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

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

At a time when radio struggles with its role as the red-headed stepchild of the broadcast industry it was refreshing to discover a group of enthusiastic radio marketing executives discussing what the organizers of the event described as the arrival of the fourth golden age of radio. The discussion was occurring at the RAIN (Radio and Internet Newsletter) Summit in connection with the Radio Advertising Bureau event in Washington, DC., this week. Kurt Hanson, CEO of AccuRadio.com and Publisher of RAIN, defined the vision of the fourth golden age of radio as that period following the first (1935-55), second (1960-75 = Top 10, emergence of FM), and third (1976-99, listener fatigue, consolidation). Hanson pointed to Internet radio as a transformative force creating new value for radio advertising and content. For these executives, the hand-wringing regarding the impact (read: threat) of Internet radio is past, replaced by an intensifying embrace of a technology that is transforming the industry. Broadcasters left the event with the newfound conviction that Internet radio was a valuable tool for enhancing their influence and reinforcing their ties to listeners – and the mobile phone and the automobile are increasingly important venues via which to pursue that opportunity. For these broadcasters, the so-called fourth golden age of radio is characterized by the emergence of Internet radio and five aspects defined by the event organizer as: 1.                   Personalization and control manifested in pause, fast forward and thumbs up/thumbs down functionality; 2.                   Variety in the form of thousands of available stations targeted at all forms of regional and genre/sub-genre-based interest; 3.                   Lower spot load – ie. fewer ads – but better targeting of ads – and the corollary of more detailed and accurate metrics; 4.                   Ubiquity – Internet radio is accessible via televisions, mobile phones, standalone radios and, soon, automobiles; 5.                   Global/National reach vs. local – after all, listeners can be anywhere. Internet radio use currently stands at a 3.8% share of radio listening, according to data from Ando Media referenced at the event, representing the equivalent share of radio listening captured by FM radio in 1971. Arbitron data shows the percentage of online radio listening (% who have listened to online radio in the past week) as steady at 17% between 2009 and 2010 (equivalent to 43M listeners). Pandora, the most successful online music provider to date, showed an increase in # of listeners per average quarter hour (AQH) from 257K in January to 366K in July. At the same time the total AQH for the top 20 online radio sources was 780K and the total online radio listening figure was 1.3M. The numbers indicate that Pandora has a 28% share of all online radio listening, according to Hanson, and an overall radio listening market share of 1% - equivalent to 1% of listening in every market in the U.S. The trend, according to Pandora’s own data, continues upward with the number of hours of listening on Pandora growing from 200M in January to 275M in July. And the majority of the increase is coming from mobile users, who now account for more than half of those listening hours. Pandora’s overwhelming brand recognition in the space was reflected both in the listener data and in research presented by Coleman Insights which found Pandora, Slacker and iHeartRadio as the only brands with any significant unaided recognition. The larger message from the Coleman study was that Pandora may have strong recognition but does not yet have a dominant image in the minds of consumers – ie. the market is still fairly fragmented and an open opportunity. The implications for the automotive and mobile device markets come through loud and clear here and in Strategy Analytics’ own data where interest in and usage of Internet radio on mobile devices is on the rise. Not surprisingly, auto makers are seeking to capitalize including front runners BMW, Ford and Mercedes-Benz. Only a year ago, Internet radio in the car was greeted with skepticism and derision for a variety of reasons including: 1.                   Cost – As unlimited data plans begin to disappear, the perception is that Internet radio will become prohibitively expensive to mobile users; 2.                   Network capacity – Cell towers have limited ability to support an unlimited number of data users, which is what Internet radio users are; 3.                   User experience – Capacity and signal issues have created a listening environment carried by drop outs and lost signals. All of these objections have either been resolved or will soon be resolved: 1.                   Cost – Do the math. Taking AT&T’s tiered plan as an example, the $30 for 2.4GB likely represents MUCH more than enough time and bandwidth for all but the most out-of-control mobile listener. Cost is NOT an issue. 2.                   Network capacity – Carriers are adding smaller cells and Wi-Fi access points in major metro areas to alleviate the capacity issues. AT&T complaints have almost (I say “almost.”) completely stopped. 3.                   User experience – There will always be challenges in delivering music consistently, but the creators of these solutions are providing for caching and buffering at the receiving end while broadcasters are filtering content to lower-bandwidth alternatives at the broadcast end. The dominant mode of delivery for Internet radio in the car will be the smartphone in the short term. And with a growing population of smartphones in the marketplace, the opportunity is large and growing. But the concept of an embedded telematics infotainment system with access to Internet radio is no longer anathema in the industry. In fact, the Mercedes-Benz MyComand concept of such an embedded solution shown a year ago at Telematics Munich now looks not only doable but downright prescient. Some bumps in the road remain.  Music service-type Internet radio, such as Pandora and Slacker, will have a user experience advantage over true Internet radio platforms such as RadioTime and vTuner. Because of their personalized nature, Pandora and Slacker will have the advantage of leveraging buffering and caching to preserve the listening experience where cell connections are lost. (Slacker, of course, is primarily a caching-based service and, by definition, won’t lose connection mid-song.) Nevertheless, with carrier network improvements and the transition to LTE technology, the radio aggregators such as RadioTime and vTuner may gain the upperhand by facilitating access to a wider range of content with more creative means to manage and discover new music. RadioTime, for example, has deployed a song search feature able to locate a song being played on any of its participating radio stations. These aggregators also have the advantage of making podcasts and other non-radio content available while also integrating terrestrial sources such as analog AM/FM and HD Radio sources using location data. Competing Radio Platforms It is no coincidence that Sirius XM is making its content available via the Internet. Sirius XM clearly recognizes the competitive threat posed by Internet radio. To respond to the content searching and sorting functions of some Internet radio services and the ability to store or buffer some music, however temporarily, Sirius XM can be expected to bring content management enhancements to its Satellite Radio 2.0 platform due late in 2011. (Sirius XM has raised its subscriber guidance, forecasting 20.1M U.S. subscribers by the end of 2011.) Sirius XM already offers smartphone app functionality already widely deployed by Internet and terrestrial broadcasters. (In fact, much of the talk at RAB revolved around leveraging these apps for advertising and promotional engagement with the listener.) But with the enhancements in satellite radio requiring further hardware investments by OEMs, Sirius XM will have to continue to subsidize its OEM customers. HD Radio will continue to see widening deployment via automotive OEMs, especially since the required hardware investment is substantially less than for satellite radio. According to a recent Twice magazine report HD Radio is built into 5% of new cars sold in the U.S. reflecting deployment by 15 brands on 86 vehicle lines and as standard equipment on 36 car models. There are 2,085 converted stations and 1,226 multicast channels. More than  3M HD systems of all types have been shipped, according to iBiquity Digital, and efforts are underway to see HD Radio technology integrated in handsets. Conclusions The two challenges for OEMs will be to monetize the Internet radio opportunity and to solve the user interface challenge of accessing multiple radio sources safely in a vehicle. From a monetization standpoint, the goal will be to enable users to purchase songs and to enable access to premium content. In addition, the integration of Internet radio into embedded systems will make a powerful and positive contribution to the perceived value of telematics infotainment systems. Smartphone integration continues to advance and a variety of approaches will be tried, no single one of which is likely to dominate. As an example, BMW’s Mini Connect integration reproduces the smartphone display in the instrument cluster, while the solution in the 1 Series lets the driver use the smartphone’s interface. The latter approach is used by Mercedes in its Smart integration product. The bottom line is that Internet radio in the car is much closer to a reality than it appeared just 12 months ago, and it will likely contribute positively to convincing consumers to pay for telematics systems. http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/aGJHDj - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications -Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia & Communications http://bit.ly/bD5RzL - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority - Blight - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

Retention is the key to the imminent rise of usage-based insurance. More accurate rating and customer acquisition may be the immediate motivations for insurance companies, but only customer retention has the power to transform the industry – and reduce carbon emissions in the process. These conclusions were clear from the Telematics Update Insurance Telematics event two weeks ago in Chicago. Returning home from the event, though, I was soon inundated with the daily tidal wave of car insurance advertisements on U.S. television. The multiple offers of the deepest discounts, lowest deductibles and superior service seemed like far more relevant messages to me as a consumer than the proposition of allowing the insurance company to monitor my driving behavior. Allowing an insurance company to monitor my behavior, to me, sounds like a particular circle of Hell inconceivable to even the vivid imagination of Dante. What I was forgetting in this kneejerk reaction is the equal and opposite force within me (or most consumers I presume) that is powerfully drawn to any discount – no matter how small – particularly if it is associated with cheaper car insurance – a product one pays handsomely for and hopes never to use. (Because if you use it you may lose it or end up paying more for it in the future.) The offers on television from Progressive, Nationwide, AllState, State Farm, Farmers and others addressed all of my concerns as a consumer. There were discounted rates earned by parents extended to teenage children. There were deductibles that decline over time when there are no claims. There were offers to top competing discounts. UBI insurance offers the prospect of cutting through the advertising clutter with a message that has the power to draw in new drivers while making them long-term committed subscribers in the process. On the surface, usage-based insurance looks like an expensive proposition (for the insurer) built around the concept of providing discounts to an insurance company’s best customers, according to multiple presenters at the Insurance Telematics event. So let me get this straight:  As an insurer I am going to spend millions of dollars to create a data acquisition and management system and deploy wireless monitoring devices all so I can charge my customers less money? It truly sounds crazy, until one understands the challenges of providing insurance. (No tears, please.) The insurance industry has few reliable tools to offer consumers proper insurance rates. What to the consumer appears to be a generally expensive product is priced based on an opaque process based on age, gender and location and a limited amount of driving history such as infractions, accidents and mileage. The industry was recently revolutionized by the deployment of credit scoring as a rating tool. Not surprisingly, credit bureaus featured prominently among attendees at the Insurance Telematics event. Credit scores, the early insurance company pioneers such as Progressive discovered, were an excellent segmentation tool and proxy for assessing risk. Possessing a more accurate tool for determining risk meant that underwriters using this tool could confidently justify deeper discounts than competitors and they won truckloads of business as a result. Of course, competitors soon learned about the new risk proxy and all companies began using credit scores for segmentation and risk analysis. Usage-based insurance is the new proxy and insurance companies are wary of missing a competitive advantage. From presentations at the event it is clear that the early movers in UBI insurance have learned that the process must be as simple as possible. As a result, Progressive has shifted from an OBDII plug-in device that had to be removed and connected to a consumer’s computer, to a wireless module the customer can plug in and forget. (Progressive has already moved on to the next incarnation as well, read on.) Similarly, Octo Telematics, the European pioneer of UBI insurance with more than 1M subscribers via multiple insurance partners, has introduced a device that clamps onto a car battery. This is an alternative to a device that was professionally (and expensively) installed on the vehicle and provided additional services such as stolen vehicle recovery. Multiple exhibitors at Insurance Telematics touted Bluetooth-based or cellular-based OBDII connections for extracting vehicle data – including Directed Electronics, Zoomsafer, Telenor, Walsh Wireless, Numerex, SmartDrive, Scope Technologies, Matrix Technologies, Xact Technologies and Octo Telematics. (Attendees actively discussed word of legal action between Hughes Telematics and insurance and device providers and others over the use of wireless technology for acquiring vehicle data via the OBDII port. Some companies are reported to have settled with Hughes or, as in the case of Progressive, countersued. Suffice it to say that the intellectual property underpinnings of insurance telematics are unresolved.) The powerful interest of consumers in obtaining discounted insurance taken together with the newfound ability of insurance companies to offer discounts based on more accurate risk segmentation is the motivating force behind a revolution poised to sweep the industry. But why is there little or no advertising of UBI insurance in the U.S. when Progressive has been in the game for 12 years? (European advertising of UBI insurance is widespread.) The answer is simple: The insurance industry is governed by 50 different state authorities, some of whom, such as Pennsylvania, have challenged the rating models and others that simply haven’t made their final ruling. (Pennsylvania withheld approval based on their requirement that Progressive disclose the details of there rating model.) Progressive’s SnapShot product is currently available in 23 states. Another learning from the early UBI movers has been that the device need not be indefinitely installed in the vehicle. Insurers active in UBI have learned that a limited time (ie. one month? six months?) “snapshot” of a driver’s driving behavior is sufficient to assess risk and applicable discount. The SnapShot approach also means the device can be removed and plugged into another customer's vehicle for yet another driver assessment.  Of course, this same snapshot is also key to determining which drivers qualify – and insurers have found that not all drivers are suited to UBI programs. As speakers at the Insurance Telematics event repeatedly said: Everyone thinks they are an above-average driver, but only 50% of those can be correct. The key to success in UBI insurance will be to move early. Insurers feel an overpowering need to deploy systems absolutely as quickly as they can because the likelihood is that the first module a customer installs will be his or her last. Once the insurer learns that customer’s driving behavior and can accurately and affordably underwrite their risk, the customer is unlikely to switch insurers. The competing insurer will always be at a disadvantage, not knowing the customer’s driving behavior. For this reason, the industry is struggling to move very quickly in the U.S. in spite of the state regulators and IP issues. UBI has the ability to change the balance of power in the industry and no company wants to be left disarmed. Conclusion: This battle has just begun. Insurers are likely to package offerings built around comprehensive portfolios of driver services such as roadside assistance, navigation and maybe even stolen vehicle recovery to say nothing of on-scene claims reporting – all built around the modules they are bringing to cars. UBI insurance will not only transform the insurance underwriting industry, it also has the potential to alter the relationships between insurers and OEMs. Insurers that deploy telematics systems are in a position to threaten OEM relationships with their own dealers and consumers. Wireless carriers too have skin in the game as insurance applications are already deployed to mobile phone platforms. Insurance companies have powerful leverage over the customer and cannot be ignored by any of these parties and the mobile phone is an alternative path for a UBI deployment. UBI insurance will rapidly achieve ubiquity nationwide. The prospect of obtaining discounts based on driving behavior will lead to some actual improvements in driving behavior but, mainly, it will contribute to a reduction in driving activity overall, which may be the best outcome of UBI deployment. In the end, the insurance industry will achieve the road charging objective of reducing carbon emissions (a Federal goal) which will forever be politically beyond the reach of  Federal authorities. Additional Insights:http://bit.ly/aWhNuC - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/9QCIVw - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Datatables - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/9PUqjp - UBI Market Poised for Growth - John Canali - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

When IBM had the personal computer industry in a headlock, the company was able to freeze customers’ plans to purchase competing PCs by releasing fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) in the marketplace. It achieved this goal by announcing its own plans for new products 6-12 months in advance. Sirius XM used its earnings call earlier this month for the same purpose, announcing plans for Satellite Radio 2.0 for Q4 2011. The difference, of course, is that Sirius XM does not control the market for broadcast radio content. In fact, the company is facing competitive pressures from both terrestrial and Internet-based sources. Further diminishing the Satellite Radio 2.0 gambit, is the declining portion of Sirius XM’s revenue and unit volume coming from retail, aftermarket devices. (According to estimates from the Consumer Electronics Association, satellite radio sales to dealers fell to $64M in 2009, with declines forecasted through 2013.) Sirius XM executives stated in the Q2 earnings call plans for the launch of the XM 5 satellite in October and the launch of Sirius 6 in Q4 2011. Also due to arrive in Q4 2011 is the newly touted Satellite Radio 2.0. Sirius XM execs said that SR 2.0 will offer consumers greater capacity and more functionality – both enhancements are intended to stimulate average revenue per user (ARPU). These same execs noted that no additional satellite launches will occur for several years, setting the stage for improved cashflow and profitability. In addition to the satellite and service launches late next year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) limitations on Sirius XM subscriptions will end in August 2011. All of these indicators are positive for Sirius XM except for the fact that competition has intensified. With the FCC limitations removed, Sirius XM will have a much broader scope of subscription options given the 150+ range of stations to choose from. SR 2.0 promises even more ARPU upside with added channel content and, as Sirius XM execs clearly indicated in their earnings call, a wider use of data for telematics and other applications. It is interesting to hear Sirius XM getting excited about telematics as a potential ARPU contributor, and it is an indication that the company is moving in the right direction and recognizes the shortcomings of the existing service. It is also, no doubt, a response to competitive pressures from HD Radio and Internet radio. The question is whether or not this awakening at Sirius XM is coming too late to matter. HD Radio technology is proliferating as more OEMs adopt the technology and more radio stations join the burgeoning ranks of participating broadcasters. HD Radio is appealing since it operates over the same FM frequencies, though requiring some additional hardware, and it is free. At the same time, more and more OEMs are lining up music service solutions such as Pandora along with Internet radio - via smartphone connectivity in the short-term and embedded solutions in the long run. The success of Pandora is a testament to that company’s ability to deliver a solution that is able to integrate seamlessly with automotive systems. Competitor Slacker’s content-caching music service is not less compelling, but OEMs have not found integration to be nearly as simple. Still, the tide that is lifting Pandora's boat will likely benefit other music services and Internet radio providers, such as ClearChannel's IHeartRadio. The timing and manner of Sirius XM's announcement of Satellite Radio 2.0 suggests that Sirius XM is attempting to prevent OEM defections to HD Radio, music service solutions or Internet radio. OEMs are in the process of making decisions today that will impact vehicle platforms four and five years hence. Sirius XM executives refused to explain exactly what SR 2.0 will be. But given the short launch window, it will no doubt arrive in the retail aftermarket first. The company is currently briefing OEMs regarding its confidential plans. Sirius XM has already lost momentum in the automotive market. Car makers (and aftermarket system makers) have shifted toward offering satellite radio as an option rather than as a standard feature. And both Sirius XM and its OEM customers are using subscription conversion data to determine which cars should and should not be offered with the service. This means that even though Sirius XM has been able to show subscriber gains in its past two quarters, rapid growth is a thing of the past and pales by comparison to the subscriber numbers of a Pandora or Slacker. On the earnings call Sirius XM execs said that availability of satellite radio technology in cars was at approximately 60% of car models with a paid subscription conversion rate of 47%. The company currently claims more than 19.5M subscribers and anticipates somewhat more than 20M by the end of the year. OEMs say that if it weren’t for their multi-year agreements with Sirius XM they might have walked away from the relationship a long time ago. (Several OEMs are also shareholders in Sirius XM.) This sour sentiment does not bode well for Sirius XM moving away from the subsidy model it maintains in the automotive market. This subsidy model also means that the cost of acquiring new subscribers – given the decline of retail satellite radio sales – will continue to rise as the balance between retail and OEM sales continues to shift toward subsidized OEM subs. Further clouding the otherwise rosy long-term outlook for Sirius XM is the mandated switchover to XM. OEMs currently offering Sirius satellite radio service have been told they will have to switch to XM by 2016. The honeymoon for Sirius XM is clearly over. The question now is whether SR 2.0 can save the store. Satellite Radio 2.0 There are three areas where SR 2.0 could help Sirius XM hold onto its existing subscribers while attracting new subscribers. Here are Strategy Analytics’ thoughts on what SR 2.0 will look like: Audio – Sirius XM faces its biggest audio challenge from Internet radio and music services generally and Pandora in particular. All of these services are paid and Internet radio has suffered a blow from the onset of tiered data plans limiting the use of such services. Nevertheless, OEMs have embraced Internet radio because of the powerful consumer demand and awareness – several times the user base of satellite radio and widely and easily accessed on multiple platforms without any additional hardware. The only solution Sirius XM can offer is more or better-targeted audio channels. Ironically, the more channels Sirius XM adds the more difficult it is to use. Expect Sirius XM to update its content search and save capabilities to better replicate an Internet radio experience. Sirius XM can also be expected to enhance its iPhone and iPod integration with song-tagging not unlike HD Radio’s capabilities. Expect Sirius XM to add additional capabilities, along the lines of what iBiquity Digital has been showing in HD Radio demos for the past 2-3 years. Enhancements are likely to include more artist, track, album information; album art; song duration; maybe even reviews or other metadata from suppliers such as Gracenote or Rovi. Traffic – For some reason Sirius’ traffic data services are not comparable to offerings from direct competitors such as ClearChannel’s RDS-TMC. Side-by-side comparisons conducted by this analyst of both XM NavTraffic and the Sirius traffic service have found them to be lacking in comparison to both PND and embedded solutions. The only good news for Sirius is that RDS-TMC is only offered standard by half a dozen car makers. Still, with the proliferation of HD Radio technology, Sirius will soon be up against TPEG traffic data content, putting it further behind the eight ball. Sirius must bring its traffic data services up to a competitive grade. Strangely, the company does not even use the same flow and incident sourcing between its data (Traffic.com) and broadcast traffic services (Westwood One). Expect Sirius XM to do something about the shortcomings in its traffic reporting. OEMs are definitely making comparisons between HD Radio and satellite radio traffic services and making critical long-term decisions. Expect major traffic data improvements in SR 2.0 including the implementation of a standard traffic database system – such as Gewi’s TIC 3 – and/or TPEG traffic information services. Only time will tell if the changes will be enough or will occur soon enough to preserve strong OEM relationships. Even more ominous for Sirius XM is the fact that more and more OEMs are building the cost of traffic into the cost of their vehicles. The $3.99/month traffic subscription for Sirius XM traffic data will not survive this process of commoditization - especially if the data quality is not competitive. Data – Sirius XM’s Travel Link service, offered by Ford, is an impressive voice-driven offering of content such as gas pricing, ski conditions, news, weather, and sports. Expect Sirius XM to bring this offering up to speed with a greater variety of content delivered with improved graphics. The competition here comes mainly in the form of smartphone solutions, so the challenge to compete is steep. Can Sirius XM breathe life into its retail aftermarket position with SR 2.0? Can the company preserve its standing with OEMs, which are more concerned with reducing costs and complexity? For now, Sirius XM is on a path to continue to build its subscriber base, enhance its service and reduce its operating expenses. But the future of the company hinges on whether car makers will continue to tune in beyond 2016. Further insight: http://tinyurl.com/2bz9zq6 - Google, Nokia and New Entrant Positioning in Automotive Infotainment - Lanctot – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service

The gold standard for telematics success is daily relevance. One of the greatest challenges for companies introducing telematics systems and solutions is to bring daily relevance to their offerings. Human beings are creatures of habit, which means that driving directions are normally not required daily, gas pricing and parking choices are predetermined, and weather and news are available for free over the radio. Movie times, skiing conditions and restaurant reviews are nice to haves. But they are available from other sources – most notably mobile phones – and are an occasional not a daily information requirement. And we all hope we never have to use either automatic crash notification or roadside assistance. Traffic data, on the other hand, is something that is relevant five days a week to a substantial portion of the working public. Companies that get traffic data right have a huge competitive advantage not only in providing traffic data, but also for providing a wide range of data feeds and services. In fact, the very infrastructure required for delivering traffic data – storage and processing facilities and servers and, in some cases, broadcasting capability - is a suitable platform for providing other telematics services. For this reason, traffic data providers Inrix, ITIS Holdings, TomTom and Navteq also serve as content and service aggregators. (It is also one of the reasons for TeleCommunications Systems’ acquisition of Networks in Motion and why TeleNav has a content and services platform.) The opportunity to provide additional telematics services is the brass ring for which traffic data providers are reaching. It is for this reason these companies are seeking to bundle traffic data offerings with traffic-influenced routing, developing mobile apps for smartphones and connected navigation systems, and other initiatives focused on moving up the value chain – ultimately leading to sponsored content, reviews and location-aware advertising and promotion. The daily relevance of traffic data is a powerful elixir for delivering additional location-aware added-value services, including advertising. This is why Google, TeleNav, TCS, Nokia Navteq, RIM and TomTom are moving quickly to introduce or enhance their probe-based (handset GPS) traffic flow solutions to develop their telematics business. The winner(s) to emerge from this marketing scrum will be the company or companies with the highest quality traffic data. Traffic data quality, in turn, is determined by a handful of critical factors including data sources, integration, and delivery. (The quality and nature of the user interface is important as well, but is the responsibility of the device or service designer/manufacturer.) The determining factors within each of these areas are essential to understand: Sources: There are a handful of key sources of traffic data and they include commercial fleet (ie. taxi cabs, trucks, etc. and other types of probes such as GPS handsets, PNDs, etc.), regional departments of transport, embedded and roadside sensors, and incident or journalistic data. A handful of companies – principally TomTom, ITIS Holdings and AirSage - are translating cell tower signaling data for flow data analysis. This technology is currently deployed by both TomTom and ITIS in parts of Europe. ITIS licenses its technology to partners in Australia, Ireland, Russia, South Africa and Singapore. A North American solution has yet to be delivered. TomTom delivers its cellular flow data in HD Traffic for its connected devices in Europe, which still stands as one of the best, if not THE best, live traffic solution in the world. (It is worth noting that HD Traffic received low scores in BMW's QKZ evaluation.) Traffic flow data from these sources is valuable for many use cases and applications including showing traffic on a map and traffic-influenced routing. Journalistic data complements the flow data by providing context about the cause, location and scope of the traffic problem. This is particularly useful to receive as a traffic incident alert before leaving on a journey or to provide context when actually stuck in a traffic jam, as the driver generally can’t safely read a description about an incident while driving.Incident data come from public sources such as emergency responders, department of transportation traffic cameras, or public or private spotters that may be on the ground or observing traffic conditions from some form of aircraft. Much of incident data is public information – some of it freely available to the public - and most is freely available to commercial traffic information providers. There are some private sources, however, including radio and TV stations with their own spotters, cameras or sensors and these include companies such as ITIS Holdings, SmartRoute, Traffic.com and ClearChannel. ClearChannel and ITIS Holdings have emerged as the dominant suppliers of incident data in the U.S. and U.K., respectively. The two companies have the widest market coverage and the broadest roster of clients. Of course, operating a traffic incident collection and reporter network on a national basis (much less internationally) can be extremely expensive and unprofitable, and companies such as Westwood One and Traffic.com operate under the pressure of that expense. Not surprisingly, ClearChannel and ITIS are also distinguished in applying the so-called QKZ traffic quality assessment standards to their solutions. QKZ, which is the name of the index used to evaluate traffic data, is the standard applied by BMW in evaluating different traffic solutions. BMW recently selected MILE Traffic and Travel (ITIS, Infoblu, Mediamobil consortium) to provide a pan-European traffic solution. BMW is already partnered with ClearChannel in the U.S. for their RDS-TMC solution. It is important to note those elements of the traffic data picture that are global in nature vs. local and to make a distinction between flow data and incident data. There are thousands of local sources of incident data and there are local aggregators of that data, but incident data is fundamentally a regional phenomenon. Flow data, in contrast, is ruled by systems that can be applied globally. There are five providers of flow data currently operating across borders and these are ITIS, Inrix, Nokia Navteq, TomTom and TrafficCast. ITIS is unique in using a licensing model. TomTom has yet to find a customer in the automotive or mobile device market for its flow data. TrafficCast has a handful of customers. And Inrix and Navteq currently compete for contracts in North America and Europe. Car makers are most interested in identifying global solutions, while navigation device makers and mobile application developers are content with regional solutions.  Companies such as Waze, Aha Mobile and TrafficTalk are attempting to open up a new channel of user-reported incident data. But the industry is still seeking to determine how to evaluate the quality of these ad hoc sources and integrate their inputs. Integration: The process of data integration produces a picture of traffic flow including not only real-time traffic flow or speeds but also a predictive model based on both historical and real-time data sources. This information is critical for determining accurate travel and arrival times as well as routing or re-routing.The five leading flow data companies distinguish themselves by their processes for integrating and manipulating traffic data, vetting sources and interpreting the different inputs. A virtual duopoly exists between Inrix and Navteq in the U.S. The European market is rapidly evolving from regional traffic providers to pan-European aggregators. TomTom has developed its proprietary HD traffic in a handful of countries, but is only deployed with its own smartphone and connected PND solutions. Navteq has a solution in place with Garmin, but has limited European coverage. Inrix and MILE Traffic and Travel appear to be emerging as powerful challengers in Europe. Delivery: The last link in the chain is delivery and this is the area experiencing the greatest degree of technological change. The most widespread platform for communicating traffic information is radio, but there are multiple radio-based platforms for traffic information delivery. Analog radio is the most dominant and familiar source of traffic data reports and the most widely available traffic data broadcast network in this medium is RDS-TMC. RDS-TMC is widely criticized for the limited amount of information it is capable of broadcasting in a metropolitan area and perceived delays (latency) in delivering the latest information to the embedded or portable navigation system in the car. Emerging digital radio technology enables a richer stream of traffic-related content and maintains the critical local elements. Digital radio is also a superior platform for delivering other forms of content. RDS-TMC is being replaced by TPEG technology. TPEG allows for a wider range of content, a larger volume of information and can be distributed over HD, DAB or cellular networks as it is XML-based. TPEG also encompasses arterial road coverage. Handset-based solutions are promising, though hampered by the smaller screens and challenging in-vehicle user experience associated with mobile phones. While technologies such as Nokia’s Terminal Mode offer the prospect of delivering handset traffic images to in-vehicle displays these solutions will take a few years to reach the market. Many OEMs, however, are in product development now with solutions that use handsets (or are fully integrating embedded GSM/GPRS modules in the vehicle) for sending traffic data and other telematics information to/from the vehicle. Product development is moving briskly in the handset/smartphone space and innovative solutions such as TrafficTalk and Visteon's TrafficCamJam are in the offing. But the companies creating these applications will likely require expensive voice interfaces. Public authorities will likely not accept handset-based applications in cars that require a touch screen interface while the vehicle is in motion. Part of the power of these smartphone-based applications, though, lies in the fact that they are location-aware and sharing location data even as they are reporting traffic conditions. As a result, these devices remain a wildcard in the evolution of traffic data. Sirius XM’s traffic data service in North America, based as it is on a single national stream of broadcast data to a vehicle’s navigation system, is fatally flawed. Based on this correspondent’s own experience with the Sirius feed in Mercedes and the ClearChannel feed in BMW, the lag introduced by the sequential transmission of multiple-market’s worth of traffic information down a single pipeline is the source of Sirius’ downfall. It is no coincidence that BMW offers Sirius' audio content but eschews its traffic offering. And some industry observers believe OEMs are dropping Sirius/XM traffic data services from their roadmaps for MY13 and beyond in favor of connected services over GPRS/GSM. In Sirius XM’s most recent earnings call two weeks ago the company touted its planned introduction in Q4 2011 of Satellite Radio 2.0. Presumably the company will have a fix for the timely delivery of traffic data. Conclusion: The biggest pipeline to the car of all is the embedded telecommunications module. With new embedded solutions set to launch from multiple car makers in multiple geographies over the next 2-3 years, drivers can expect to see vast improvements in traffic information quality. This is at least one reason for optimism regarding the future uptake of telematics services overall. With the emergence of both digital radio technologies worldwide and the proliferation of embedded telematics systems, the expectation is that the companies that will dominate traffic will be those with the highest quality data. What distinguishes these companies today are their processes for validating data quality. If the data is sound the daily relevance will follow as will subscribers. Further insight: http://tinyurl.com/2bz9zq6 - Google, Nokia and New Entrant Positioning in Automotive Infotainment - Lanctot – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insightshttp://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Servicehttp://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service

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

The 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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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