hughes module, provided by an insurance company and equipped with appropriate sensors and CAN connectivity, could alert emergency responders – again, in an OnStar-like fashion.

 

To paint an even rosier picture of Hughes’ renaissance, prospects are good for the signing of a second OEM telematics relationship later in 2011.  Between its improving OEM outlook and robust aftermarket prospects, Hughes is tracing an improving trajectory.

 

Implications:

 

Hughes Telematics’ emergence in the insurance market changes the prospects for this application segment.  Until now, insurance telematics solutions did not stray far from the basic collection and analysis of driving time and time of day – with some exceptions (http://bit.ly/9XRntG - #Allianz Changing the #PAYD #Insurance Game - blog).  The range of solutions available from Hughes for collecting and analyzing vehicle information opens the automotive market to new opportunities for insurers.

 

The fleet industry is already looking at behavior modification-type solutions tied to vehicle tracking.  (http://bit.ly/e94Opj - Behavior Modification Comes to Fleet Telematics from the Cloud)  Progressive has already taken the step of integrating ecological driving elements in its UBI solution.  A wide range of possibilities are available to auto insurers, but there are obstacles.

 

Devices, like Progressive’s, that connect with the vehicle CAN bus via the OBDII port are problematic.  Some cars are known to respond unpredictably to such plug ins and gleaning the necessary data can be a challenge.  The value proposition difference between such a device and one that is not connected to the vehicle is significant.  

 

It is still early days for UBI-based underwriting.  But Hughes participation in this market has the potential to change the market significantly.

 

Progressive Update:

 

This analyst is currently participating in a trial of Progressive’s Snapshot UBI service.  Progressive said it could not provide an OBDII Snapshot plug in for my 2009 BMW 5 Series, but it could provide one for my 2004 Toyota Sienna.  The initial reporting appears below:

 

 

 

 

 

Mercedes-Benz recently launched its annual Winter Event, shortly after concluding its multiple-year legal confrontation with ATX, according to industry sources. The Winter Event includes an offer of 36 months of free mbrace telematics service for buyers of Mercedes-Benz vehicles who use Mercedes Benz Financial services and runs through January 4, 2011. Neither Mercedes nor ATX chose to comment on the report. The official statement: "ATX and Mercedes Benz jointly filed a statement (on Oct. 27) with the court that the lawsuit has been resolved. The companies have put together a process to allow for continued service to those Mercedes-Benz owners who wish to continue to receive services through their Tele Aid devices (at the consumer's discretion). We consider it a privilege to provide connected vehicle services to over 200,000 consumers with Tele Aid devices." ATX is the existing service provider for the Tele-Aid telematics service. Hughes Telematics is the new telematics service provider for the (renamed) mbrace service which includes a smartphone app platform. Both ATX and Hughes have been competing for new and existing telematics customers and will continue to do so. Details of the current situation were previously reported here: http://bit.ly/aCiL6T.  It is likely that ATX, currently in the process of adding new OEM accounts such as Toyota, is seeking to project a more non-confrontational image in the industry. The resolution frees up Mercedes to project a more consistent marketing message including, at some point in the near future, advertising that will incorporate mbrace. To date, OnStar has been the only auto maker describing telematics services in mass media messages. Interest and demand can be expected to grow in North America as more car makers launch embedded and smartphone-based telematics systems. Europe is also seeing the first stirrings of eCall compliant deployments. 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

TomTom’s marketing machine was in overdrive last week with announcements of a new OEM relationship (Mazda) and advances with existing partners (Toyota, Renault), enhancements to its (European) market-leading traffic solution (HD Traffic) and a traffic manifesto. But undoing all that positive spin was the note that the company still wants to charge about $50/year for its Live Services. It looks like TomTom didn’t get the latest email about automotive value propositions. As connectivity comes to more vehicles, drivers (and passengers) will get more of their content and services from the “cloud.” What this means is that car makers will increasingly have in place systems for sending, receiving, processing and managing all types of vehicle data – the “back end.” (This is not unlike what is happening at your average NASCAR or Formula One event every weekend – without the parking space availability and Internet radio.) The value of this data is manifest to the car makers for better understanding the performance of their vehicles on the road as well as better understanding how consumers use and abuse their cars. The implications for cost avoidance, warranty and recall management are in the millions of dollars of savings. There is no immediate or obvious benefit to the driver. For this reason, this kind of vehicle connectivity ought to be free. (On the other hand, OnStar and others have demonstrated that people will pay for safety and security.) As more drivers shift to smartphones (with mandatory data plans) with access to a wide range of content and services, they will be less likely to pay for any service from the car (or PND) maker that is available for free (or for which they are already paying) via their mobile phone. So how is the industry (and TomTom) going to monetize all this connectivity? Enter the back end value proposition. Auto makers and Tier Ones have gotten the message and recognize that driver and passenger eyeballs and “click-throughs” have value. A driver asking for directions to a restaurant or movie has economic value. A system that knows the location of the driver has value. Beyond this, a system that is able to provide a broader “cloud” perspective of all location-related activity – including everything from prosaic traffic information to “heat” maps of gatherings of people, weather, etc. – has other value-add implications for drivers, passengers and roadway systems and public transportation overall. But in the short-term, vehicle related information for diagnostics, safety and entertainment take priority. Continental, Harman, Visteon, Delphi and Pioneer clearly understand this. All of these companies have introduced systems or platforms that seek to leverage vehicle location information for commercial opportunities. Even Best Buy’s connected PND delivered sponsored links in its Google Search. Unfortunately, Tier Ones face an uphill struggle in trying to get a piece of this action. The telematics eco-system consists mainly of a telematics service provider (ie. ATX), a carrier (ie. Sprint or Verizon) and a system integrator (ie. TCS). Each of these operators is interested in the other’s business – with the possible exception of the call center. (No one wants the call center hot potato – too much cost.) While the call center tends to be shunned, the data back end tends to be either misunderstood or underestimated. But the back end system is rapidly becoming the backbone of the system altering the competitive landscape. The power and influence of back end systems is visible to the consumer in the growing variety of free content and services via smartphones. Google probably has the largest back end system currently influencing developments in the automotive market. With its free navigation, traffic and search and an open source operating system, Google has rattled the industry mightily over the past two years. Carriers, meanwhile, are trying to fight there way in – not content to be simply white label suppliers of bandwidth. Among the carriers sniffing around the telematics back end opportunity are Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Telenor, Orange, AT&T Mobility, Vodafone and Ericsson. All of these companies recognize that their servers are as valuable as their networks. Some of these companies fancy themselves Tier One players. At least three handset makers have the potential to rise to the Google challenge: Nokia, Apple and RIM. Like Google, Nokia is offering free navigation while also seeding the market with open source development tools (Qt), operating system softare (MeeGo) and smartphone connectivity technology (Terminal Mode). But Nokia remains ambivalent about the automotive opportunity. MeeGo is not ready for market and Ovi has not been designed for automotive opportunities. RIM brings a unique value proposition combining its smartphone system experience with its newly acquired QNX automotive expertise. RIM represents the most immediate threat to Google’s potential dominance in the automotive market because of its potential to deploy navigation and traffic applications (based on handset probe data) and its ability to monitor, manage and mine its network data traffic. Apple’s strength lies in its secure systems for managing commerce for downloading applications and enabling the purchase of content. For these reasons, Apple and RIM both have the scope and scale to add value to automotive opportunities. The massive giveaway of content and services by both Google and Nokia is a setup for capturing click-through traffic and back end processing opportunities for creating metrics and analytic output. Google already has the analytic tools in place, unlike Nokia. The current landscape for back end services is highly fragmented and includes companies such as TeleNav, Airbiquity, Hitachi, TeleCommunications Systems, Hughes Telematics, WirelessCar, Oracle and IBM, along with the previously mentioned wireless carriers, RIM and Apple. (Strangely, Microsoft seems to have disqualified itself – having disbanded its automotive business unit. The original vision defined by Microsoft at multiple industry events included integrating more and more Microsoft solutions such as Bing, Tellme, and Silverlight into automotive platforms, but the complete vision – including back end services – never materialized. The one exception to this no-show for Microsoft are the company's ongoing efforts to capitalize on the Bing search engine.) The value proposition of back end service providers revolves around secure management and processing of vehicle and driver data for applications ranging from vehicle performance and safety to content and infotainment and, ultimately, commerce opportunities. Neither OEMs nor Tier Ones are equipped to manage this opportunity and traditional telematics providers lack the scale. The lack of scale is one reason Airbiquity has partnered with Hitachi to service Nissan’s connectivity needs around the world. It is likely that companies such as Hughes and TeleNav will seek partnerships with larger integrators such as IBM or Oracle for the same reason. Nokia, like RIM, already has the scope and scale and like Apple already has the commerce platform (Ovi) but, unlike Apple, has done little beyond the introduction of terminal mode to optimize its offerings for automotive. TomTom is another player in need of a partner to provide the scope and scale necessary to compete in the connected space. The larger organizations that are able to monetize the connectivity proposition will force out smaller players dependent on subscription revenue. If TomTom can enhance its navigation and infotainment platform to include safety and security telematics, it will greatly improve its value proposition and the likelihood of building a devoted subscriber base. Conclusion Google and RIM are best positioned to leverage the back end data processing opportunity presented by the automotive industry. Google faces trepidation among potential OEM customers who are suspicious of the company’s motives and objectives. Google’s failure to validate its Android OS for automotive applications is another stumbling block. Nokia has discrete elements of a solution in place but so far lacks the commitment and execution to challenge either Google or RIM. Apple is a wild card player in a market that remains fragmented with the door open to new entrants. Microsoft's Bing search engine is another contender gaining traction, but, in the end, Microsoft is more of an arms supplier to the contesting parties. Winners in the battle for the back end will be those companies able to bring security and state-of-the-art analytics and commerce management to the automotive industry. Google knows analytics. RIM knows security and network management. It remains to be seen whether Nokia or some dark horse will step forward to challenge these two dominant players, but the race is on. Additional Insight: 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 http://bit.ly/aGJHDj - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications -Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

Retention is the key to the imminent rise of usage-based insurance. More accurate rating and customer acquisition may be the immediate motivations for insurance companies, but only customer retention has the power to transform the industry – and reduce carbon emissions in the process. These conclusions were clear from the Telematics Update Insurance Telematics event two weeks ago in Chicago. Returning home from the event, though, I was soon inundated with the daily tidal wave of car insurance advertisements on U.S. television. The multiple offers of the deepest discounts, lowest deductibles and superior service seemed like far more relevant messages to me as a consumer than the proposition of allowing the insurance company to monitor my driving behavior. Allowing an insurance company to monitor my behavior, to me, sounds like a particular circle of Hell inconceivable to even the vivid imagination of Dante. What I was forgetting in this kneejerk reaction is the equal and opposite force within me (or most consumers I presume) that is powerfully drawn to any discount – no matter how small – particularly if it is associated with cheaper car insurance – a product one pays handsomely for and hopes never to use. (Because if you use it you may lose it or end up paying more for it in the future.) The offers on television from Progressive, Nationwide, AllState, State Farm, Farmers and others addressed all of my concerns as a consumer. There were discounted rates earned by parents extended to teenage children. There were deductibles that decline over time when there are no claims. There were offers to top competing discounts. UBI insurance offers the prospect of cutting through the advertising clutter with a message that has the power to draw in new drivers while making them long-term committed subscribers in the process. On the surface, usage-based insurance looks like an expensive proposition (for the insurer) built around the concept of providing discounts to an insurance company’s best customers, according to multiple presenters at the Insurance Telematics event. So let me get this straight:  As an insurer I am going to spend millions of dollars to create a data acquisition and management system and deploy wireless monitoring devices all so I can charge my customers less money? It truly sounds crazy, until one understands the challenges of providing insurance. (No tears, please.) The insurance industry has few reliable tools to offer consumers proper insurance rates. What to the consumer appears to be a generally expensive product is priced based on an opaque process based on age, gender and location and a limited amount of driving history such as infractions, accidents and mileage. The industry was recently revolutionized by the deployment of credit scoring as a rating tool. Not surprisingly, credit bureaus featured prominently among attendees at the Insurance Telematics event. Credit scores, the early insurance company pioneers such as Progressive discovered, were an excellent segmentation tool and proxy for assessing risk. Possessing a more accurate tool for determining risk meant that underwriters using this tool could confidently justify deeper discounts than competitors and they won truckloads of business as a result. Of course, competitors soon learned about the new risk proxy and all companies began using credit scores for segmentation and risk analysis. Usage-based insurance is the new proxy and insurance companies are wary of missing a competitive advantage. From presentations at the event it is clear that the early movers in UBI insurance have learned that the process must be as simple as possible. As a result, Progressive has shifted from an OBDII plug-in device that had to be removed and connected to a consumer’s computer, to a wireless module the customer can plug in and forget. (Progressive has already moved on to the next incarnation as well, read on.) Similarly, Octo Telematics, the European pioneer of UBI insurance with more than 1M subscribers via multiple insurance partners, has introduced a device that clamps onto a car battery. This is an alternative to a device that was professionally (and expensively) installed on the vehicle and provided additional services such as stolen vehicle recovery. Multiple exhibitors at Insurance Telematics touted Bluetooth-based or cellular-based OBDII connections for extracting vehicle data – including Directed Electronics, Zoomsafer, Telenor, Walsh Wireless, Numerex, SmartDrive, Scope Technologies, Matrix Technologies, Xact Technologies and Octo Telematics. (Attendees actively discussed word of legal action between Hughes Telematics and insurance and device providers and others over the use of wireless technology for acquiring vehicle data via the OBDII port. Some companies are reported to have settled with Hughes or, as in the case of Progressive, countersued. Suffice it to say that the intellectual property underpinnings of insurance telematics are unresolved.) The powerful interest of consumers in obtaining discounted insurance taken together with the newfound ability of insurance companies to offer discounts based on more accurate risk segmentation is the motivating force behind a revolution poised to sweep the industry. But why is there little or no advertising of UBI insurance in the U.S. when Progressive has been in the game for 12 years? (European advertising of UBI insurance is widespread.) The answer is simple: The insurance industry is governed by 50 different state authorities, some of whom, such as Pennsylvania, have challenged the rating models and others that simply haven’t made their final ruling. (Pennsylvania withheld approval based on their requirement that Progressive disclose the details of there rating model.) Progressive’s SnapShot product is currently available in 23 states. Another learning from the early UBI movers has been that the device need not be indefinitely installed in the vehicle. Insurers active in UBI have learned that a limited time (ie. one month? six months?) “snapshot” of a driver’s driving behavior is sufficient to assess risk and applicable discount. The SnapShot approach also means the device can be removed and plugged into another customer's vehicle for yet another driver assessment.  Of course, this same snapshot is also key to determining which drivers qualify – and insurers have found that not all drivers are suited to UBI programs. As speakers at the Insurance Telematics event repeatedly said: Everyone thinks they are an above-average driver, but only 50% of those can be correct. The key to success in UBI insurance will be to move early. Insurers feel an overpowering need to deploy systems absolutely as quickly as they can because the likelihood is that the first module a customer installs will be his or her last. Once the insurer learns that customer’s driving behavior and can accurately and affordably underwrite their risk, the customer is unlikely to switch insurers. The competing insurer will always be at a disadvantage, not knowing the customer’s driving behavior. For this reason, the industry is struggling to move very quickly in the U.S. in spite of the state regulators and IP issues. UBI has the ability to change the balance of power in the industry and no company wants to be left disarmed. Conclusion: This battle has just begun. Insurers are likely to package offerings built around comprehensive portfolios of driver services such as roadside assistance, navigation and maybe even stolen vehicle recovery to say nothing of on-scene claims reporting – all built around the modules they are bringing to cars. UBI insurance will not only transform the insurance underwriting industry, it also has the potential to alter the relationships between insurers and OEMs. Insurers that deploy telematics systems are in a position to threaten OEM relationships with their own dealers and consumers. Wireless carriers too have skin in the game as insurance applications are already deployed to mobile phone platforms. Insurance companies have powerful leverage over the customer and cannot be ignored by any of these parties and the mobile phone is an alternative path for a UBI deployment. UBI insurance will rapidly achieve ubiquity nationwide. The prospect of obtaining discounts based on driving behavior will lead to some actual improvements in driving behavior but, mainly, it will contribute to a reduction in driving activity overall, which may be the best outcome of UBI deployment. In the end, the insurance industry will achieve the road charging objective of reducing carbon emissions (a Federal goal) which will forever be politically beyond the reach of  Federal authorities. 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 http://bit.ly/9PUqjp - UBI Market Poised for Growth - John Canali - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

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

The latest salvo from the Genivi Alliance – a SWOT analysis of competing automotive operating systems – appears to cloud rather than clarify the existing automotive OS market environment. The future prospects for current and emerging players are described with little supporting evidence or insight. The report also concludes – from OEM and supplier interviews – that the Alliance’s assumptions regarding cost savings are valid without providing a detailed financial analysis of where cost savings may be achieved – ie. head count, lines of code, etc. Not surprisingly, the self-serving report concludes that Genivi will rule the market in the long term with deployments beginning in the 2013-2015 timeframe (http://tinyurl.com/29aly2t). The report initially sets out to provide a thumbnail view of current OS market leaders Microsoft, QNX, MicroItron, Linux and Android. Going without mention are Mentor Graphics, Ubuntu, OpenSynergy, Meego or even VxWorks (currently used by Peugeot-Citroen, Nissan and Volkswagen). Also missing entirely are Genivi members MontaVista and Wind River. Ostensibly, the goal of the report is to benchmark and/or handicap these various infotainment software architectures and their influence on in-vehicle infotainment systems; and to validate the cost savings claimed for Genivi’s code-sharing/recycling model. Missing is a detailed description of the actual software architectures themselves – ie. what makes one “better” than another. What is available in the report summary seems misleading such as a reference to Microsoft Auto booting slowly, which is also a shortcoming of Android, but which is also easily overcome. Also missing is a discussion of current market forces, strategic supplier relationships, recent mergers and acquisitions or potential mergers or acquisitions. The absence of these latter aspects means that Intel’s acquisition of Wind River goes without mention as does the merger of Intel’s Moblin platform with Nokia’s Maemo OS to create Meego – rumored to have been selected by Genivi as its infotainment platform of choice. (Press and Nokia reports have quoted senior Genivi representatives stating that Meego has been chosen for this purpose - http://tinyurl.com/2d46xls. No affirmation of this selection has come from any Genivi member other than BMW.) MontaVista’s acquisition by Cavium Networks and QNX’s purchase by RIM gets no attention in the report. Neither does TomTom’s decision to adopt the Webkit OS, a platform found in other segments of the mobile market such as Palm’s Web OS. (The report fails to note Bosch’s adoption of Linux or Visteon’s embrace of Genivi, Microsoft, QNX AND Ubuntu – hedging its bets.) These oversights are more significant than they seem as they suggest a lack of awareness of the symbiosis between mobile device operating systems and automotive hardware and software architectures. Additionally, the report repeatedly refers to “risk-averse” Japanese OEMs and tier one’s being hesitant to adopt open, Linux-based platforms – including anything from Genivi to Android.  This assertion is patently absurd given Clarion’s longstanding support of Linux. The report also paints a grim picture of QNX’s market outlook, suggesting the company’s app support is “difficult to configure” and that the company can be expected to withdraw from the IVI market entirely within a short period of time. This will no doubt be news to executives at QNX’s Ottawa headquarters where headcount committed to automotive projects is on the rise as are design wins. And the acquisition of QNX by RIM opens doors to automotive-related IP (ie. traffic apps) while adding access to a massive and growing installed base (ie. probes). Unlike all of the alternatives currently in the market, QNX currently offers a range of flexible, scalable solutions future proofed to support Adobe Flash, HTML5, Flash Air and Flash 10.1 and all mobile OS's. QNX is customer friendly with support unmatched by Linux-based competitors or Microsoft. By way of contrast, OEMs implementing Microsoft are finding they must enlist the aid of third-party developers (bSquare, Elektrobit, etc.) to customize Microsoft Auto to their requirements. Microsoft has left application development entirely to its customers and their partners. It is worth noting as well that QNX’s flexibility is an advantage vis-à-vis Microsoft. Where QNX supports nearly every potential application or implementation known to automotive engineers without favor, Microsoft is likely to push its Bing search engine, Silverlight graphics and other in-house offerings. The report notes that the next generation Microsoft IVI platform, Motegi (Windows Automotive Embedded 7), will launch with Japanese OEMs, though it provides no time frame. Microsoft indeed has at least two partners in Japan – Alpine and Mitsubishi – which suggests that either Honda or Mercedes may be implementing Motegi. The report neglects to mention QNX’s recent gains in Japan, including Panasonic and Denso, showing a deeper penetration of QNX into Toyota. In fact, QNX has benefitted handsomely and rapidly from its separation from Harman – immediately attracting attention from potential Japanese and Chinese customers. Where QNX is weakest is in developer support. This is precisely where Android shines. The report summary correctly identifies existing developers working on automotive Linux implementations – ie. Parrot, Continental and Roewe – and identifies the inclination of many designers in the industry to connect with Android but to keep it out of the central stack. The report also notes Google’s disinclination to support or endorse Android for automotive implementations, but leaves the door open to an embedded future for Android. (GM is thought to be considering an open platform such as Meego or Android for a future OnStar or infotainment launch.) But this points up a fundamental gap in the report, which is the wider context of the OS debate. Android and Genivi do not line up directly with QNX, Microsoft or Linux (pick your distribution). Genivi has always been positioned as a code sharing platform for infotainment systems - as such it has never been presented as a replacement for Microsoft or QNX. Android, similarly, is being pursued as an alternative for ultra-low-cost (entry level) platforms - typically those emanating from India and China - as well as a means for implementing revenue sharing models based on mobile applications in the car. The new Genivi report marks the first time the Alliance's platform is proposed as a replacement for QNX or Microsoft or any other OS, indicating a change in strategy for the group. This is where the group may be overreaching. Presenting Genivi as a one-for-one substitute for existing real-time operating system solutions is a different proposition from offering a code-sharing/recycling platform intended to reduce development costs. Obtaining industry buy-in to this vision will take 5-10 years, by which time the market may well have moved on to the next big thing. And as an industry coalition-driven solution, Genivi arrives untested in the marketplace. The report further attempts to validate Genivi’s vision for cost-reduced platform development, saying interviewees estimated IVI deployment cost savings of up to 50%. At the same time, though, the report acknowledges that initial implementations may cost even more than incumbent solutions. Justifying or validating proposed Genivi cost savings will continue to be a tall order for the Alliance. Conclusions: The Genivi Alliance’s IVI software architecture report provides valuable insights but is rife with glaring omissions, unsupported conclusions and errant assumptions. The report oversimplifies the automotive OS ecosystem and competitive environment and underestimates the influence of some incumbent players, such as QNX, and the emerging role of content and service aggregators including TeleNav, Inrix, Airbiquity, WirelessCar, TCS, ITIS Holdings, Navteq and Hughes Telematics. A few of these content and service providers were interviewed for the report. But not a single telecommunications carrier or handset maker – outside of Nokia - was interviewed. Even more obvious than these omissions, however, was the exclusion of both Audi and the e.solutions joint venture with Elektrobit - the single most prominent, influential and competing IVI platform in the industry. The oversight is obvious and unfortunate. The forces that are determining the future of the automotive IVI experience are almost entirely developing outside of the car, so a wider base of interviewees should have been considered. The single greatest weakness of the Genivi Alliance is its inward focus on the automotive industry as opposed to an outreach to the wider world of mobile devices and consumer electronics. It is possible for Genivi to “win” in the long run and “challenge” (in the report’s own words) Microsoft, but the Microsoft embedded solution will always have the advantage of developer support from across a broader range of industries and the design priorities that those other user communities will contribute. Genivi’s narrower focus is at once its greatest strength but, in the end, its Achilles heel. <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> <!--[endif]--> Further insight: Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications – Mark Fitzgerald – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - http://tinyurl.com/34hldb5 Automotive Connectivity: Beyond Bluetooth Solutions – Mark Fitzgerald – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - http://tinyurl.com/2gx88eo

The arrival of Nokia’s Terminal Mode technology for smartphone integration and ATX Group’s downloadable application for Mercedes-Benz’s TeleAid telematics service has highlighted the intensifying battle between OEMs and third-parties over car owners and the in-vehicle experience. OEMs are being forced into the business of certifying applications for use in the car at the risk of losing control of both the customer and the user experience. And the encroachment of third-party apps is raising serious security concerns. The introduction of the ATX downloadable app is perhaps the worst case scenario for an OEM given the existing relationship with Mercedes TeleAid subscribers. The application was neither created by Mercedes nor was it certified or approved by Mercedes. The result is the first instance in the industry of a service provider competing with an OEM for the OEM’s customers. The clever application allows for the wireless transmission of destinations to Mercedes navigation systems equipped with TeleAid connections and also allows for remote door unlock among other features. The purpose of the application is to extend and maintain the existing ATX relationship with legacy TeleAid subscribers. But it is an intrusion most unwelcome at Mercedes headquarters. Most of the functions offered by the ATX app were made available in a similar app launched by Mercedes last Fall as part of its mbrace telematics service launch. The difference between the two is that mbrace, launched on November 16, 2009, is part of Mercedes’ introduction of a new telematics service relationship with Hughes Telematics. Aside from the relevance of the ATX announcement to the ongoing contretemps between Mercedes and its service provider (the two have yet to resolve their legal differences), the implications for the industry, telematics and the app store model are critical including: Management of the telematics service Ownership of the customer Control of the telematics marketing message Control of dealer marketing and incentives Certification of vehicle related applications Control of the in-vehicle user experience But these issues are inherent in the app store model itself. For Mercedes, the mbrace app, for select iPhone and Blackberry smartphones, enables a similar feature set as the ATX app and also sets up the ability for Mercedes to create its own app store. The mbrace app was groundbreaking because it was the first from an OEM to enable remote functions from a handset – demonstrated but not delivered by others – while simultaneously changing the telematics service provider and call center phone numbers – effectively transferring existing TeleAid customers (now using ATX) to the mbrace service. Mercedes even stated plans to introduce new applications periodically, the first of which are expected to arrive later this summer, propelling Mercedes to the front of the automotive app store class, where it is now joined by Ford (which seems to introduce new applications monthly). The ATX announcement, however, reveals the proverbial fly in the app store ointment. If ATX can divert Mercedes’ TeleAid customers, which OEM will be the next to see an app divert their customers? ATX’s app allows the existing TeleAid subscribers, of which there are an estimated 400,000, to maintain their relationship with ATX and provides them with functionality similar to that offered by the new mbrace service. Since customers are paying ATX in total nearly $100M for the service, this is important. To help drive the message home, ATX is offering Mercedes dealer sales personnel $100 spiffs to communicate the message to existing Mercedes owners. (The only service being offered by dealers on new vehicles is the mbrace service.) Meanwhile, Mercedes is offering a 20% commission - worth about $100 - to dealer F&I and sales executives to promote longer-term (18 month) initial mbrace subscriptions. (Customers already get six free months of the basic service and three free months of the Plus service which includes concierge support among other functions.) There is the potential for a mixed message here, although the ATX message is only for existing owners, while mbrace is targeted at both existing owners and purchasers of new Mercedes cars. (A recent visit to a Mercedes dealer revealed no visible onsite literature or POP materials for either TeleAid or embrace – ie. telematics is still not part of the core Mercedes message. To top of the lack of telematics enthusiasm at the dealership, the F&I exec said he didn’t see the need for telematic services since he owned an iPhone!) Because of the terms of its now concluded agreement with ATX, Mercedes cannot promote, sell or install the mbrace service for any Mercedes vehicles purchased between Nov. 16, 2008 and Nov. 16, 2009 until after Nov. 16, 2010. It is also for this reason that Mercedes is hampered in its marketing and promotion of mbrace, although various Mercedes Websites make clear that the only service currently endorsed by the company is mbrace. The irony in this battle for customer ownership between ATX and Mercedes is that the average Mercedes customer is likely not purchasing the vehicle for the telematics service. Little or no advertising activity is committed to conveying the telematics message. And, yet, with an estimated 400,000 subscribers paying upwards of $240 per year, the revenue stream is valuable to ATX, Hughes and Mercedes. Although unique, the ATX-Mercedes situation is analogous to the emerging automotive app store proposition. Nearly every OEM is scrambling to demonstrate or introduce an app store strategy of some kind following the perceived success of Ford’s Sync model. But no one is pondering the potential for an application to commandeer an OEM’s marketing, sales and telematics strategy as well as the user experience in the vehicle. Nokia’s Terminal Mode capability has raised similar questions of control of the user experience in the car. It is for this reason that Delphi introduced its own alternative to terminal mode which provides for a Delphi application certification process and OEM control of the HMI (http://bit.ly/94Mn1V). The broad industry perception of the Nokia solution, which reproduces the display of a mobile device into the vehicle and enables the use of on-board interfaces, is that it fundamentally alters the carefully crafted vehicle HMI. There is no doubt that no single company – Nokia, Delphi, RealVNC, Airbiquity, Continental, Parrot, etc. – will control the critical smartphone interface. But what is clear is that it has become a critical battleground Not surprisingly, Apple must be watching these developments and snickering. Apple’s iPhones have enabled a wide range of services, application and content delivery to drivers with marketing, revenue and HMI implications outside of the scope of the OEM’s plans. Customers enter dealer showrooms on a daily basis looking for cars with which their devices can connect – the classic case of the tale wagging the dog. The Mercedes-ATX situation provides a glimpse of a brave new world where car makers are simple pawns in a chess match controlled by carriers, handset makers, application developers and service providers all seeking to extract revenue from car owners. The good news is there is opportunity for those companies able to offer a secure smarthone interface that enables an OEM’s brand definition. OEMs have already taken steps to create certification procedures along with their own in-house development teams. Car makers will never have complete control over applications such as Internet radio or location-based services. But applications that tap into vehicle data and functions, such as remote door unlocking or vehicle starting, are areas that OEMs will demand control. Mercedes’ new telematics partner, Hughes, was once the ultimate embodiment of the external third party seeking to implant a revenue-generating module in consumer vehicles. The automotive industry rejected the Hughes model – particularly its hardware platform – opting instead, as in the case of Mercedes, to leverage the Hughes back-end infrastructure. What could help to make all parties play nicely together is revenue sharing. OEMs clearly want a cut from the stream of revenue flowing from off-board applications. The long-term winners will be those solution providers that provide for that OEM piece of the action and, most importantly, bullet-proof security. Hughes had the right idea: to create a platform in the vehicle for accessing revenue-generating content, services and applications. Little did Hughes know at its inception that the smartphone would replace its embedded module. OEMs know now that they must take the steps today to create the connections and define the relationships that will allow for mobile device connectivity while keeping the OEM in a secure user experience/revenue producing loop. Additional Insights: http://bit.ly/94Mn1V - Delphi Emerges at SAE with Answer to Nokia Terminal Mode - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics http://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as 'Apps' Competition Mounts - Joanne Blight - AMCS http://bit.ly/aIm4vK - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight - AMCS

Among the many untold stories in the telematics industry, the tale of Volvo OnCall and Orbcomm stands out, especially in the context of this week’s SISTER workshop on satellite communications and intelligent transport technologies, which took place in Brussels. What might, for Volvo, have become a visionary hybrid implementation of satellite and cellular technology for a telematics system for the U.S. market was undone by Orbcomm’s bankruptcy filing in 2000.   In retrospect, it is both understandable and deeply disappointing that no other automotive telematics planner chose to follow the Volvo path. Maybe decision makers saw the Volvo experience as a cautionary tale instead of as the inspiration that it actually represented.   Maybe if the European Union had taken a closer look at what Volvo was dreaming up they might have included satellite technology in their eCall plans. Alas, the EU did not include satellite technology in eCall which may be why the SISTER initiative was founded as the first association with the mandate to evaluate the possibility of integrating satellite technology to enhance the complete range of ITS technologies including eCall, road user charging, map updating, dangerous goods monitoring and enhanced Galileo services. SISTER concludes its research activities and will publish its recommendations next month.   Back in the mid-1990’s, Volvo was considering the inclusion of Orbcomm’s low-earth orbit satellites as a backup communication channel to cellular TDMA and Amps technologies. The company was willing to include satellite in spite of the obtrusiveness of the required antenna technology of the time.   Today, Volvo offers cellular-only telematics throughout Europe with short-term plans for a U.S. launch of a similar system. Orbcomm, meanwhile, has recovered and is a supplier of telematics technology to Volvo Trucks under the Dynafleet brand. Orbcomm is in fact a leader in the modest but growing hybrid – satellite-cellular - connectivity business.   The absence of satellite technology from existing automotive telematics solutions, especially for emergency applications, is extraordinary given the purpose of such systems. The EU regularly makes inflated claims of the life-saving ability of eCall systems to summon assistance from emergency responders. Chief critics of eCall are quick to point out that passing motorists frequently make the first reports of accidents rendering eCall messages redundant.   Where eCall could have an impact, though, is in the event of accidents occurring in rural areas, where cellular coverage is wanting. In fact, some say that the most severe accidents and injuries often occur in these circumstances. This is obviously where satellite technology could make a difference.   The good news is that the EU is finally looking at the integration of satellite technology at least as an idea, if not as part of the existing eCall specification. Even better news lies in the fact that this consideration is taking place after the demise of Worldspace and following the allocation of spectrum for DVB-SH satellite technology. The SISTER program is also taking place at the very onset of the European Galileo system which has direct application for all location-related ITS applications. In fact, satellite navigation is the most widespread of current satellite applications and is expected to lead the way in satellite integration into a wider range of services. The arrival of Galileo promises to deliver better than 10cm location accuracy potentially suitable for road pricing and lane keeping applications and possibly for map updating. SISTER workshop representatives foresee $43B in cumulative financial benefits - combined revenue and savings - from the integration of enhanced satellite navigation technology. Potential sources of these gains include: fuel consumption reduction, travel time reduction, air pollution reduction, CO2 emission reduction, cost savings due to congestion reduction and cost savings from decreased injuries. Current satellite technologies available in Europe, and elsewhere around the world, offer both superior location information delivery but also the ability to deliver audio and video content. Outside of Volvo, the only other company to foresee the arrival of this value proposition was Hughes Telematics.   Hughes proposed a hybrid satellite-cellular telematics system nearly five years ago that not-coincidentally included a DVB-SH component originally to be provided by Ico Global Communications. These plans were interrupted, at least in part, by Ico’s filing for bankruptcy. (Sound familiar?)   Nevertheless, the Hughes vision called for a consumer-targeted telematics system integrating emergency response, roadside assistance and concierge services along with entertainment content delivery. In fact, Ico was making its own plans to introduce aftermarket and portable devices for audio and video content. Ico has two DVB-SH competitors in the U.S., TerreStar and SkyTerra, both of whom will eventually be in position to offer the same telematics and infotainment solutions envisioned by Ico. Like Ico, TerreStar has a satellite deployed and in its final phase of testing. The large TerreStar satellite - which allows for smaller footprint device antennas - is capable of spot-beam coverage of the U.S. for two-way voice and data. The TerreStar satellite is suitable to eCall and commercial applications or for rural areas that lose terrestrial cellular networks during natural disasters. Sirius XM's satellite network has also been put to use for telematics applications including traffic and weather. Sirius XM also recently acquired the assets of Worldspace, meaning the European satellite radio provider could some day participate in telematics opportunities. Worldspace competitor Ondas has deals in place with several European OEMs, but no satellites. It’s been a long road, but the reality has finally caught up with the vision. The so-called S-band DVB-SH spectrum allocation for Europe was awarded to Eutelsat and a joint venture partner SES Astra. (Ico was one of the other bidders and is still mounting a legal challenge to the award.)   DVB-SH offers the ability for bi-directional communications for low-bandwidth ITS applications – available by the end of 2010 – along with some limited two-way communications to be launched in 2011. But DVB-SH expects to realize the prospect of entertainment content delivery for embedded, aftermarket and portable devices. This capability is important given that several SISTER participants expect that telematics services will have to be bundled with entertainment content to be attractive to consumers.   The recommendation of at least one presenter at the SISTER workshop was that all vehicles operated by public authorities should be connected via satellite, that all commercial fleet vehicles should be similarly connected and that, ultimately, all consumer vehicles should be linked via satellite. Some combination of public and private funding will surely be necessary, but the anticipated benefits to road safety and traffic management have already been proven by SISTER’s experiments.