GM’s Chevy Volt is the best thing to happen to electric vehicles since the Prius hybrid. In fact, it would be even bigger than the Prius if more than 10,000 were being made next year. The car represents revolutionary technology. It makes electric vehicles palatable to the mass consumer – at least conceptually if not based on the $41,000 price tag. The electric vehicle business was in desperate need of a car like the Volt that could take the worry out of driving electric. By adding the internal combustion engine (ICE) to drive the electric motors when the vehicle’s on-board battery is exhausted the Volt offers an acceptable range for any kind of driving requirement.

The car also features cutting edge componentry with a low-weight, low-energy stereo system from Bose, an OnStar telematics system (with five years of free service) with an iPhone app, and a multiple-screen vehicle diagnostic experience. The car looks and feels and drives like the future. But the simplicity of the Volt concept belies the complexity of the electric vehicle business and therein lies some long-term concern for the viability of any alternative fuel vehicles. A big contributor to the complexity of the EV picture has been the Regulatory Authorities.

My kingdom for a PZEV

The regulatory authorities are well-meaning bureaucrats who are trying to stimulate demand with financial incentives for specific types of cars while providing guidance to the auto maker community regarding which kinds of vehicles will be acceptable to meet fleet emission standards. These efforts have produced an alphabet soup of vehicle categories and a maze of definitions that have been further confounded by the automotive press. From the regulatory authorities we were originally given (see Strategy Analytics reports referenced below for detailed definitions and history):

·        TLEV – Transitional Low Emission Vehicle

·        LEV – Low Emission Vehicle

·        ULEV – Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle

·        SULEV – Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicle

·        ZEV – Zero Emission Vehicle

These categories would be humorous in and of themselves but they have already been superseded by:

·        ILEV – Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle

·        PZEV – Partial Zero Emission Vehicle

·        AT-PZEV – Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle

·        NLEV – National Low Emission Vehicle

Again, it is tempting to chuckle, but these categories have very real and very specific definitions that can mean the difference between a $7,500 vehicle incentive and a combined $12,500 vehicle incentive. The Volt is a case in point. Because the car was introduced with an 8-year/100,000 warranty on the battery instead of a 10-year/150,000-mile warranty it did not qualify as an AT-PZEV according to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements and missed out on the additional $5,000 incentive in California for which the Nissan Leaf does qualify. (This was in spite of the fact that GM reportedly tested and validated the car for the 10-year warranty and expects to boost the warranty for the current Volt or on a new version of the car by 2012.)

EVs not EZ

To make matters worse, the automotive press and industry trade associations have their own roster of EV categories – presumably reflecting their assessment of consumer perceptions. The Electric Drive Trade Association lists the following categories:

·        HEV - Hybrid Electric Vehicles

·        BEV - Battery Electric Vehicles

·        EREV - Extended Range Electric Vehicles

·        Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles

·        Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles

The Volt is sui generis! It is the only EREV, according to the EDTA. This is something that bothers industry types. This would be a minor point if it were the end of the conversation regarding the definition and categorization of the Volt, but it is not. According to some sources the Volt operates as a “plug-in series hybrid” or as a “power-split or series-parallel hybrid” depending on speed or driving mode. By the way, in California, the Volt is considered a ULEV and not a SULEV based on emissions testing.

When is a Volt not a Volt?

Few cars in the history of the automotive industry have been subjected to as much scrutiny as the Chevy Volt – suggesting some strange American instinct toward eating its own young. The Chevy Volt is unquestionably the nastiest, most clever move the automotive industry has pulled in decades. It just seems to frustrate the heck out of regulators and journalists and analysts. GM pulled a fast one out of its hat – one just wishes the company had plans to pull more than 10,000 out of its hat this year. (One might argue that Subaru of America has been a good deal more clever than GM. The company has sold a combined total of hundreds of thousands of PZEV designated Foresters, Legacies and Outbacks that are “sometimes even cleaner than some hybrid or alternative fuel vehicles,” according to the company.)

“I’ll ask my manager.”

Which is where the Chevy dealers come into this story. Having recently attended a Chevy Volt launch event I visited my local Chevrolet dealer. There was a single Volt on the showroom floor, as promised by the Website. (There are four or five Chevy Volt dealers in the area. Not all Chevrolet dealers qualified to sell Volts.) The car in the showroom had a “Do not touch” sign on it with a message that the car was already sold. Of course, that meant that the car was also locked so that the dealer was not able to give test drives, could not demonstrate the clever on-board and OnStar systems, and could not allow a customer the experience of simply sitting in the car. A salesperson indicated that he did not know when they would get any more vehicles and he was not sure what other dealers in the area had any Volts. I returned home and entered my name on the dealer’s waiting list and was called almost immediately. The salesperson on the phone said four cars were due to be shipped in January and one, a white one, was not spoken for. To reserve this incoming Volt, the salesperson said, I would have to put $5,000 down. I asked about the widely reported $350 lease on the car – an attractive option considering the limited life of the battery. The salesperson said there was no lease available and then he suddenly added that to get the Volt that was coming in January I would have to pay $5,000 over MSRP. There is little that will kill enthusiasm for a new car faster than a dealer charging $5,000 over MSRP. It wasn’t bad enough that I could not drive the car, could not sit in it, could not see it do its sexy technology stuff right there in the showroom.

Whether you want a ULEV, an EREV or a serial-parallel hybrid, you will still need to be prepared to do battle with a dealer who will use your enthusiasm against you. Who knew changing the automotive industry would be so difficult. (For the record, GM and Chevrolet representatives say they have specifically asked dealers NOT to charge above MSRP for the cars and there definitely IS a $350 lease offer on the Volt.)

Further insights: http://bit.ly/gtyxic - EV/HEV Technologies Supply & Fitment Database - Kevin Mak - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/devMOq - Hybrid Technologies Legislation/Support - Kevin Mak - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/eC7kFy - Impact of Volt, Leaf Transcends Modest Sales Expectations - Roger C. Lanctot - Insight – Automotive Multimedia & Communications Service

Last week’s Los Angeles Auto Show highlighted the rising influence of Apple’s iPad and the contention for in-vehicle display space. While Apple’s iPod sounded the death knell of the automotive CD drive and the iPhone introduced the concept of the unlimited data plan and Internet radio to the car, the iPad is spreading the gospel of the tablet PC as thin client suitable to automotive head unit configuration, rearseat entertainment platform or all-purpose remote control. In a normally slow-moving industry the iPad’s influence has been immediate and unavoidable.

At the auto show in Los Angeles, Audi announced its iPad application......Please register or log-in to read the complete report

http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=navigationheader&a0=218

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

When IBM had the personal computer industry in a headlock, the company was able to freeze customers’ plans to purchase competing PCs by releasing fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in the marketplace. It achieved this goal by announcing its own plans for new products 6-12 months in advance. Sirius XM used its earnings call earlier this month for the same purpose, announcing plans for Satellite Radio 2.0 for Q4 2011. The difference, of course, is that Sirius XM does not control the market for broadcast radio content. In fact, the company is facing competitive pressures from both terrestrial and Internet-based sources. Further diminishing the Satellite Radio 2.0 gambit, is the declining portion of Sirius XM’s revenue and unit volume coming from retail, aftermarket devices. (According to estimates from the Consumer Electronics Association, satellite radio sales to dealers fell to $64M in 2009, with declines forecasted through 2013.) Sirius XM executives stated in the Q2 earnings call plans for the launch of the XM 5 satellite in October and the launch of Sirius 6 in Q4 2011. Also due to arrive in Q4 2011 is the newly touted Satellite Radio 2.0. Sirius XM execs said that SR 2.0 will offer consumers greater capacity and more functionality – both enhancements are intended to stimulate average revenue per user (ARPU). These same execs noted that no additional satellite launches will occur for several years, setting the stage for improved cashflow and profitability. In addition to the satellite and service launches late next year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) limitations on Sirius XM subscriptions will end in August 2011. All of these indicators are positive for Sirius XM except for the fact that competition has intensified. With the FCC limitations removed, Sirius XM will have a much broader scope of subscription options given the 150+ range of stations to choose from. SR 2.0 promises even more ARPU upside with added channel content and, as Sirius XM execs clearly indicated in their earnings call, a wider use of data for telematics and other applications. It is interesting to hear Sirius XM getting excited about telematics as a potential ARPU contributor, and it is an indication that the company is moving in the right direction and recognizes the shortcomings of the existing service. It is also, no doubt, a response to competitive pressures from HD Radio and Internet radio. The question is whether or not this awakening at Sirius XM is coming too late to matter. HD Radio technology is proliferating as more OEMs adopt the technology and more radio stations join the burgeoning ranks of participating broadcasters. HD Radio is appealing since it operates over the same FM frequencies, though requiring some additional hardware, and it is free. At the same time, more and more OEMs are lining up music service solutions such as Pandora along with Internet radio - via smartphone connectivity in the short-term and embedded solutions in the long run. The success of Pandora is a testament to that company’s ability to deliver a solution that is able to integrate seamlessly with automotive systems. Competitor Slacker’s content-caching music service is not less compelling, but OEMs have not found integration to be nearly as simple. Still, the tide that is lifting Pandora's boat will likely benefit other music services and Internet radio providers, such as ClearChannel's IHeartRadio. The timing and manner of Sirius XM's announcement of Satellite Radio 2.0 suggests that Sirius XM is attempting to prevent OEM defections to HD Radio, music service solutions or Internet radio. OEMs are in the process of making decisions today that will impact vehicle platforms four and five years hence. Sirius XM executives refused to explain exactly what SR 2.0 will be. But given the short launch window, it will no doubt arrive in the retail aftermarket first. The company is currently briefing OEMs regarding its confidential plans. Sirius XM has already lost momentum in the automotive market. Car makers (and aftermarket system makers) have shifted toward offering satellite radio as an option rather than as a standard feature. And both Sirius XM and its OEM customers are using subscription conversion data to determine which cars should and should not be offered with the service. This means that even though Sirius XM has been able to show subscriber gains in its past two quarters, rapid growth is a thing of the past and pales by comparison to the subscriber numbers of a Pandora or Slacker. On the earnings call Sirius XM execs said that availability of satellite radio technology in cars was at approximately 60% of car models with a paid subscription conversion rate of 47%. The company currently claims more than 19.5M subscribers and anticipates somewhat more than 20M by the end of the year. OEMs say that if it weren’t for their multi-year agreements with Sirius XM they might have walked away from the relationship a long time ago. (Several OEMs are also shareholders in Sirius XM.) This sour sentiment does not bode well for Sirius XM moving away from the subsidy model it maintains in the automotive market. This subsidy model also means that the cost of acquiring new subscribers – given the decline of retail satellite radio sales – will continue to rise as the balance between retail and OEM sales continues to shift toward subsidized OEM subs. Further clouding the otherwise rosy long-term outlook for Sirius XM is the mandated switchover to XM. OEMs currently offering Sirius satellite radio service have been told they will have to switch to XM by 2016. The honeymoon for Sirius XM is clearly over. The question now is whether SR 2.0 can save the store. Satellite Radio 2.0 There are three areas where SR 2.0 could help Sirius XM hold onto its existing subscribers while attracting new subscribers. Here are Strategy Analytics’ thoughts on what SR 2.0 will look like: Audio – Sirius XM faces its biggest audio challenge from Internet radio and music services generally and Pandora in particular. All of these services are paid and Internet radio has suffered a blow from the onset of tiered data plans limiting the use of such services. Nevertheless, OEMs have embraced Internet radio because of the powerful consumer demand and awareness – several times the user base of satellite radio and widely and easily accessed on multiple platforms without any additional hardware. The only solution Sirius XM can offer is more or better-targeted audio channels. Ironically, the more channels Sirius XM adds the more difficult it is to use. Expect Sirius XM to update its content search and save capabilities to better replicate an Internet radio experience. Sirius XM can also be expected to enhance its iPhone and iPod integration with song-tagging not unlike HD Radio’s capabilities. Expect Sirius XM to add additional capabilities, along the lines of what iBiquity Digital has been showing in HD Radio demos for the past 2-3 years. Enhancements are likely to include more artist, track, album information; album art; song duration; maybe even reviews or other metadata from suppliers such as Gracenote or Rovi. Traffic – For some reason Sirius’ traffic data services are not comparable to offerings from direct competitors such as ClearChannel’s RDS-TMC. Side-by-side comparisons conducted by this analyst of both XM NavTraffic and the Sirius traffic service have found them to be lacking in comparison to both PND and embedded solutions. The only good news for Sirius is that RDS-TMC is only offered standard by half a dozen car makers. Still, with the proliferation of HD Radio technology, Sirius will soon be up against TPEG traffic data content, putting it further behind the eight ball. Sirius must bring its traffic data services up to a competitive grade. Strangely, the company does not even use the same flow and incident sourcing between its data (Traffic.com) and broadcast traffic services (Westwood One). Expect Sirius XM to do something about the shortcomings in its traffic reporting. OEMs are definitely making comparisons between HD Radio and satellite radio traffic services and making critical long-term decisions. Expect major traffic data improvements in SR 2.0 including the implementation of a standard traffic database system – such as Gewi’s TIC 3 – and/or TPEG traffic information services. Only time will tell if the changes will be enough or will occur soon enough to preserve strong OEM relationships. Even more ominous for Sirius XM is the fact that more and more OEMs are building the cost of traffic into the cost of their vehicles. The $3.99/month traffic subscription for Sirius XM traffic data will not survive this process of commoditization - especially if the data quality is not competitive. Data – Sirius XM’s Travel Link service, offered by Ford, is an impressive voice-driven offering of content such as gas pricing, ski conditions, news, weather, and sports. Expect Sirius XM to bring this offering up to speed with a greater variety of content delivered with improved graphics. The competition here comes mainly in the form of smartphone solutions, so the challenge to compete is steep. Can Sirius XM breathe life into its retail aftermarket position with SR 2.0? Can the company preserve its standing with OEMs, which are more concerned with reducing costs and complexity? For now, Sirius XM is on a path to continue to build its subscriber base, enhance its service and reduce its operating expenses. But the future of the company hinges on whether car makers will continue to tune in beyond 2016. Further insight: http://tinyurl.com/2bz9zq6 - Google, Nokia and New Entrant Positioning in Automotive Infotainment - Lanctot – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service 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

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

The cardiac kids at Sirius XM are at it again. After surviving years of multi-million dollar losses, a high-wire, company-saving merger with XM, and the downturn in auto sales, the company reported a strong first quarter in May. With auto sales recovering at the beginning of the year, Sirius was able to report revenue and subscriber increases and later revised its estimate of subscriber additions for the year to approximately 750,000. But now the ultimate test, the switch to XM, is on. The subscriber increase, which pushed the total close to 19M, reflected a net gain of 171,441 vs. a decline of 404,422 in the year-ago period. The numbers looked good, but they obscured the challenges arising from an increasingly competitive radio-listening landscape, the increasing inclination of car makers to make satellite radio an option rather than standard equipment and the impending termination of the Sirius half of the combined Sirius XM satellite network. All of these negatives were either swept from the table by the positive earnings report or were not mentioned at all on the earnings conference call. (In the interest of full disclosure allow me to acknowledge that I am a subscriber to both XM and Sirius services and enjoy the content, as do the members of my family. Each member of my family has his or her favorite stations and it is nice to know that those stations are available anywhere in the U.S.) Strategy Analytics consumer surveys in the U.S. show satellite radio lagging well behind traditional AM/FM as a must have in the car. While AM/FM is described as a must have by 88% of respondents, satellite radio is regarded as a must have by only 14%. Internet radio lags even further behind at 5% - but that is changing. Interestingly, U.K. survey respondents show a higher level of interest in digital radio (DAB or DMB), with 22% describing it as a must have in the car. The lack of enthusiasm for satellite radio reflected in the survey results is just one of several negative indicators. Another such indicator is the fact that the aftermarket for satellite radio products is almost non-existent. Just as car makers have been inclined to make satellite radio optional, makers of aftermarket head units have also tended to introduce systems that are “satellite ready” vs. offering one or the other system built in. And the market for portable devices enabled for satellite radio has been limited thus far. Sirius XM is line extending into the iPhone app marketplace, but here, again, the company will run up against music services and Internet radio. The music services leverage more liberal licensing models for storing and managing music and Internet radio will benefit from the increasing proliferation of programming guides such as Stitcher or RadioTime to access interesting and relevant local content including podcasts. Of course, these services also benefit greatly from having a two-way link. Millions of consumers are turning to music services and Internet radio. Car and handset makers are developing ways to integrate these music services (ie. Slacker, Pandora) and Internet radio (ie. IHeartRadio) into their platforms – while carriers are scrambling to introduce tiered data programs to shield themselves from the burgeoning traffic. While satellite radio is increasingly optional either from the factory or in the aftermarket, HD Radio is increasingly standard equipment on cars. But the real killer for Sirius is unfolding in recent meetings with OEMs. Sirius has told its clients, which include BMW, Mercedes, Chrysler, Ford, Kia, Land Rover, Jaguar and many others, that they must switch to XM by 2016. For the car makers that helped make Sirius XM what it is today, there are no special subsidies, no silver bullet hardware fix or retrofit. There is simply a notification that they must switch from Sirius to XM by 2016. The bottom line, of course, is that the two satellite systems – one based on a satellite in geosynchronous orbit and one on satellites in geostationary orbits and using similar frequencies – require different receivers and antennas. In spite of a legal requirement in the merger agreement that the companies find a solution for interoperability, nothing beyond a combination of the two incompatible receivers and antennas was ever introduced in the market. The quiet announcement of the switch to XM, though long anticipated, is surprising for a number of reasons: 1. The companies must have known this day would come when they originally merged, yet it was never acknowledged until recently that one of the satellite networks would have to be sacrificed. 2. Given the fact that subscriber growth has reached a plateau it is clear that Sirius XM can ill afford to lose half its subscribers. And winning new subscribers in the current competitive environment will be a challenge especially as auto sales – the source of the majority of new subscribers – continue to move sideways, failing to provide the engine satellite radio so desperately needs. 3. Car makers – including several premium marks - are incensed that Sirius is making this unilateral change with little or nothing in the way of guidelines or even a public information campaign strategy. Sirius has made no public statement yet and company representatives have failed to respond to repeated requests for comment. 4. There is also some irony in the fact that Sirius spent many years denegrating XM's solution but in the end has chosen to consolidate on the XM platform. Long term, the good news is that the company selected to preserve XM, the more robust of the two solutions. XM was first to market with data solutions for weather (XM Weather in August 2003), traffic (XM NavTraffic on 2005 Acura RL and XM NavWeather on the Acura TL. Sirius made up some ground with the launch of Travel Link by Ford, but XM’s platform, including its terrestrial repeater network, is better suited to providing a wider range of content and services to drivers. If Sirius can keep car makers on board with a vision of low-cost, nationwide content delivery – and the higher ARPU implied therein – it may emerge profitably and competitively vis-à-vis smartphone and digital radio-based solutions. But the company is changing gears just as these new solutions are gaining momentum and at a time when car makers have little patience for another high-wire act. Further Insight: CES 2010: The Arrival of Converged Automotive Multimedia Products - John Canali -  http://bit.ly/9gq4yo Automotive Bluetooth: Profile Strategy Key to Infotainment Success - Mark Fitzgerald - http://bit.ly/9qEXbU Internet Radio: Ready for Prime Time - Mark Fitzgerald - http://bit.ly/ZBXzd Internet Radio to Vie with Music Services for Automotive Dominance - Lanctot - blog - http://bit.ly/9xm6qR WorldDMB Car Manufacturers Workshop - Munich - July 7 - Arrange meeting with Strategy Analytics - http://bit.ly/aUcqgm

Stolen vehicle recovery (SVR) suppliers are integrating smartphone and Internet access with remote vehicle control and tracking applications rapidly changing the value proposition for dealers and consumers. The resulting solutions are finding increasing traction as both dealer and port installs and raising the interest of OEMs in offering own-branded SVR solutions.

 

Leading the way in this ongoing integration effort is Guidepoint Systems which has been putting pressure on market leader LoJack. Guidepoint now offers a smartphone integration with remote vehicle control functionality and an Internet portal for determining vehicle location and status – functions which are also supported by the company’s call center.

 

Any confusion as to whether Guidepoint has LoJack in its cross hairs should be removed by the pricing and positioning of Guidepoint’s dealer offer. While LoJack is normally offered at $695 for the basic theft prevention package with a $395 bump for its early warning solution and another $295 for its $5K warranty proposition; Guidepoint has a $795 basic stolen vehicle recovery package with a $395 early theft alert and an additional $5K theft protection plan for $99.

 

Guidepoint’s focus is the automobile dealer channel, but the company has begun closing some direct relationships with OEMs. Competitor Cimble, which showed its products at the Telematics Update event last week, is also pursuing OEM relationships for dealer and port installs.

 

Cimble claims to have port and dealer install programs in the works with Honda, BMW, Subaru and Toyota (for two regions). Mopar is thought to have a similar product offering in the works from an unnamed supplier, due later this year. And Ford offers SmartAlert from Skyway Systems (acquired several years ago by Innelec) as an official licensed Ford product.

 

The importance of these developments is that it shows OEMs seeking to take more control of a valuable piece of dealer aftermarket business. Stolen vehicle recovery has long been the captive realm of LoJack and its RF solution – to the consternation of OEM accessory managers.

 

The arrival of telematics systems with their own stolen vehicle recovery capabilities at OnStar, BMW, Mercedes-Benz and, most recently, Toyota Motor Sales in the U.S., have had only a modest impact on LoJack’s dealer business. OnStar probably had the greatest influence with its vehicle slowdown enhancement. But the new branded accessory solutions, integrating both GPS and cellular technology, may be beginning to get LoJack’s attention.

 

LoJack still has the advantage of being built around stealthy RF technology, which is better able to penetrate a wider range of barriers, and is supported by the installation of tracking equipment by cooperative police forces in 28 states – most recently joined by Utah. But LoJack has been reporting consecutive quarters with losses, including $5.6M in its first quarter reported last month.

 

LoJack’s weaknesses include its inability to offer universal geographic coverage and the lack of a relationship with OEMs. Since OEMs have not been given a “cut” of LoJack’s business, the company has long been seen as an interloper.

 

Perhaps a greater shortcoming of LoJack is its business model. LoJack is a set it and forget it solution. After the initial upfront payment and installation there is no further interaction with the customer. This lack of interaction means there is a limited upsell opportunity.

 

Worse even than this business model, though, is the fact that most LoJack systems are sold as a basic package which requires the customer to report the stolen vehicle to LoJack. (LoJack does offer a step-up keyfob-based service which provides an early warning to the customer if the vehicle is moved without the keyfob.)

 

In contrast, GPS-based products not only provide vehicle locator functionality they also allow, in the case of Guidepoint, for a pro-active call to the customer if the vehicle is moved, violates a geo-fence or if the wireless connection to the vehicle is lost. Guidepoint can then notify the police and the vehicle can be located by Guidepoint.

 

The added functionality afforded by GPS technology means the new OEM-branded offerings allow more flexible pricing and marketing models. Guidepoint is perhaps the most unusual market player in maintaining its own call centers and offering services ranging from roadside assistance and concierge support to the ability to disable a vehicle if it is stolen.

 

Interestingly, Guidepoint also offers a member rewards program and has a relationship with Liberty Mutual and is also active in the buy-here pay-here market for customers with compromised credit. Guidepoint also has a cooperation in aftermarket navigation systems with Rosen Entertainment integrating Guidepoint SVR and concierge functionality via an on-screen button.

 

 Guidepoint privately refers to its offering as “OnStar on steroids,” but the company does not offer automatic crash notification functionality because of liability concerns. The key to the Guidepoint business model is the initial call the customer makes to Guidepoint upon activating the service. Guidepoint call center responders are trained to introduce new customers to the complete range of available service enhancements.

 

The power of the integration of smartphone and Internet interfaces has not been lost on companies in the 12V aftermarket channel, such as CompuStar and Auto Page. Later this year, CompuStar (by Firstech) will introduce an iPhone app which works with the company’s DroneMobile iPhone app/module for remote starting, tracking and security.

 

According to a report in CEOutlook (http://ceoutlook.com) the CompuStar solution works with remote starters from multiple companies and allows users to lock and unlock the car, release the trunk, remote start the vehicle, control sliding doors and heated seats, track the car and control the security system from their phone.

Users can also view the car’s battery voltage, temperature and alarm status and can set geo-fenced areas. CEOutlook says the DroneMobile DR-1000 will be available in two packages: $549.99 suggested list including basic installation or a $349 package available without the remote starter. Users get one year of basic service. GPS tracking requires a premium service plan. Auto Page is another company that has taken the iPhone plunge.

 

As for LoJack, the company reported in Q1 that “penetration rates are consistent with those of the fourth quarter of 2009, demonstrating that our business has not been negatively impacted by any competing technology.” LoJack says its U.S. unit volumes increased each month of the first quarter with March delivering a double-digit increase. .

 

In the words of one LoJack executive on the company’s earnings call: “As the U.S. auto market recovers, we expect that our installations will increase in a manner that is consistent with the broader domestic auto market trends. We are cautiously optimistic about the broader U.S. auto market based on recent projections that indicate new vehicle sales may exceed prior expectations of 11 to 11.5 million units.”

 

LoJack clearly anticipates healthy business as usual, but even in an environment where theft rates are on the rise, the company may be challenged by the growing influx of GPS/cellular-based solutions - especially as car makers seek to take back the SVR business. The added enhancement of smartphone integration and remote functionality may ultimately force the company to reconsider its RF-only proposition.

Further Insight: http://bit.ly/aIm4vK - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight

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

Cypress Semiconductor’s announcement of the availability of automotive qualified TrueTouch capacitive touchscreens and LIN capable CapSense touch-sensing controllers promises a sea change in automotive console designs. While designers and engineers around the world continue to debate the relative merits of touch screens vs. voice, steering wheel and other interfaces, the advance of touch screen technology is rapidly settling the issue in favor of touch.Strategy Analytics analysis of the automotive and mobile device markets shows a steady shift in favor of touchscreens in multiple geographies. The reason for the movement is obvious given Strategy Analytics consumer research showing clear user acceptance and preference for touch screen technology. The industry is responding, however slowly. Another rationale for touch screen implementation is the greater flexibility for accessing applications and allowing a wider range of features and functions within those applications. The importance of the Cypress announcement needs to be considered in view of recent console designs and demonstrations as well as longer term industry trends. The BMW i-Drive, Audi MMI and other controller-type interfaces take advantage of the natural positioning of the right arm and hand on the center console. These configurations are designed to allow the primary LCD display be located as high in the dashboard as possible – far from the driver and NOT touch enabled. Of course, these interfaces allow for a broad simplification of the dashboard HMI configuration – with many fewer buttons and switches. The trouble is that controller-style interfaces still require too much checking of the screen to make selections or to move through multi-level menus. While the positioning of the screen is intended to reduce the change in focal length for the driver, it is not mitigating the inherent distraction. Tesla Motors, for one, is moving the touch screen closer to the driver and increasing its size to 14 inches and using a portrait configuration. Johnson Controls and Delphi have taken similar approaches in demonstration systems. But Delphi went one step further at the recent SAE event by positioning the display more or less in the console beneath where the driver’s arm will rest. By positioning a touch screen display in the console, the system removes the need for the controller interface completely. Some car makers are even combining a touchpad device – as in the case of Audi’s recent introduction able to recognize drawn characters – with a second display in the dash thereby providing some redundancy and/or a means of previewing inputs before they are selected. Delphi takes the concept a step further still by having a completely different HMI for when the vehicle is at rest vs. when it is in motion. In other words, different functions are available in the two different modes. (Smartphone applications, for example, are accessible when the vehicle is at rest.) As more consumers become increasingly familiar and comfortable with touch screens – rapidly proliferating in the mobile device segment thanks to the iPhone and Android-based devices – auto makers are finding greater acceptance for these interfaces in cars. Console-mounted touch screens will also enable easier access to a wider range of vehicle functions as well as location aware applications. With a touch-enabled display in the console, the driver will no longer have to reach out for the center stack. All applications and content will be right at the finger tips – again, with a second display mounted in the dash as a reference prior to making selections. Cypress may be the first, but will not likely be the last to bring capacitive touch technology to the automotive market. The advantages of wider design options, reduced distraction, enhanced functionality and potential cost savings mean that – well, resistance is futile. Cypress says the TrueTouch controllers are the industry’s first automotive-qualified capacitive touchscreen solution. The CY8C2x345 CapSense controllers pair analog resources with automotive industry standard LIN communication support, making the devices the ideal system controllers to interface with analog and capacitive touch-sensor inputs, and to control backlight LEDs and haptic actuators while communicating over the LIN bus. Cypress also announced that Grace Semiconductor in Shanghai, China has been qualified to fabricate automotive-grade CY8C2x345 CapSense controllers that adhere to the AEC-Q100 standard, ISO/TS 16949 quality management standard and Cypress’s Zero Defect manufacturing system. Cypress says its solutions are available in single-touch, multi-touch gesture and multi-touch all-point offerings and provide the ability to track multiple fingers simultaneously. The TrueTouch solutions are able to control screen sizes up to nine inches. They are designed for use in control panels, GPS and infotainment displays. Cypress says CapSense proximity sensing offers a detection range up to 25 cm, saving power by activating an interface only when needed. The devices are ideal for interior automotive applications such as audio, navigation, AC control and lighting control, as well as exterior applications such as trunk release and passive keyless-entry buttons, according to the company. The newly qualified CY8CTMG120 multi-touch gesture and CY8CTMA120 multi-touch all-point controllers are available for sampling in 56-pin QFN packages. The newly qualified CapSense products include the LIN-capable CY8C2x345 devices, available for sampling in A grade (-40C to 85C) in 28-pin SSOP packages with the 48-pin SSOP packages planned in Q3 2010. All products are expected to be in full production in Q3 2010. http://bit.ly/c1Qhxz - Benchmarking the Premium In-Vehicle Experience - Chris Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/cRLVkz - Automotive HMI: Voice Technology and Touch Screens Have Significant Lead - John Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/a9aEgu - Chinese OEMs: Rapid Advance In Quality Bodes Well For Automotive Electronics - Kevin Mak - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/ceBUCY - Vehicle Entertainment and Navigation User Evaluation: 2010 Lexus LS460 - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights

Telmap has flipped the switch on its direct to consumer smartphone navigation strategy shifting entirely to the white label approach the company has pursued for many years with operators. The company expects the new positioning to give it a competitive edge vis a vis Nokia and Google and vault it into a global leadership position.

 

Prospects were looking bleak for Telmap when industry heavyweights Google and Nokia began offering free navigation applications for smartphones. Google made the application available as a download for iPhones and, more recently, Android-based phones, while Nokia recently began including navigation on its handsets.

 

The Telmap strategy overturns both of these approaches by working through wireless operators, a strategy pursued by both TeleNav and Networks in Motion (now part of TeleCommunications Systems) in the U.S. But Telmap is taking the approach on the road with partners throughout Europe, Asia and Latin America.

 

Telmap is taking a three pronged approach providing:

 

1)      An off-board application with local search and navigation that can function with all operating systems;

2)      A location platform with APIs to facilitate the distribution of any and all location applictions;

3)      A Web-based application that allows for desktop management of location applications and synchronization with the phone.

 

The initial launch of the new positioning will manifest in O2 Germany delivering 30 handsets by the end of May all equipped with the Telmap technology. In fact, Telmap says it is already seeing 500-1000 new activations per day based on the new approach.

 

The white label is ideally suited to the shift, in Europe, to a bundled model for applications and services. Navigation is increasingly being provided at no charge, so the model has shifted to enabling different billing and payment methods for selling enhanced content and applications.

 

The white label strategy gives Telmap a strategic edge because it allows the operators to introduce a cross-platform solution that can be advertised and promoted across their entire handset line-up regardless of handset supplier or operating system. Telmap hopes operator support will help juice its subscriber base, which currently stands at approximately 1M in Europe and 1.5M globally.

 

And operators are keenly interested in exploiting the location opportunity because, thus far, the margins have been quite high, according to Telmap executives. To keep that revenue flowing, Telmap is enabling integration with ultra local content and services such as Coyote safety camera apps in France and road charging services in the U.K.

 

Additionally, the free Telmap application allows for premium upsells and a variety of booking and payment methods along with advertising. And by using the same platform across the entire line, operators retain control and customers can communicate and network with one another.

 

The gamble for Telmap is that the operator-centric approach will trump the Nokia handset-side approach and the Google app-store strategy. The concept of leveraging operator advertising and promotional support is a powerful one. Google tried to take its Nexus One handset directly to the market only to knuckle under to operators in the past week.

 

The strength of the strategy is reflected in the tight relationships between Networks in Motion/Verizon and TeleNav and AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint in the U.S. These partners are working on additional enhancements to the navigation and location platform which is producing millions of subscribers and hundreds of millions in revenue.

 

From a branding standpoint, location applications will come to define and differentiate the operators and a cross-platform solution makes it much easier to leverage and control. The attraction of the Telmap approach is already apparent as the company touts among its operator supporters: Vodafone, O2 Telefonica, Orange Group, Singtel Group, IUSACell, Pelephone, Cellcom, Mobilcom, and Boost Mobile, among others.

 

Of course, tiny Telmap is taking on industry giants in Nokia and Google and regardless of the strength of its strategy lacks the brand awareness and marketing clout of either of these companies. But the shift away from a consumer direct strategy to white label is probably the last best chance for Telmap to move into the front rank of LBS market leaders. And the company is investing heavily in ultra-local tie ins across the many countries around the world where it competes.

 

Wild cards remain in the battle for dominance of the location aware marketplace. One such wild card is the creation of superior traffic information from probe data. Google’s initial efforts to convert Droid phone user data is beginning to get attention and RIM (following its QNX acquisition) is likely to be the next company to bring a probe-enhanced traffic service to the market. Nokia (Navteq) and Apple will likely be next leaving Telmap to ponder whether it can convert its operator relationships into a superior traffic solution of its own.

 

With the smartphone navigation market ruled as it is by a confluence of advancing technology and consumer preferences, only two things are certain: change and Telmap’s determination not to raise the white flag.

 

Further Insight:

 

http://bit.ly/cMw4f1 - Solid Q4 for PNDs, but 'Free' Navigation is Shaking Up Monetisation - John Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communication Service

 

http://bit.ly/bMeg36 - Global Mobile Handset Navigation Forecast 2004-2014 - Nitesh Patel – Navigation and Location Opportunities

 

http://bit.ly/8Yo4U6 - Nokia & Google Shake Up $3.8 B Handset Navigation Market - Nitesh Patel – Navigation and Location Opportunities