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

Microsoft intends to clear the air at Convergence in Detroit this week with the launch of Windows Embedded Automotive 7.0, the merged automotive operating system that takes the place of MS Auto and Windows Automotive – in all their versions. An earlier version of the OS, Windows Embedded Automotive, will be featured in the information hub in Nissan’s Leaf electric vehicle, according to Microsoft, and will be joined in the spotlight by Silverlight for Windows Embedded, Microsoft’s alternative to Flash. Also highlighted at Convergence by Microsoft will be Fiat’s plans to bring the Fiat 500 to the U.S. along with its Blue&Me 2.0 (not it's official name) interface with support for the iPod. Ford and Kia will likely be making announcements related to their Microsoft implementations and Microsoft noted its participation in 12 different device platforms over the next 12 months from a number of different car makers reflecting the company’s continuing commitment to the automotive business. The announcements and enhanced presence at Convergence concludes multiple reorganizations at Microsoft which saw the departures of senior executives on the automotive team and a consolidation of all embedded activities under a Server and Tools group. Existing OEM and Tier One partners with Microsoft solutions include Ford, Fiat, Chrysler, Kia, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Alpine, Mitsubishi, and Clarion. Microsoft will use Convergence to demonstrate various Silverlight development tools for handling prototyping and to accelerate testing within the development and approval process while allowing OEMs to create executable specifications for suppliers. Tools will also be shown for a thread priority-based tuning system that allows for handling and logging errors during development. Microsoft will also highlight advances in its Tellme embedded speech product, currently being deployed by Kia in the Uvo. The new recognizer can handle eight languages with speaker independence while providing for the tuning of recognition for individual users. Also new for the embedded Tellme is an SMS reply function capable of performing fuzzy logic matches to a set of predetermined responses. Separate from the Convergence activities, Microsoft is pursuing automotive opportunities for its Bing search engine as well as for Tellme as a server-based voice recognizer. Both the Ford and Fiat Microsoft solutions provide for application downloads and updates, though Microsoft has not created its own automotive app store model. The Nissan Leaf information hub is the most significant of the announcements at Convergence. The hub will handle navigation, charging, radio and HVAC functionality in the car. The hub implementation suggests the potential for a wider Microsoft engagement with both Nissan and Clarion. As Nissan moves closer to realizing its connected vehicle vision outside of Japan, the company can be expected to move beyond its current reliance on VxWorks. Conclusion: Microsoft remains a credible alternative to QNX and the various versions of Linux distributions in the automotive industry. The MeeGo operating system created from the merged elements of Nokia’s Maemo and Intel’s Moblin platforms and adopted by the Genivi Alliance is not expected to be available in even a beta version until April 2011. Some Genivi members say an automotive version of the OS may be out before the end of the year. Google and its Android operating system continue to flirt with the automotive industry – playing hard to get. Google is interested in the automotive industry for the emerging search-related opportunities and for the potential to sell traffic and cloud-based location-aware applications, but the company still refuses to certify or support Android for embedded use. In spite of Android’s orphaned status in automotive, Continental and Parrot continue to carry the flag, secure in the knowledge that Android can still claim the largest and fastest growing developer community – key to unlocking app store opportunities. Microsoft’s step by step, implementation by implementation, customer-focused approach has left some customers and potential customers scratching their heads about the company’s long-term commitment to automotive. The headquarters reorganizations continue to raise questions, and yet Microsoft forges on, enhancing and refining its solutions and adding to its portfolio. Just the past year has seen Silverlight and Bing added to the mix along with Tellme. After years of wavering it appears that Microsoft has finally taken its vows and accepted its automotive market responsibilities. By now, the company has learned that the automotive contest is not always won by the swiftest, but by the supplier with the most staying power – and it looks like MS is in for the long haul. 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

Europe is one of the most competitive markets for traffic data and TomTom claims pan-European market leadership by virtue of its HD Traffic solution. The power of HD Traffic lies in its use of cell signaling data to identify traffic jams and notify drivers who may need to be rerouted or who may want to change their driving plans completely. This analyst is a big fan of HD Traffic, having used it in recent European travels, but the company makes a claim in its latest press announcements that raise questions about HD Traffic even as they call attention to the power of the solution. Taken along with TomTom’s Traffic Manifesto (http://bit.ly/9IHHDj) one wonders if the company is more interested in bravado than actually advancing the art and science of properly interpreting traffic data. It is no small feat for TomTom to be such a standout player in the European market. There are multiple market players in Europe with GPS probe-based solutions, cell signaling solutions and all manner of offerings based on public, private, historic and real-time data “algorithmed” into elegant predictive models. And new predictive models and routing schemes seem to emerge on a regular basis. But TomTom was first on the continent with a multi-country cell signaling solution – HD Traffic – and the company has had it in devices and in use for more than two years with admirable results. Competitors, most notably iTIS Holdings in the cell signaling space, and Nokia Navteq and Inrix with probe-based solutions, are threatening, but the TomTom HD Traffic solution, thus far, remains dominant. All three competitors also integrate other real-time and historical traffic data. At the Paris Auto Show two weeks ago, TomTom announced the release of its next generation traffic data system across Europe. Called HD Traffic 4.0, TomTom says it is the first pan-European solution to use historic, real-time and predictive traffic data to deliver the most accurate traffic navigation available. While there are other traffic providers in Europe that use cell signaling data and similar data sources and types as TomTom, the company remains the only one with its scope of market coverage and with a commercially available retail product. The company says HD Traffic 4.0 covers more of the road network and reports traffic jams with more accuracy, giving drivers the most precise traffic information in Europe. The company says existing HD Traffic customers “will experience the benefits immediately, without the need for any software upgrade.” But at this point in the TomTom press release, the company introduces a bit of murk that both shines a light on its technology and raises questions. TomTom says its real-time and predictive traffic technology “now detects traffic jams that other services are unable to:”“HD Traffic 4.0 reports traffic jams with higher accuracy, reporting up to 200% more traffic jams during rush hours than previously, in particular on urban roads.” –TomTom press release. This claim raises a host of questions about the relative merits of cell signaling data and the very definition of a traffic jam or the quality and accuracy of congestion detection. The critical determining evaluative criterion both academically (see BMW’s Qkz traffic quality standard methodology) and intuitively is: Does this traffic solution detect what I am or what I, as a driver, may experience/perceive/consider to be “congestion?” Cell signaling data, based on triangulation of handset signal strength, is some of the most powerful available traffic data for reasons related to the ubiquity of handsets and the universality of cell signaling. Anyone with a mobile handset that is within range of a cell tower is automatically transmitting location data, which can be interpolated from the cell signals. While advocates of probe data are quick to point out the low level of accuracy of this signal interpolation – perhaps as poor as 100-200 meters – suppliers continue to refine their models and algorithms. The proof is in the pudding. AirSage in the U.S., TrafficCast in China, IntelliOne in Toronto, Cellint in Israel and TomTom and iTIS Holdings in Europe have all produced usable and commercially available traffic flow solutions based on cell signaling. (In fact, the data is not just used in traffic solutions for drivers it is also used in urban planning and in the selection of locations for billboards, stores and cell towers, among numerous other applications.) In contrast, handset GPS probe data not only requires the presence of a GPS module in the handset, but also requires the user to turn the GPS receiver on. The rapid battery consumption of GPS modules guarantees that GPS based solutions, though more accurate, will necessarily be based on a smaller data set.In this context the TomTom claim breaks down two ways. Either TomTom is claiming that it is capable of detecting 3X more (+200%) traffic/congestion incidents than competing solutions on THE SAME roads, or it is claiming to detect 3X more traffic/congestion incidents because its roadway coverage is broader. Further, it appears that the claim is associated with HD Traffic 4.0, which is most likely an enhancement of the existing data interpretation algorithm. Since TomTom appears to be mainly concerned with detecting jams on major roadways, the claim is clearly associated with detecting 3X as many jams on those roads as the competition. The fundamental problem with this claim is that it exposes the single weakest aspect of cell signaling data: FALSE POSITIVES. Because of the combination of the huge volume and low accuracy of cell signaling data, the technology has always been prone to generating false positives. False positives are indications of traffic jams that, in fact, do not exist and are actually misinterpretations of the cell signaling – ie. parked cars mistaken for a jam. In this analysts’ experience, TomTom devices identify multiple jams on the roadway ahead (something not all technologies or devices are able to do) which, more often than not, disappear before the driver arrives at the identified location. In other words, it is not clear whether the multiple congestion points being reported ever really existed. Other detection technologies are equally vulnerable to false positives, but it is the volume of data and the number of false positives that uniquely distinguishes cell signaling-based solutions. To look at the TomTom claim with an even more cynical eye, it is possible to suggest that TomTom simply changed its definition of an accident in order to claim a threefold increase in reported jams. BMW’s Qkz traffic quality standard uses 50Km/h as a measure of congestion detection accuracy. If the standard were raised to 60Km/h, the number of detected points of congestion would increase in a corresponding fashion. TomTom wants to get drivers to their destinations faster by helping them avoid jams. The company claims a 15% improvement in travel time based on its technology. It is time for TomTom to close the gap in logic and explain more precisely and honestly how it is achieving travel time improvements, if it is in fact doing so. By now, most drivers know from painful experience that traffic, like a balloon, is a zero sum game – squeeze it on one side and it simply bulges out the other. It would be good to know whether TomTom’s claims are something more than hot air. Additional insights: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 http://bit.ly/deumcd -# Traffic Data Quality Will Determine #Telematics Winners - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics

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

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 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

Attendees at Ford’s recent launch of the 2011 Explorer at the Newseum in Washington, DC asked company executives if they were worried about the potentially distracting aspects of the MyFord Touch voice-based interface available on the new SUV. The answer from Ford was that MyFord Touch specifically enables hands-free use of vehicle systems allowing the driver to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. This is the message that not all industry participants are grasping. The smartphone is rapidly becoming a platform for delivering safety systems into vehicles and yet leading governmental and non-governmental bodies continue to declare their opposition to the use of mobile devices in cars. The National Safety Council, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) and the American Automobile Association have all declared their opposition to mobile phone use in cars. Public authorities should speed, not impede, the path of technological progress. If smartphones can deliver safety to drivers faster than embedded systems or DSRC-based systems requiring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, so be it. And new applications from companies such as ImaginYze and Global Mobile Alert, among many others, are making advanced safety technology available via smartphone apps. Fortunately, none of this opposition to mobile phone use in cars has produced national or even local legislation banning mobile phone use altogether. Most laws only go so far as to either ban texting and driving or to require hands-free devices. In some states, teen drivers are forbidden to use mobile phones while driving. Nevertheless, the campaigns continue, including Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone. Germany probably has the best solution in allowing mobile phone use in a car but forbidding the touching of the phone while driving. This seems like an effective and appropriate solution especially since it allows the driver to continue to benefit from the growing range of applications that provide for enhanced safety. Throughout the world the race is on to bring advanced safety systems to cars. The European Union most recently detailed their plans to mandate safety technologies. One can only hope the EU will not proceed to define which technology is used, as in the case of eCall. If there is anything that has slowed down the advance of connected safety systems in European cars it has been the pursuit of a mandated technology on top of the application mandate. Meddling governments – operating with the best of intentions – have repeatedly intruded on new technology development and instead of stimulating innovation and competition have quashed both. In the case of eCall, the in-band modem technology selected by the EU arrives as an already outdated solution that continues to be resisted at the Federal, OEM and public service access point levels. (In contrast, the U.S. is already well on the way to defining and deploying far more flexible digital solutions as part of its Next Generation 911 initiative - http://bit.ly/9jg576.) European research initiatives ranging from SISTER (http://bit.ly/cTiRxx) – which looks at satellite-based safety solutions – to AKTIV (http://bit.ly/b4og1K) – which looks at the efficacy of embedded cellular technology for safety apps – to TeleFOT (http://bit.ly/c9AeT8) – which is assessing nomadic device-based safety systems all reveal the range of available solutions capable of fulfilling the newly-minted EU program of safety system mandates (http://bit.ly/aNDSh1).  Even Ertico’s ADASIS, the Advanced Driver Assist Systems Interface Specification Forum (http://bit.ly/9Lkngj) has been considering smartphone-based solutions. At the most recent ADASIS meeting a solution was presented as part of a separate presentation showing a solution from ImaginYze (http://bit.ly/cUGFpM) offering an augmented reality lane departure warning solution based on a forward facing smartphone camera – a solution long in development - for portable navigation devices - from companies such as Navigon and Elektrobit. (Since its most recent meeting - July 5th - ADASIS has released a specification for map-based ADAS applications - http://bit.ly/axuJrc.) But it doesn’t stop there. About a dozen applications (http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ) have been launched around the concept of limiting mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, most notably Zoomsafer. Interestingly and maybe not surprisingly some of these companies have turned to commercial opportunities to enable safe use of mobile phones for fleet drivers.  Global Mobile Alert offers yet another application suited to both passenger vehicles and commercial applications. A $24.99 (per year) download for Android phones, which just launched two weeks ago, Global Mobile Alert is an application that uses a digital map as a sensor to warn drivers of approaching traffic lights, and school zones or railroad crossings, among other hazardous conditions (http://bit.ly/dhzigZ).  The Global Mobile Alert (GMA) crash avoidance application is the first of its kind and can be deployed in a smartphone or licensed for navigation systems or in-vehicle telematics systems. GMA provides audible alerts when a moving vehicle approaches an intersection at a dangerous predetermined speed. The objective of the application is to overcome driver distraction. (GMA licenses Navteq data for its application, although even Navteq's database does not include every single traffic light, but Navteq was the only available source of this data.) Of course, systems have been tested and are in development to allow a smartphone to actually be aware of the status of upcoming traffic lights. This is not something the GMA app is capable of, but is likely to be available commercially in the near future. Interestingly, an almost identical solution to GMA is in development within the IntelliDrive community using DSRC technology – instead of a map – to alert drivers to oncoming vehicles at dangerous interections. Of course, the DSRC technology, which is years from being deployed, has a wider range of implied applications in that it enables vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. In conclusion, government authorities will do well to do their best to avoid unintended consequences in their legistlative activities. The EU no doubt intended to speed the arrival of eCall by getting involved in the standards-setting process. All parties would agree today that the reverse has occurred. Similarly, in the drive to save drivers from distraction and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage, elected officials should be mindful of the distraction mitigating capabilities of smartphones. The source of the problem is the source of the solution.

It’s difficult to comprehend the schizophrenia of the automotive industry unless you’ve been living with it for longer than you can remember. One minute OEMs are embracing suppliers, the next they are beating them into the earth, forcing down their margins. The latest manifestation of this schizophrenia (some may call it give and take) is the contest over infotainment operating system dominance. Which automotive OS is best? Which is gaining? Which is losing? Does anyone care? The questions are all serious ones and they reflect the struggles at tier one suppliers to determine which operating systems to support. The issue was highlighted, yet again, at the annual Fachkongress Elektronik in Ludwigsburg last week. At the event, Audi voiced its support for QNX, Microsoft restated its devotion to the automotive industry as part of its wider embedded software initiative, and BMW announced its first Genivi implementation for a MY2013 vehicle program. But might these commitments shrivel in time as so many others before them have? What’s new in the current debate is the increased assertiveness of OEMs. OEMs are no longer content to take whatever a tier one supplier may deliver. In addition, there is a perception that the operating system represents a potential point of cost reduction. OEMs are taking charge in a variety of ways including specifying the operating system in the RFQ, creating a coalition for sharing and re-using code as in the case of Genivi, or getting into the system integration business itself as in the case of Audi’s e.solutions venture with Elektrobit. This new assertiveness on the part of OEMs has placed tier one suppliers in a bind. For many of these organizations, software and, by extension, the operating system, has represented the special sauce that the tier one brings to the RFQ proposition. From a tier one supplier’s perspective, the OEMs are seeking to strain that special sauce, which translates roughly as added value or cost, draining it of its value and ultimately diminishing the justification for an expensive solution. OEMs are hiring software engineers and programmers the way they used to hire line workers and tier one suppliers are feeling the pressure. The usual schizophrenia enters the picture when tier one’s try to make sense of what OEMs say they want. OEMs say they want open source software – as in the case of the Genivi Alliance built around Linux – yet they say, generally, that Android (also based on Linux) is too open. They say they prefer closed software systems – as in the case of Microsoft or QNX – but not too closed. It is a clever supplier, indeed, that can make sense of these conflicting messages. But with five-year development cycles in mind, hard decisions must be made. The fundamental criteria for evaluating operating systems break down to: Developer support Cost Flexibility Security Stability Cross Platform Functionality Long-Term Viability Independence All of the available operating system platforms have their merits and are competitive on each of these criteria with some notable exceptions. But it is worth considering the relative merits of each of the most popular platforms. Android is considered by many OEMs and suppliers to be “too open” – by which is meant vulnerable to attack. Android is supported most notably by Continental and Parrot and, indirectly, by a rapidly growing developer community and a growing range of hot selling handsets, Android is an OS to be reckoned with regardless of the qualms regarding its openness. And the widening use of an abstraction layer of code in automotive systems has rendered moot most security concerns. Our sources at Strategy Analytics say RFQs requiring Android have already been awarded. There is a broader battle surrounding Android in that the technology is being extended to a wide range of consumer electronics categories including televisions, netbooks and tablet PCs. Google’s promotion of Android into other domains places the Linux-based OS in direct confrontation with Microsoft and Apple which also have designs on the consumer electronics OS market. The fact that Android is being leveraged to facilitate connectivity to the wider device eco-system makes it an attractive choice for auto makers. Even GM/OnStar is considering Android for its next generation platform. Nevertheless, industry resistance persists. When it comes to automotive operating systems, though, Strategy Analytics recommends a dispassionate consideration of the relevant criteria and all signals suggest Android is a legitimate contender for future automotive platforms. Genivi is a Linux-based, industry-coalition driven OS intended to reduce development costs for OEMs by re-using and sharing software code. Genivi inspires both respect and anger in the industry. But, again, Strategy Analytics recommends a dispassionate evaluation. Genivi inspires respect because it has been promulgated by Intel and BMW, which have attracted a broad coalition of OEMs, tier ones and second and third tier suppliers. It inspires anger because coalition members of lesser status feel their influence is diminished. Most industry participants feel they must “participate” in the Genivi coalition so as not to miss out on any business opportunities with the leaders of the coalition: Intel, BMW and GM. At the same time, skepticism abounds regarding the length of time required for Genivi to impact the industry, the motives of the founders, and the internal decision-making processes of the organization. The impact of Genivi can probably best be compared to the influence of Autosar or JasPar. These initiatives unfolded over many years with the true nature of their impact only recently becoming clear. A typical benchmark to put Genivi into perspective, is the 10 years it took for Nokia’s “terminal mode” technology to reach the market as a commercial standard. As for the motives of the Genivi founders, it is simply to share and re-use code with the intention of reducing the cost of development. Leading Genivi participants expend a great deal of energy emphasizing the limited amount of software code that will be impacted by this sharing, but second- and third-tier players in the organization remain suspicious. BMW’s announcement at the Ludwigsburg event of te first vehicle implementation of Genivi for model year 2013 was momentous for the organization and the industry. But industry sources say the entry nav version of the platform in question – BMW’s NBT, for Next Big Thing – is being built around an nVidia processor. NVidia is not a participant in Genivi. Even in its first implementation, Genivi is raising questions about the solidarity of its coalition. (The premium NBT package will be QNX-based on an Intel platform.) Linux, in all its forms, appears to be the most popular operating system in the industry. Linux benefits from not having the support of any large organization with an industry shaping agenda. As an open source platform it is perfectly malleable and well-suited to a rapidly changing marketplace and technology eco-system. Linux is open and yet not perceived as representing a security risk and it is showing up in a growing range of systems and devices both within and outside the automotive industry. As in the case of Android, developer support is strong, and some tier ones previously working in older platforms, have begun shifting to Linux, as the safe choice. Robert Bosch and Clarion/Hitachi are just two of many suppliers that have turned to Linux even as they weigh other options. Visteon has been showing Ubuntu implementations during and since the Consumer Electronics Show in January. Microsoft, meanwhile, has one of the hottest hands at the OS table. The company routinely points to its two-million unit success with Ford Sync and its one-million unit (and counting) achievement with Fiat’s Blue&Me, with similar expectations for the soon-to-be-launched Kia Uvo platform. But Microsoft still struggles with a legacy of suspicion in the automotive industry. Car makers and OEMs frequently express their concern that the automotive industry is an afterthought for Microsoft. Microsoft has fostered this thought process by shuffling executives into and out of the automotive group. At the Ludwigsburg event the newest head of the Embedded Software group, Kevin Dallas, had his debut making a forceful statement for the Microsoft platform. In spite of any concerns about Microsoft's devotion, suppliers Alpine and Mitsubishi in Japan and Continental and Magneti Marelli in Europe have profitably embraced the platform. Microsoft can rightfully claim perhaps the widest developer support in the software industry. The company’s Bing search initiative is making impressive gains and its developer tools are widely supported. Microsoft even has its own alternative to Flash, called Silverlight, which is expected to see automotive implementations in the near future. Where Microsoft is weak, at least at the moment, is in the mobile market. Where Android has been able to counter Apple’s growing influence in mobile phone operating systems, Microsoft is struggling. Microsoft’s influence on the automotive market would no doubt be greater at this time if the company could point to a stronger position in the handset market. For now, Microsoft will be content to support individual OEM customers. Building on its success at Ford and Fiat and anticipated gains at Kia, it is likely that Microsoft will have a new OEM partner to announce within the next year. Chrysler and Mercedes are the most obvious but not the only candidates for a future announcement. QNX is in the strongest position it has ever been in in the automotive OS market. Harman’s design wins over the past five years have created a monumental backlog of premium infotainment implementations that will keep the company busy for the foreseeable future. At the Ludwigsburg event, QNX gained the endorsement of Audi as a critical element in its strategic plans. The company can also lay claim to the support of Panasonic and Denso, reflecting strong relationships with Chrysler and Toyota. QNX is perceived by many in the industry as being vulnerable for its lack of developer support and its lack of influence beyond the automotive market. But these perceptions may be subject to revision following the company’s acquisition by RIM. RIM creates instant credibility for QNX in the mobile market and QNX for RIM in the automotive market. In its current form, QNX is challenged by the need to keep pace with new drivers for mobile devices arriving on the market on a weekly basis. Microsoft and Android have the luxury of actually providing the drivers to many of these devices. QNX will gain from its RIM relationship, but the challenge will be to expand the capabilities of its operating system without increasing its system requirements. It is clear, though, that QNX has already gained a significant boost from its separation from Harman, making it easier for competing tier ones to adopt the platform. Conclusion The ongoing automotive operating system debate is complex and not easily resolved. Even aging platforms such as Micro-Itron or VxWorks (Nissan, PSA, Volkswagen) continue to persist and most vehicle infotainment systems and devices use multiple operating systems. In fact, the typical car might have a dozen or more operating systems processing information. The automotive business is not a zero sum game. Even at the Ludwigsburg event last week, new OS players Mentor Graphics and OpenSynergy were on hand taking in the latest industry developments even as they are laying the groundwork to make their own impact. Strategy Analytics can only recommend that industry executives make their OS decisions dispassionately and avoid prejudice and suspicion. There is plenty of business to go around and a win by one OS is not a defeat for another. Additional insight: Global OE Automotive Multimedia and Communications Systems Forecast 2009-2017 - Joanne Blight - http://tinyurl.com/24n9nz5 Global Automotive OE Audio/Visual (A/V) Systems Forecast 2009-2017 - Joanne Blight - http://tinyurl.com/2g897ax

Where some see nothing but travail, others see opportunity. TomTom is among those in the latter group. As both TomTom and chief rival Garmin, in their recent earnings reports, admitted to flattening sales of standalone PNDs, the two have set out on divergent strategies.

 

For Garmin, the strategy is diversification emphasizing marine, aviation and outdoor recreation. TomTom, on the other hand, like an embattled ship captain at sea, is turning towards enemy fire – narrowing its focus on providing the best navigation/routing/traffic solution with connectivity as a wild card. In spite of the brilliance of its European strategy, though, the U.S. remains an Achilles heel for TomTom.

 

This week TomTom clarified its plans to implement a new open platform and push its connected device strategy. TomTom’s approach is not without risk, but no one can fault the company for being bold. When Google is breathing down your neck it is certainly time to be bold.

 

The cornerstone of the company’s new strategy is a reduction in the monthly fee for TomTom’s HD Traffic subscriptions from 9.95 Euro/month to 5 Euro/month. But there is much more to the campaign than a simple price cut.

 

First of all, TomTom is able to adjust its pricing because of a new deal with Vodafone. Where Vodafone had a revenue share in the past, it now receives a flat fee from TomTom. While the revenue share may have been satisfactory – as TomTom recruited 700,000 Live Service subscribers – the thinking is that the flat fee will make more sense for both parties as TomTom engages in a broad PND/navi connectivity campaign.

 

As part of the new campaign, purchasers of TomTom connected PNDs – beginning early in June (in Europe) -  will get a full year of free access to HD Traffic data. After that first free year, customers can subscribe at 5 Euro/month or annually for 49.99, a 10 Euro savings on the monthly subscription.

 

TomTom’s objective in launching this program is to increase the purchasing percentage of connected devices from 40% in 2010 to 60% in 2011 and 80% in 2012. Given the fact that the average PND/navi – by TomTom estimates – lasts 3-4 years before replacement, the company expects that 90% of its customers could be connected by 2014.

 

By TomTom’s estimates, that means a user population of more than 25M units reporting GPS probe data for traffic analysis on top of the existing Vodafone cellular hand-off data. TomTom and Strategy Analytics are certainly in agreement on a few things, chief among which is that traffic data is the single most important data element to navigation device users.

 

This analyst believes that TomTom’s HD Traffic is the industry standard for accurate traffic data. TomTom, not surprisingly, also believes this to be true and is expanding the scope of HD Traffic data to 16 European countries from 7, although the timeframe is unclear. Live Services will also be offered to a wider base of 14 European countries.

TomTom is a little unclear on which countries will get HD Traffic or Live Services and when. The company actually has a total of 30 countries set for Live Services launch within the next 12 months, 17 of which are expected to get HD Traffic.

 

Clearly, HD Traffic has become a key to TomTom’s strategy. It is a critical differentiator. But TomTom recognizes that competitors are working aggressively to integrate both their own cellular hand-off data inputs and GPS probe data. The new TomTom strategy appears to be targeted at cementing the company’s existing traffic leadership position ahead of the arrival of competitors.

 

TomTom’s Vodafone relationship is unique “force multiplier” for TomTom. The hand-off data not only gives TomTom an industry-leading traffic solution, it also opens doors to logistics business opportunities such as billboard, cell tower and store location and municipal and regional traffic management.

 

But TomTom’s ability to extend this advantage to the U.S. has run into intransigent U.S. carriers and existing players – AirSage and IntelliOne – that have already negotiated their own access to cellular hand-off data. This impasse is evidenced in the TomTom product plan which includes devices with “local” and “Euro-wide” data, but only a handful of models that merit a mention of U.S. data.

 

TomTom says its new campaign will eschew “ultra-low margin” products and price points and focus on mid-high segment products targeted at replacement buyers. The strategy appears to be an acknowledgement of two key issues:

 

#1 – PND/navi buyers are a unique breed and prone to replacement purchases. TomTom claims a high customer loyalty rate (80%) and clearly wants to win over Garmin customers.

#2 – Most of the growth in navigation is coming from mobile/smartphone and embedded navigation customers.

 

Which brings us to the final “fly-in-the-ointment” for TomTom. TomTom’s own market survey’s show traffic as the single most popular application for navigation customers, a finding corroborated by Strategy Analytics studies. TomTom also acknowledges in its own research that Google Search is the second most popular application.

 

While TomTom has opened up its platform – via its implementation of the Webkit OS – and plans to open an application store, the company will eventually have to reckon with Google. TomTom has no answer to the bottomless pit of POI data resident within Google.

 

TomTom’s community-based approach to map updates and POI data is a powerful answer to the strategies of OpenStreetMaps and Waze. But unless TomTom can find a POI or search partner to counter Google its bold new marketing campaign may come to naught.

 

Additional insights:

http://bit.ly/bMeg36 - Global Mobile Handset Navigation Forecast 2004-2014 – Nitesh Patel - Navigation and Location Opportunities http://bit.ly/aoQdpd - North America Mobile Handset Navigation Forecast 2004-2014 – Nitesh Patel – Wireless Media Strategies http://bit.ly/aHhWeV - Nokia & Google Shake Up $3.8 B Handset Navigation Market - Nitesh Patel - Wireless Media Strategies http://bit.ly/cc6O9K - PND Owners Unlikely to Discontinue Using Their Device - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c5f65I - Automotive and Portable Navigation Market Forecast 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Systems http://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as ‘Apps’ Competition Mounts - Joanne Blight - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Systems http://bit.ly/9NoM13 - From Probes to Crowd to Community to Ads – Traffic Data Evolving Rapidly - Roger Lanctot - blog - Global Automotive Practice