Three weeks after the dramatic announcement from Nokia of its partnership with Microsoft and a shift to Windows Phone 7 as the preferred OS platform for its mobile phone business, kinder gentler thoughts in the marketplace regarding the prospects for the partnership are beginning to prevail. Having regrouped to put its own spin on recent events the head of Nokia’s automotive team recently pointed out the advantages of the Microsoft partnership in support of Terminal Mode and ongoing activity within the Qt developer community in support of both MeeGo and Symbian.

 

While it is true MeeGo has been significantly de-emphasized and Symbian will be phased out – after 150M more Symbian phones are shipped – Nokia Navteq remains an active player in the automotive marketplace focusing on opportunities for mobile phone connectivity and navigation. Post-partnership the combined organizations, while separate, represent a force to be reckoned with. The powerful search platform of Bing along with Navteq’s maps and Ovi’s marketplace represent a triple threat in a market where mobile advertising and mobile commerce are rapidly emerging around the world in cars and on devices.

 

The challenges facing the Microsoft-Nokia Navteq partnership are significant. The Windows Phone 7 platform is just four months into a slow start in the market and Microsoft has not defined a clear synergistic connection between Windows Phone 7 and Windows Embedded for Automotive 7. Microsoft can point to several successful mobile phone connectivity partnerships in the automotive market – such as Fiat, Kia and Ford – but most of these are built around different versions of Windows Auto or Windows CE.

 

Microsoft can also point to head unit partnerships with Mitsubishi Electric, Clarion and Alpine in support of Mercedes and Nissan. In fact, Alpine and Clarion have already endorsed and adopted terminal mode for enabling smart phone connectivity to access maps, music and for enabling map-based safety applications. While no one in the industry expects Apple to endorse and deploy terminal mode connectivity, makers of Android-based handsets and RIM may find it prudent to make terminal mode technology available.

 

Helping to make terminal mode connectivity more attractive, Nokia Navteq is stepping up its Ovi Marketplace game adding search now powered by Bing along with Navteq’s mapping, graphics, turn-by-turn navigation, geo-coding and reverse geo-coding to facilitate local commerce opportunities around the world. Created in conjunction with the CE4A industry consortium, terminal mode has been demonstrated by Volkswagen engineers – reflecting the company’s strong ties to German car makers. Nokia is looking to build on its Japan market inroads with a (now cancelled) Terminal Mode Summit in Tokyo late in March where the official Terminal Mode trademark will be launched (http://www.terminalmode.org/en/Events/registration) along with release 1.1 and a future release roadmap.

 

Almost lost in the Microsoft Nokia Navteq announcement was the impact on the Qt developer community and the de-emphasis of MeeGo. Qt and MeeGo continue to go hand and hand in the open source developer world and MeeGo continues to boast support from Intel and the now-fairly-large GenIVI Alliance (which will be gathering in Dublin in May). As car makers look to deploy application stores to support embedded solutions expect the GenIVI Alliance to strongly advocate for MeeGo as the ideal OS platform choice.

 

MeeGo stacks up as a strong alternative to Android or iOS for in-vehicle app stores. While Windows Embedded for Automotive and QNX are candidates, MeeGo’s candidacy is made stronger for being a cross-carmaker open development platform. And Qt is something of a wild card for MeeGo as a source of developer support.

 

Support for MeeGo has been years in the making. The Microsoft-Nokia announcement was not greeted warmly by Intel executives and received with some dismay by GenIVI members. Intel eventually announced its intentions to forge ahead undaunted in multiple device markets – including automotive. A week after the announcement, the MeeGo element of the announcement has been relegated to a sidelight with no impact on MeeGo’s or GenIVI’s longterm objectives.

 

In the end, Microsoft and Nokia Navteq are in position to have a significant influence over automotive infotainment systems, mobile device integration and in vehicle content/service/application delivery and mobile commerce. Now it is up to the two organizations to prove out the on-paper value proposition in the marketplace.

 

Additional Insight:

 

http://bit.ly/dLXz1v - Terminal Mode at Forefront of Connectivity, Competition Closing in - Insight - Roger C. Lanctot - Automotive Multimedia & Communications Service

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

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

My kingdom for a PZEV

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

·        TLEV – Transitional Low Emission Vehicle

·        LEV – Low Emission Vehicle

·        ULEV – Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle

·        SULEV – Super-Ultra Low Emission Vehicle

·        ZEV – Zero Emission Vehicle

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

·        ILEV – Inherently Low-Emission Vehicle

·        PZEV – Partial Zero Emission Vehicle

·        AT-PZEV – Advanced Technology Partial Zero Emission Vehicle

·        NLEV – National Low Emission Vehicle

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

EVs not EZ

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

·        HEV - Hybrid Electric Vehicles

·        BEV - Battery Electric Vehicles

·        EREV - Extended Range Electric Vehicles

·        Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles

·        Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles

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

When is a Volt not a Volt?

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

“I’ll ask my manager.”

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

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

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

Microsoft intends to clear the air at Convergence in Detroit this week with the launch of Windows Embedded Automotive 7.0, the merged automotive operating system that takes the place of MS Auto and Windows Automotive – in all their versions. An earlier version of the OS, Windows Embedded Automotive, will be featured in the information hub in Nissan’s Leaf electric vehicle, according to Microsoft, and will be joined in the spotlight by Silverlight for Windows Embedded, Microsoft’s alternative to Flash. Also highlighted at Convergence by Microsoft will be Fiat’s plans to bring the Fiat 500 to the U.S. along with its Blue&Me 2.0 (not it's official name) interface with support for the iPod. Ford and Kia will likely be making announcements related to their Microsoft implementations and Microsoft noted its participation in 12 different device platforms over the next 12 months from a number of different car makers reflecting the company’s continuing commitment to the automotive business. The announcements and enhanced presence at Convergence concludes multiple reorganizations at Microsoft which saw the departures of senior executives on the automotive team and a consolidation of all embedded activities under a Server and Tools group. Existing OEM and Tier One partners with Microsoft solutions include Ford, Fiat, Chrysler, Kia, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Alpine, Mitsubishi, and Clarion. Microsoft will use Convergence to demonstrate various Silverlight development tools for handling prototyping and to accelerate testing within the development and approval process while allowing OEMs to create executable specifications for suppliers. Tools will also be shown for a thread priority-based tuning system that allows for handling and logging errors during development. Microsoft will also highlight advances in its Tellme embedded speech product, currently being deployed by Kia in the Uvo. The new recognizer can handle eight languages with speaker independence while providing for the tuning of recognition for individual users. Also new for the embedded Tellme is an SMS reply function capable of performing fuzzy logic matches to a set of predetermined responses. Separate from the Convergence activities, Microsoft is pursuing automotive opportunities for its Bing search engine as well as for Tellme as a server-based voice recognizer. Both the Ford and Fiat Microsoft solutions provide for application downloads and updates, though Microsoft has not created its own automotive app store model. The Nissan Leaf information hub is the most significant of the announcements at Convergence. The hub will handle navigation, charging, radio and HVAC functionality in the car. The hub implementation suggests the potential for a wider Microsoft engagement with both Nissan and Clarion. As Nissan moves closer to realizing its connected vehicle vision outside of Japan, the company can be expected to move beyond its current reliance on VxWorks. Conclusion: Microsoft remains a credible alternative to QNX and the various versions of Linux distributions in the automotive industry. The MeeGo operating system created from the merged elements of Nokia’s Maemo and Intel’s Moblin platforms and adopted by the Genivi Alliance is not expected to be available in even a beta version until April 2011. Some Genivi members say an automotive version of the OS may be out before the end of the year. Google and its Android operating system continue to flirt with the automotive industry – playing hard to get. Google is interested in the automotive industry for the emerging search-related opportunities and for the potential to sell traffic and cloud-based location-aware applications, but the company still refuses to certify or support Android for embedded use. In spite of Android’s orphaned status in automotive, Continental and Parrot continue to carry the flag, secure in the knowledge that Android can still claim the largest and fastest growing developer community – key to unlocking app store opportunities. Microsoft’s step by step, implementation by implementation, customer-focused approach has left some customers and potential customers scratching their heads about the company’s long-term commitment to automotive. The headquarters reorganizations continue to raise questions, and yet Microsoft forges on, enhancing and refining its solutions and adding to its portfolio. Just the past year has seen Silverlight and Bing added to the mix along with Tellme. After years of wavering it appears that Microsoft has finally taken its vows and accepted its automotive market responsibilities. By now, the company has learned that the automotive contest is not always won by the swiftest, but by the supplier with the most staying power – and it looks like MS is in for the long haul. Further insight: Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications – Mark Fitzgerald – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - http://tinyurl.com/34hldb5 Automotive Connectivity: Beyond Bluetooth Solutions – Mark Fitzgerald – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - http://tinyurl.com/2gx88eo

TomTom’s marketing machine was in overdrive last week with announcements of a new OEM relationship (Mazda) and advances with existing partners (Toyota, Renault), enhancements to its (European) market-leading traffic solution (HD Traffic) and a traffic manifesto. But undoing all that positive spin was the note that the company still wants to charge about $50/year for its Live Services. It looks like TomTom didn’t get the latest email about automotive value propositions. As connectivity comes to more vehicles, drivers (and passengers) will get more of their content and services from the “cloud.” What this means is that car makers will increasingly have in place systems for sending, receiving, processing and managing all types of vehicle data – the “back end.” (This is not unlike what is happening at your average NASCAR or Formula One event every weekend – without the parking space availability and Internet radio.) The value of this data is manifest to the car makers for better understanding the performance of their vehicles on the road as well as better understanding how consumers use and abuse their cars. The implications for cost avoidance, warranty and recall management are in the millions of dollars of savings. There is no immediate or obvious benefit to the driver. For this reason, this kind of vehicle connectivity ought to be free. (On the other hand, OnStar and others have demonstrated that people will pay for safety and security.) As more drivers shift to smartphones (with mandatory data plans) with access to a wide range of content and services, they will be less likely to pay for any service from the car (or PND) maker that is available for free (or for which they are already paying) via their mobile phone. So how is the industry (and TomTom) going to monetize all this connectivity? Enter the back end value proposition. Auto makers and Tier Ones have gotten the message and recognize that driver and passenger eyeballs and “click-throughs” have value. A driver asking for directions to a restaurant or movie has economic value. A system that knows the location of the driver has value. Beyond this, a system that is able to provide a broader “cloud” perspective of all location-related activity – including everything from prosaic traffic information to “heat” maps of gatherings of people, weather, etc. – has other value-add implications for drivers, passengers and roadway systems and public transportation overall. But in the short-term, vehicle related information for diagnostics, safety and entertainment take priority. Continental, Harman, Visteon, Delphi and Pioneer clearly understand this. All of these companies have introduced systems or platforms that seek to leverage vehicle location information for commercial opportunities. Even Best Buy’s connected PND delivered sponsored links in its Google Search. Unfortunately, Tier Ones face an uphill struggle in trying to get a piece of this action. The telematics eco-system consists mainly of a telematics service provider (ie. ATX), a carrier (ie. Sprint or Verizon) and a system integrator (ie. TCS). Each of these operators is interested in the other’s business – with the possible exception of the call center. (No one wants the call center hot potato – too much cost.) While the call center tends to be shunned, the data back end tends to be either misunderstood or underestimated. But the back end system is rapidly becoming the backbone of the system altering the competitive landscape. The power and influence of back end systems is visible to the consumer in the growing variety of free content and services via smartphones. Google probably has the largest back end system currently influencing developments in the automotive market. With its free navigation, traffic and search and an open source operating system, Google has rattled the industry mightily over the past two years. Carriers, meanwhile, are trying to fight there way in – not content to be simply white label suppliers of bandwidth. Among the carriers sniffing around the telematics back end opportunity are Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, Telenor, Orange, AT&T Mobility, Vodafone and Ericsson. All of these companies recognize that their servers are as valuable as their networks. Some of these companies fancy themselves Tier One players. At least three handset makers have the potential to rise to the Google challenge: Nokia, Apple and RIM. Like Google, Nokia is offering free navigation while also seeding the market with open source development tools (Qt), operating system softare (MeeGo) and smartphone connectivity technology (Terminal Mode). But Nokia remains ambivalent about the automotive opportunity. MeeGo is not ready for market and Ovi has not been designed for automotive opportunities. RIM brings a unique value proposition combining its smartphone system experience with its newly acquired QNX automotive expertise. RIM represents the most immediate threat to Google’s potential dominance in the automotive market because of its potential to deploy navigation and traffic applications (based on handset probe data) and its ability to monitor, manage and mine its network data traffic. Apple’s strength lies in its secure systems for managing commerce for downloading applications and enabling the purchase of content. For these reasons, Apple and RIM both have the scope and scale to add value to automotive opportunities. The massive giveaway of content and services by both Google and Nokia is a setup for capturing click-through traffic and back end processing opportunities for creating metrics and analytic output. Google already has the analytic tools in place, unlike Nokia. The current landscape for back end services is highly fragmented and includes companies such as TeleNav, Airbiquity, Hitachi, TeleCommunications Systems, Hughes Telematics, WirelessCar, Oracle and IBM, along with the previously mentioned wireless carriers, RIM and Apple. (Strangely, Microsoft seems to have disqualified itself – having disbanded its automotive business unit. The original vision defined by Microsoft at multiple industry events included integrating more and more Microsoft solutions such as Bing, Tellme, and Silverlight into automotive platforms, but the complete vision – including back end services – never materialized. The one exception to this no-show for Microsoft are the company's ongoing efforts to capitalize on the Bing search engine.) The value proposition of back end service providers revolves around secure management and processing of vehicle and driver data for applications ranging from vehicle performance and safety to content and infotainment and, ultimately, commerce opportunities. Neither OEMs nor Tier Ones are equipped to manage this opportunity and traditional telematics providers lack the scale. The lack of scale is one reason Airbiquity has partnered with Hitachi to service Nissan’s connectivity needs around the world. It is likely that companies such as Hughes and TeleNav will seek partnerships with larger integrators such as IBM or Oracle for the same reason. Nokia, like RIM, already has the scope and scale and like Apple already has the commerce platform (Ovi) but, unlike Apple, has done little beyond the introduction of terminal mode to optimize its offerings for automotive. TomTom is another player in need of a partner to provide the scope and scale necessary to compete in the connected space. The larger organizations that are able to monetize the connectivity proposition will force out smaller players dependent on subscription revenue. If TomTom can enhance its navigation and infotainment platform to include safety and security telematics, it will greatly improve its value proposition and the likelihood of building a devoted subscriber base. Conclusion Google and RIM are best positioned to leverage the back end data processing opportunity presented by the automotive industry. Google faces trepidation among potential OEM customers who are suspicious of the company’s motives and objectives. Google’s failure to validate its Android OS for automotive applications is another stumbling block. Nokia has discrete elements of a solution in place but so far lacks the commitment and execution to challenge either Google or RIM. Apple is a wild card player in a market that remains fragmented with the door open to new entrants. Microsoft's Bing search engine is another contender gaining traction, but, in the end, Microsoft is more of an arms supplier to the contesting parties. Winners in the battle for the back end will be those companies able to bring security and state-of-the-art analytics and commerce management to the automotive industry. Google knows analytics. RIM knows security and network management. It remains to be seen whether Nokia or some dark horse will step forward to challenge these two dominant players, but the race is on. Additional Insight: http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/aGJHDj - Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications -Fitzgerald - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

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

Audiovox Corporation reported a profitable fourth quarter and fiscal year today suggesting a significant turnaround fueled by the resurgent automotive industry generally and recovering satellite radio and rearseat entertainment categories specifically. The report was terrific news for Audiovox, which held its earnings call this morning, but the good news seemed somewhat empty in view of a lack of innovative new solutions or even a stated vision of vehicle connectivity from the normally creative electronics supplier.The company built upon the good earnings news by announcing that it foresees developing a $100M OE portfolio for fiscal 2011 thanks to the addition of Qualcomm’s in-vehicle Flo-TV business and the acquisition of RSE supplier Invision and remote start/vehicle security player Omega. Invision’s existing RSE deals with GM and Toyota represented a solid shot in the arm to Audiovox’s own aftermarket business. The electronics segment of Audiovox’s business saw a revenue decline in fiscal 2010 due to reductions in inventory and the exit from several product lines including flat panel televisions and portable navigation devices. Combining the Invision RSE line with its own aftermarket RSE business, Audiovox now boasts relationships with GM, Ford, Chrysler, Nissan, Hyundai, Porsche, Kia, BMW, Toyota, Subaru and Mazda. With expectations of 11M cars being sold in calendar 2010 in the U.S., Audiovox expects the current boost in its fortunes to continue. The electronics segment’s sales were $375M for fiscal 2010, down 16.6% vs. the year-ago period due mainly to the decline in automobile sales and the recessionary economic environment. The company pointed to the positive impact from new programs with Sirius XM, Sony (PS3 integration with RSE system) and Flo-TV and noted that the acquisition of Invision has been instrumental in positioning the company to build on its existing OE relationships. Many of Audiovox’s existing relationships derive from the support of its own expeditor network, one of the largest and most effective installer networks in the industry. In its earnings call, Audiovox said mobile sales were up over the fiscal 2009 fourth quarter due primarily to increases in satellite radio, security and multi-media products, and the addition of new sales from Invision, Omega and Flo-TV. As a percentage of net sales, Electronics represented 71.4 percent of sales for the fiscal 2010 fourth quarter as compared to 62.3 percent for the comparable period in fiscal 2009 - demonstrating the increased importance of mobile electronics sales.

Audiovox is uniquely positioned for a range of significant automotive business opportunities including remote vehicle connectivity and security and video distribution within the car. The company does offer a range of head unit products that provide for multiple connectivity options and continues to offer non-desktop computing platforms suitable to automotive applications. The onset of connectivity and social networking present a range of potentially profitable opportunities awaiting a solution from Audiovox..

 

If there was anything missing from the earnings call it was a statement of strategy vis a vis social networking applications and Audiovox’s plans to capitalize on the trend. The partnership with Qualcomm for Flo-TV represents one avenue for Audiovox to connect with the rapidly growing smartphone market. The company introduced the Jensen Anyware Ultra-Mobile PC last fall, but there was no mention of the product on today’s earnings call, nor was their mention of Audiovox’s range of head unit offerings under multiple brands. Perhaps the next earnings call will bring news of more creative mobile initiatives and a vision of future vehicle connectivity.

The pressure to reduce vehicle carbon emissions is exacting an influence on the automotive industry beyond the handful of ultra-compact and EV/HEV announcements around the world. The calendar year 2009 installation rate for gas hungry V-6 and V-8 engines, for example, fell to 57.1% from 63.9% in 2008 in the U.S., according to Ward’s Automotive, continuing a five-year decline from a peak of 76.2% in 2004.

 

But the impacts are more wide ranging, as detailed by the president of the Association of International Automobile Manufacturers at a luncheon of the Washington Automotive Press Association this week. AIAM quotes U.S. government estimates that automobiles are responsible for 20% of carbon emissions.

 

Most governments around the world seek to discourage driving and thereby reduce carbon emissions with taxes on gasoline or via road charging – a solution being pursued most recently in The Netherlands. The U.S. is unique in the world in mandating Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency standards – known as CAFÉ.

 

With the ultimate goal in mind of reducing vehicle emissions to near zero carbon, the CAFÉ standards were recently updated (May 9, 2009) by the Obama administration in the U.S. to a 2016 target of 35.5 miles per gallon. The mandate became law April 1 and partially harmonized ruled from the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Environmental Protection Administration.

 

One of the more unusual elements of CAFÉ is the different goals for each OEM as well as its basis in vehicle footprint – originally defined and codified in 2007. The vehicle footprint is defined as the vehicle’s wheelbase multiplied by its track width – or the area enclosed by the points at which the wheels meet the ground. The new guidelines will show Porsche needing to improve its overall efficiency by 9.9 miles per gallon by 2016 while the overall average improvement per OEM will be 7.4 miles per gallon, based on existing forecasts of production and sales.

 

Using this footprint attribute, the government has been able to define targets by vehicle type as a way to get around the need for OEMs to offset sales of larger cars with sales of smaller cars. Each vehicle footprint has its own efficiency targets under the current guidelines and all face their own requirements to improve between 2012 and 2016.

 

Complete harmonization of all government green house gas (GHG) reduction policies has not yet been achieved. CAFÉ is defined by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act while CO2 emissions are also governed by the Clear Air Act. The EPCA concerns itself with vehicles as they are produced, for example, while the CAA concerns itself with the emissions of vehicles during their entire operating life.

 

The impact of these efforts are, in fact, pushing car makers to improve efficiency and technologies that respond to that need will benefit from these initiatives. Everything from stop/start to clean diesels and EVs are expected to see wider deployment and consumer acceptance. Strategy Analytics research shows consumers in Europe and the U.S. are more interested in electric vehicles than they are in shifting to smaller vehicles.

 

With that goal in mind, AIAM described the range of fuel efficiency initiatives reflected in the government guidelines as including:

 

Types of Engine Technology:

-         Low friction lubricants

-         Reduction of engine friction losses

-         Cylinder deactivation

-         Variable valve timing

-         Discreete variable valve lift

-         Stoichiometric gasoline direct-injection technology

-         Combustion restart

-         Turbocharging and downsizing

-         Exhaust-gas recirculation boost

-         Clean diesel engines

Types of Transmission Techology:

-         Improved automatic transmission controls

-         Six-, seven-, eight-speed automatic transmissions

-         Dual clutch or automated shift manual transmission

-         Continuously variable transmission

-         Manual 6-speed transmission

Vehicle Technologies Considered:

-         Low rolling resistance tires

-         Low drag brakes

-         Front or secondary axle disconnect for four wheel drive systems

-         Aerodynamic drag reduction

-         Mass reduction and material substitution

Electrification/Accessory and Hybrid Technologies:

-         Electric power steering

-         Improved accessories

-         Air conditioner systems

-         12-Vole micro-hybrid (MHEV)

-         Higher Voltage stop-start/belt integrated starter generator (BISG)

-         Integrated motor assist (IMA)/Crank integrated starter generator (CISG)

-         2-Mode hybrid (2MHEV)

-         Power-split hybrid (PSHEV)

-         Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)

-         Electric vehicles

 

Longer-Term Technology Solutions Include:

 

Plug-In Hybrids:

-         Battery R&D is still critical

-         Cost and durability are factors

-         Plug-in HEVs need about 5-8 times the battery capacity of a current HEV

-         Current goal is up to a 40 mile all-electric range

Battery EVs:

-         Remain an attractive target

-         Need battery capacity of 12-15 times a current HEV to provide adequate range

-         Same battery issues (cost, durability) plus operation in extreme weather (hot and cold temperatures)

-         Nissan has announced having BEVs in California market in 2010. White House regarding removing barriers

Fuel Cells:

-         Use hydrogen to generate electricity to run the vehicle, so they are a type of EV

-         Internal combustion engines can also be designed to use hydrogen

-         There are major hydrogen infrastructure issues – where do we get it; hot to distribute it?

Alternate Fuels:

-         Compressed natural gas

-         Ethanol – CAFÉ credit

 

Further Strategy Analytics insights:

 

http://bit.ly/cP39II - Hybrid Technologies Legislation/Support - Kevin Mak

http://bit.ly/bplBqV - EV/HEV Technologies Supply & Fitment Database - Kevin Mak

http://bit.ly/bv3Q0B - Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: OEM Strategies Reviewed - Kevin Mak

Reflecting Airbiquity’s rising star in the automotive telematics market, the company and partner Hitachi Automotive Systems, Ltd. have announced a partnership to provide telematics services for electric vehicles (EVs) globally. The announcement clearly positions Airbiquity – given its existing relationships with Toyota, Ford and OnStar – as the dominant telematics service provider of the future. The announcement emphasizes the global nature of the network and relationship between Hitachi Automotive and Airbiquity. The magnitude of this relationship is substantial, therefore, encompassing as it likely does, not only potentially the launch of the Leaf EV in North America but also perhaps lining up Airbiquity as a candidate to serve as the technology and infrastructure behind Renault-Nissan’s wider EV agenda including Europe, South America and Asia-Pacific. (Airbiquity had no comment on any potential relationship with Nissan or any other OEMs.) While Airbiquity is known for its so-called data over voice solution, the Leaf relationship is related to Airbiquity's Viaaq technology. Viaaq is serving as the back-end infrastructure for some Smart-grid implementations, paving the way for a next-generation role for Airbiquity in the telematics eco-system. The Airbiquity platform is well-suited to the task of supporting the needs of an electric vehicle to communicate vehicle location and battery charge. This relatively low bandwidth, data over voice, solution provides more than enough capacity both for battery-related information communication as well as safety and security and even eCall support. But the tie up with Hitachi is targeted at a broader IT infrastructure play. The only competing solution provider with an equivalent global footprint in telematics is WirelessCar, which already boasts relationships with Volvo Trucks, Volvo and BMW. In many ways, the WirelessCar solution represents a next generation answer to telematics service provision, emphasizing Internet protocol communications and voice-over-data technology. Where the global ambitions of Hitachi and Airbiquity may fall short is in extending the vehicle pipeline they currently offer to smart-grid applications and a deeper relationship with Nissan. The current point of leverge with Nissan derives from Hitachi Automotive's IT work in Japan in support of Nissan's telematics offerings in that country. The prospect of moving beyond "pipes to cars" and into the back-end systems represents a major leap for Airbiquity and puts the company in contention with IBM and other back-end integrators including Microsoft (Hohm) and Google. Unfortunately for Airbiquity, Ford has already announced its partnership with Microsoft for Smart-grid integration. OnStar has announced its intention to provide similar Smart-grid capabilities, but has not announced an IT partner. Hitachi and Airbiquity say their platform forms a central hub in the smart-grid network. They say the partnership paves the way for creating gateway infrastructures that can be linked with smart-grid systems. This will increase the footprint of both companies in the field of global connected vehicle services, and help automotive manufacturers worldwide quickly implement EV solutions, creating efficiencies and optimizing the costs of their service operations. Airbiquity has already made great progress in bringing the platform to a wider audience. The relationship with Hitachi also has implications for Ford Motor Company, for whom Hitachi/Clarion is a major manufacturing partner. Ford has implemented the Airbiquity platform as have OnStar and Toyota. All four OEMs have global ambitions for electric vehicles and telematics. Ford, for example, is expected to bring Sync to Europe soon. While several of these relationships are relatively new, it is fair to say that Airbiquity is poised to become the telematics service industry leader in the coming years. It is worth noting, however, how fleeting such leadership can be. It has been just three years since Continental acquired Motorola’s telematics business which at the time included contract manufacturing of the Ford Sync and OnStar modules. Within two years the OnStar business had shifted to LG Electronics and the Sync manufacturing relationship had shifted to Flextronics. But given its relationships with four of the largest car makers in the world, Airbiquity may have finally found  recipe for a more enduring position at the top of the industry. Further Insight: http://bit.ly/aIm4vK - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight

Genivi Challenges Automotive OS Duopoly, Disrupts Business Models

 

The Genivi Alliance had a coming out party at the Consumer Electronics Show this week. Aside from the formal launch of the alliance at CeBIT in the winter of 2009, the organization has chosen smaller stages from which to tell its story and attract additional partners. At the CES show, however, Visteon raised the Genivi flag high in introducing new automotive infotainment solutions.

 

Genivi is currently positioned in the industry as an alternative to Microsoft and QNX as an automotive operating system for a range of cockpit applications. The business models of these three organizations differ significantly, though, and the objectives of the Genivi Alliance are not strictly related to taking the place of either of Microsoft’s automotive OS offerings or QNX. The stated objectives appear more closely aligned with reducing development costs for OEMs and, more recently, may include shifting ownership of intellectual property to the OEMs as well.

 

QNX and Microsoft are not the only operating systems available to automotive suppliers. There still remain multiple Linux distributions – including the recently emergent Android being positioned for automotive applications by Continental - as well as versions of M-Itron. But when it comes to the development of the most advanced automotive cockpit systems on the road today, QNX and Microsoft are dominant.

 

When it comes to business models, the two companies differ significantly. Microsoft has a reputation for being expensive, but mitigates the expense with marketing dollars. QNX takes a more traditional approach to software licensing and is a much quieter player in the market, from a marketing or marketing dollars standpoint. Microsoft has found success in both the high-end infotainment segment and the low end (Ford Sync, Fiat Blue&Me).

 

QNX has seen much of its deployments in the luxury segment in connection with parent Harman International, but has also had its share of success in Bluetooth solutions, instrument clusters and GM’s OnStar system. QNX’s most recent success has centered on its work with Lexus and parent Toyota which appears to have opened the door to additional business in Japan. QNX claims in excess of 12M cars deployed with its software.

 

The Genivi strategy, rooted in the shared-code model of Linux, is designed to speed product development by identifying and distributing those layers of operating system code that are identical across platforms. Of course, all operating systems have an element of shared code, but the Genivi approach creates a “star chamber-like” panel of alliance members that vet new additions to the underlying shared code, presumably leaving ample room for alliance members to differentiate their solutions in higher levels of the software stack such as HMI are other application-specific areas.

 

Genivi had its CES debut in the Visteon booth. While one physical platform was shown based on an Intel ATOMM processor, executives said it could be swapped out for solutions from competing silicon suppliers such as Renesas or Freescale, depending on the customer requirement. This is one element of the Genivi platform, like other industry platforms it is intended to allow virtual plug-n-play swapping of processors and other system elements.

 

Visteon executives noted that the initial release, Genivi 1.0, occurred December 17 and the organization is now in the midst of a 21-business day review by its membership. Genivi announced that it surpassed the 50-member mark before CES including such significant partners as Renesas and Nissan. The Genivi 1.0 review is to be completed Jan. 21. During the period of the review the Board of Genivi may receive, via its executive director, any potential member claims of IP which were not contributed by the member under the terms of the IPR policy that they feel are infringed upon with the candidate release. The review period is also indeed to perform a careful review of the documentation of inbound and outbound licensing of the components included in the release. In no notifications occur, the board is expected to vote in a meeting Jan. 27 to release Genivi 1.0. Otherwise, the Board may delay until IP notifications are research and resolved or until license documentation is complete.

 

Because Genivi is so new, rumors continue to swirl around critical business model issues such as IP ownership by OEMs implementing Genivi solutions and around the extent to which it may creep into upper levels of the software stack such as HMI and the application level. For now, the industry will have to wait for its chance to see the first implementation.

 

Genivi will coexist in the market with both QNX and Microsoft including in some of the same systems. This is true for Android as well, which will not replace QNX or Microsoft in the short run. In the end, while additional versions of Linux will continue to emerge and find a place in the automotive market, the duopoly of Microsoft and QNX is likely to persist for some time. Genivi stands to have its greatest influence over time as additional layers of code are added. Participants in the alliance will be watching most closely to see that their value add contribution is preserved.