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

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

Delphi used the SAE 2010 World Congress event in Detroit this week to unveil D-Connect, its answer to Nokia’s terminal mode smartphone connectivity solution. D-Connect addresses an array of in-vehicle connectivity challenges – including automotive-oriented application stores - while defining a radical new vision of center stack architecture. The system architecture is described as being built around an Intel or ARM processor with a Linux kernel, common Linux packages, Genivi, ported device applications and, finally, an HMI layer. Availability of D-Connect is likely dependent on OEM adoption. For the U.S. market, its significance is its representation of Delphi’s vision of universal smartphone connectivity and arrives as the company emerges from Chapter 11. The D-Connect vision simultaneously provides center stack connectivity for any smartphone – reproducing the on-device display in its entirety on a large touchscreen display mounted in portrait mode – with separate interfaces for when the vehicle is static or in motion. When the vehicle is not moving, the display allows access to all the apps displayed on the device and allows the device to be manipulated and the apps to be accessed directly from the large display via touch or voice interface. The system was shown with a physical connection, though Delphi says the system will support Bluetooth, USB or Wi-Fi connectivity. The D-Connect vision includes Delphi’s announced intention to provide app store support. Delphi says it will certify applications to determine which will be accessible when the vehicle is in motion. When in motion, the separate HMI display will appear with large on-screen icons including “Voice Search,” “Navigation,” “View Maps,” and “Contacts.” The system appears to be positioned as an alternative to Nokia’s terminal mode, shown most recently at CeBit and at the Geneva Motor Show. Nokia’s solution similarly provides for vehicle HMI control of smartphone functions and is being developed by Nokia in conjunction with Tier Ones such as Harman, Magneti Marelli and Continental along with some OEMs. Both the Delphi and Nokia solutions are still in concept mode. The significance of the Delphi solution is magnified by its proposed use of a large portrait display in the center stack, its ability to be operating system and connectivity agnostic, its in-motion interface with app certification and its use of the Genivi operating system in conjunction with separate Linux packages. The use of Genivi and Linux is unique and represents the first demonstration of a complete solution based on the newly proposed automotive operating system. It also allows Delphi to define a new path to the much discussed in-car application store. As far as the app store is concerned, Delphi sees application downloads working strictly via the device and functioning through device connectivity – not through a direct download into the car. Delphi uses the Genivi operating system and other Linux-based applications, to interface to downloaded apps, but prefers to keep the applications themselves outside the center stack software environment. Delphi’s approach contrasts with Continental’s AutolinQ system, which brings Android into the center stack. D-Connect will connect with Android phones and applications but does not bring that code on-board.  To further build the D-Connect brand, Delphi has also chosen to name the actual phone application D-Connect.

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

European service providers have given up waiting for the European Union’s eCall initiatives and mandates to deliver emergency roadside assistance across Europe. A growing number of private service providers are turning to existing technology in SMS-based alternatives to deliver eCall solutions without using the official eCall in-band modem technology. (They are, however, including the minimum data set portion of the standard.)

 

Volvo, Peugeot and BMW remain the only three OEMs with European eCall solutions implemented, using SMS technology. But third parties including insurance companies, automobile clubs and call center providers are stepping forward with solutions that will work with existing technologies. The latest launches include Allianz’s pay-as-you-drive offering, Allianz OrtungsServices GmbH’s LifeService offered in conjunction with AvD, TCS’s announcement of eCall service in Switzerland in connection with PSA, and ATX’s so-called “self-dispatch” solution.

 

These new systems are designed to provide eCall and bCall support throughout Europe and in the driver’s own language. But the language barrier is only one challenge to providing a pan-European eCall solution. The other challenge is the choice of connection technology. While the European Commission nominated in-band modem technology – sending data over the voice channel - as the standard for official eCall coverage, no mechanism was put in place for upgrading hundreds of public service answering points (PSAPs). The PSAPs must be equipped with the in-band modem technology to connect properly.

 

Qualcomm has stepped forward, as the winner of the in-band modem competition, to license its technology at no charge. But no action has been taken at the PSAP level, hence the emergence of private initiatives.

 

There is a bit of an irony in the focus on eCall. The volume of eCalls that are seen by the current providers number at most in the hundreds per year. This tiny number of incidents calls into question the value of the eCall mandate itself as a lifesaving technology, but this obscures the much more impressive number of roadside assistance calls, which number in the millions. (No one, including this analyst, is questioning the value of eCall services.)

 

The private service providers clearly recognize the value of the combination of these two services to their customers, hence the new offers. Lurking behind these initiatives is a battle for control of the automotive call center market in Europe. This multimillion Euro opportunity will grow in importance as more OEMs launch telematics services.

 

By some estimates, ARC Europe, European equivalent of the American Automobile Association, is the dominant provider of automotive call center support with more than a third of the market, followed by Mondial Assistance, Europe Assist and AXA. The Allianz PAYD offer is made in cooperation with Mondial, its wholly-owned subsidiary.

 

Allianz’s PAYD solution includes a module which provides a portfolio of services including eCall, bCall, stolen vehicle recovery, theft notification, and a hands-free Bluetooth interface. The range of solutions included with the device provide a more comprehensive offering reflecting the priorities of an automobile insurer including, most interestingly, a hands-free phone interface to reduce distracted driving.

 

From sister company Allianz OrtungsServices GmbH, comes the infrastructure for LifeService112, most recently added by Automobilclub von Deutschland (AvD). AvD, though older, is smaller than the widely known Allgemeine Deutsche Automobil-Club (ADAD), which is part of ARC Europe. With the new service, launched last week, AvD says it will be the first German automobile club to offer members GPS mobile phone localization for emergencies.

 

The new offer is made possible by the LifeService platform from Allianz. LifeService112 provides the technical platform for mobile phone localization for more than 90% of Germany’s public safety answering points. It is also compatible with both SMS and in-band modem technology.

 

Accident victims have previously been located via mobile phone cells with the accuracy depending on the number of radio masts. By contrast, GPS technology – independent from the network and available worldwide – can better pinpoint a victim’s location. Special software for the mobile telephone will make precise GPS tracking possible. Allianz OrtungsServices GmbH’s goal is to enable all European rescue coordination centers to access the LifeService112 system. In an emergency, the public safety answering point can locate every mobile phone by way of either radio cells or GPS. Allianz is seeking additional partnerships for the eCall/bCall service including, but not limited to, auto makers.

PSA has signed an agreement with Touring Club of Switzerland (TCS), announced at last week’s Geneva Motor Show to provide eCall and bCAll services for Peugeot and Citroen models sold in Switzerland beginning this month. In the event of an accident, an eCall SMS (with location data) is sent to TCS to process and contact the relevant PSAP. The system is a two-button solution allowing the driver or passenger to activate an eCall or bCall voice connection manually or automatically anywhere in Europe. TCS worked with Alabus AG to implement the solution and the hardware came from Magneti Marelli. The TCS call center will be able to respond in the driver’s language.

ATX, which has lost its European telematics service relationship with BMW, is making what may be the most radical proposal of what it calls a self-dispatching approach to managing eCalls from vehicles. The company’s announcement says its system will work with SMS or in-band modem technology and will make use of multilingual text-to-speech technology and Internet resources all of which may help to define an entirely new approach to telematics and call center support in Europe.

 

TomTom was once the darling of the portable navigation market, charging onto the scene with innovative marketing and product offerings and buoyed by strong market growth driven by Europe’s world-leading embrace of navigation devices. The latest earnings results from both TomTom and chief rival Garmin, however, paint a picture of a hot hardware market segment hitting a plateau.

 

Is it game over for TomTom? How did the company peak so soon? Where has the growth in the PND segment gone? It is my contention that one reason for the current decline in prospects derives from the company’s shift to a closed platform back in 2005 more aligned with rival Garmin.

 

TomTom captured the imagination of consumers and industry observers in the early days of the PND market with innovative solutions that included one of the first major crowd sourcing exercises in the form of its TomTom Live services which included map updates provided by users. The power of the TomTom Live platform was such that TomTom was able to build a more than million-strong user community whose enthusiasm was reflected in both the millions of map updates and corrections they contributed along with the navigation voices they recorded and shared.

 

It’s hard to overstate the power of the kind of customer connection TomTom achieved with the TomTom Live service. In effect, TomTom solved the challenge of map updating years before any other organization in any other segment had come up with an answer - with the exception of server-based solutions. In the most recent earnings call, the company says it intends to offer map updates on a 48-hour cycle, instead of the industry-standard quarterly updates – once again, setting an industry standard.

 

TomTom continued to build momentum – let’s call it “mojo” - by capitalizing on the critical importance of traffic and routing applications adding its HD Traffic and IQ Routes enhancements. The company led the way in connected PNDs claiming 900,000 units sold in the past fiscal year and laying claim to 400,000 combined paying or on-trial-period subscribers, admittedly below company objectives.

 

But something fell apart in the past year. Evidence of the performance shortfall included the inability to successfully convince a sufficient number of consumers to pay 10 Euro/month for traffic data, even if it was demonstrably superior to competing traffic data. But the one-two punch of flattening sales and declining ASPs in 2009 have combined to deflate TomTom’s (and Garmin’s) prospects forcing the company to turn more aggressively toward non-PND sources of revenue including embedded and smartphone-based solutions.

 

Both Garmin and TomTom reported tepid financial results two weeks ago and offered cautious forecasts for flat PND sales in 2010. Both Garmin and TomTom attempted to dismiss to some extent the impact of smartphone-based navigation solutions. TomTom, in particular, claimed the three different navigation platforms – embedded automotive, smartphone and PND – are not “mutually exclusive” and “somehow strengthen each other.”

 

Both Garmin and TomTom are targeting mobile applications with TomTom making its traffic solution available for the iPhone along with an iPhone mounting kit for in-vehicle use – a wise strategy of embracing rather than confronting competition. Both companies are also pursuing automotive opportunities with TomTom’s most recent design wins coming at Renault and Fiat. Interestingly, Fiat showed new TomTom solutions at the Geneva Motor Show while also showing a mobile phone mount concept from Magneti Marelli for Nokia navigation phones.

 

Very much overlooked in TomTom’s run up to its dominant position in the European PND market was the company’s offering of a software developer kit. But the company abandoned the open platform approach in 2005, while driving innovation almost entirely internally along with some targeted acquisitions.

 

TomTom was first in developing a connected user community willing to correct map data and POIs and share favorite routes and voices. These users also demonstrated that there was a market for content that could be downloaded to TomTom devices. Sound familiar? This is exactly the model adopted by most major handset makers in the past year following the wildly successful Apple iPhone.

 

The big difference between these handset makers and TomTom is that smartphones are based on open platforms for which independent software developers can create new applications. It probably isn’t too late for TomTom to change its approach to the market, opening up its platform to third-party content and application developers. This could well be the key to turning around the bleak numbers reported in the most recent quarter.

 

A growing range of new applications from third-party suppliers can add functionality and value to a TomTom device over time, in contrast to the usual perceived decline in value over time of a typical consumer electronic product. Apple, Google and others are demonstrating daily that there is mojo in open platforms. It’s not too late for TomTom to dial in.

While car makers around the world are developing traditional embedded telematics systems for deployment worldwide, a secondary market in embedded (ie. line fit) and aftermarket modules intended to meet local mandates for eCall, vehicle tracking and road charging are proliferating. Mandates in such diverse locations as The Netherlands and Brazil are feeding this frenzy and new suppliers with new solutions are emerging on the scene on a weekly basis.

 

The six most prominent applications driving demand and interest - among suppliers, car makers and service providers – are pay-as-you-drive insurance (PAYD), the European eCall mandate, the Brazilian stolen vehicle recovery mandate, eHorizon map-as-a-sensor offerings, road charging (The Netherlands, France, Germany) and buy-here-pay-here solutions. Each one of these opportunities represents millions of devices to be sold and installed although, interestingly, the service opportunities are more limited with only PAYD, SVR and buy-here-pay-here promising any service revenue. Road charging in The Netherlands alone represents an 8M unit build with 300K-500K units/annually going forward.

 

PAYD is the highest profile opportunity in the industry today with Octo-Telematics leading the way in Europe with more than 1M installed devices in use. Smaller players are multiplying throughout the continent, though, as insurers recognize the opportunity to take customers from competitors, reward their own “best” customers, and gather better data for determining risk. Progressive is the market leader in the U.S., but with competition fierce in the automotive insurance industry, PAYD will be embraced nationwide. Not coincidentally, Octo-Telematics has partnered with Directed Electronics to tackle the U.S. market.

 

After PAYD, the Brazilian mandate for stolen vehicle tracking and vehicle immobilization has attracted as much attention as PAYD with several companies claiming design-in wins. There were some hiccoughs on the way to achieving a nationwide mandate, but the latest indications are that 100% of vehicles produced in Brazil will be obliged to be fitted with tracking devices enabled for vehicle immobilization. The compromise that allows the mandate to move forward leaves the service provisioning to the customer’s discretion.

 

Road charging, an application already widely deployed in the fleet industry, is coming to passenger cars to reduce emissions, traffic, and accident rates. The volumes for road charging will be significant and suppliers are circling.

 

The eHorizon solutions, in module form, offered by Navteq/Magneti Marelli/ST Microelectronics and lately demonstrated by Intermap/Visteon offer to integrate map and road elevation data into advanced driver assistance applications. The volumes here will grow, but the rate will be slow as consumers gradually come to embrace emerging safety systems.

 

Buy-here-pay-here modules used by both new and used car resellers to track and immobilize customers that miss payments is the most well-established of all the module-related opportunities. Players in the industry have recently coalesced around the Payment Assurance Technology Association (http://www.patassociation.com/index.php) to raise the profile of this vital application as a legitimate segment worthy of attention and respect. No doubt demand has never been higher given current economic decisions.

 

Supplier approaches to module mania range from application specific solutions to all-purpose devices not only suitable to multiple uses but remotely configurable and integrated with Website access. ABS T&T, which has partnered with Continental, distributes a multipurpose module for tracking and telematics applications ranging from shipment tracking to stolen vehicle recovery and telematics.

 

NXP offers its ATOP module which it describes as the world’s first single component on board unit (OBU) capable of supporting ITS applications, stolen vehicle tracking, PAYD applications, last mile tracking (automotive black box) as well as enabling ADAS systems. The device can be configured with a wide range of connectivity including GSM, CAN, near field communication (NFC, USB, and GPS and also enables downloadable applications.

 

Whether purpose-built or all-purpose, module makers are proliferating spurred on by government mandates as well as new and existing commercial opportunities from both the consumer telematics and fleet market segments. This is precisely the right stimulus package for an automotive industry on the mend.