Next week American Honda Motors will introduce its 2011 Odyssey at the Los Angeles Auto Show. The car comes equipped with what the company calls FM Traffic. This seemingly innocuous announcement marks a shift in the industry with wide ranging implications for both automotive radio and on-board traffic information.

Auto makers are confronting major decisions regarding content delivery to the car and the configuration of the center stack. The battle lines for content delivery divide over the question of embedding a telecommunications module or connecting the driver’s smartphone. Smartphone connectivity shifts the data plan burden onto the driver, while embedding allows wider latitude for vehicle data collection by the OEM.

The radio is the beating heart of the center stack and here a struggle is unfolding between and among traditional AM/FM technology, HD Radio, satellite radio and Internet radio. The battlelines are drawn over content delivery, personalization, localization, monetization and flexibility. Honda’s FM Traffic is based on RDS-TMC, a free (to the consumer) traffic data service delivered over the FM sideband. RDS-TMC represents the state of the art in North America for delivering accurate and timely information on traffic conditions. The Honda solution is unique in that it is supplied by the Broadcast Traffic Consortium (BTC), a nationwide group of broadcasters allied with Navteq.

The industry will have to wait until next week to see how Honda has implemented incident and flow messages, but it is likely that Honda and its supplier, Alpine, have added value to the traffic reporting proposition (http://automobiles.honda.com/traffic/). Alpine will also be bringing the BTC RDS-TMC solution to its aftermarket products. Honda is only the second North American OEM to deploy RDS-TMC from BTC, following Mercedes-Benz. More are expected.

The dominant RDS-TMC supplier in North America is Clear Channel, which is partnered with Inrix. The Clear Channel solution is offered by BMW, Volvo, Mazda and a few other OEMs. Honda’s decision is significant given that the company also offers Sirius XM’s NavTraffic service, which requires a monthly subscription. But Honda’s choice reflects several hard truths for the industry:

Truth #1 – The value of traffic data is declining. Once valued at $1/user/month, traffic data has declined in value to 25 cents/user/month or less at the supplier level. For the consumer, traffic information is perceived as free – especially since so much of it is readily available over radio and television broadcast sources as well as from Depts. of Transportation via the Internet. RDS-TMC traffic information is also free (to the consumer) and, therefore, fits this model and mindset.

Truth #2 – RDS-TMC traffic data is better than good enough. Anyone who has used RDS-TMC-equipped navigation systems in a heavy traffic corridor can attest to its accuracy and reliability. Satellite radio traffic information, by comparison, is not competitive – based on this analyst’s experiences. (Some European RDS-TMC data, Germany in particular, is the exception to this.)

Truth #3 – Traffic information services continue to evolve and improve and service providers must evolve along with them. While HD Radio deployment of TPEG traffic data services will be the next step, it will be followed quickly by solutions based on smartphone integration and, ultimately, embedded traffic data platforms that provide for Internet connectivity. All of this is bad news for Sirius XM. The company is already wrestling two alligators – a transition of existing Sirius users to XM service by 2016 (see http://bit.ly/bIWHJ6) and the introduction of Satellite Radio 2.0 in Q4 2011 (see http://bit.ly/bqiU7F).

While managing these two processes, the company is also justifying its existence on a quarterly basis before its investors as a public company.   Traffic data services are key to Sirius XM because they represent the most successful telematics service the company has been able to deliver. Unfortunately, because of the capacity limitations (traffic data for all cities must be delivered down a single connection leading to data being left out due to capacity limitations or delayed due to the carousel-like data transmission) and one-way nature of the satellite pipe, Sirius XM traffic is poor.  

In fact, Sirius XM traffic, based as it is on Navteq’s Traffic.com, has given Navteq’s data service a bad reputation – through no fault of Navteq’s. (This is not to be confused with the city-by-city audio traffic broadcasts provided by Metro Traffic.) Honda’s selection of BTC RDS-TMC is a shot in the arm for Navteq’s traffic team which is looking to bounce back from its reliance on Sirius XM.  The subscriber volume for satellite traffic has been poor as a result of the poor data. Some OEMs do not even offer satellite traffic for their satellite radio systems. This points to a wider problem for satellite radio. The company has yet to find a successful model for branching out beyond talk and music.  

Both Sirius TV (Chrysler) and TravelLink (Ford) are seen in the industry as failed services due to low subscriber volumes. Of course, the business models were also flawed. Sirius TV only offered three channels of rearseat entertainment, a fatal limitation, and most of the TravelLink services – for parking or inexpensive gas – are available on smartphone apps.  Now Sirius XM is setting the stage for Satellite Radio 2.0. In a report to LibertyMedia shareholders last month, CEO Mel Karmazin tipped his hand a bit by referencing the possibility of transmitting local movie times and/or red-light camera info to drivers via satellite radio. He also mentioned enhanced time-shifting technology, presumably from storing or buffering some satellite content.  Other reports regarding Satellite Radio 2.0 suggest more sophisticated search functions for finding particular artists or songs that may be playing at any given time across the voluminous satellite radio dial. Some industry sources say SR 2.0 is expected to have 25% more capacity. It’s not clear whether any of these SR 2.0 possibilities are true, possible or even compelling to future subscribers. 

But Karmazin has a compelling story for investors. He told them last month that OEM penetration of satellite radio as a percentage of new cars was 60% and that the number of satellite radio factory-enabled vehicles in operation in North America was approximately 30M and on a path to hit 80M by 2015. For this reason, the company is continuing to promote certified preowned vehicle programs for satellite radio re-activation – which is seen as a key to future growth.  Karmazin further notes that Sirius XM has some of the lowest subscriber churn in the media landscape (1.8%), has one of the largest subscriber bases (19.5M, second only to Comcast), and now captures 15% of overall radio revenue ($2.8B) vs. $15B for terrestrial radio, and ~$1B for Internet radio/music services. He also notes that satellite radio’s subscriber revenue is $2.8B vs. ~$300M for Internet radio which translates to per subscriber revenue (annual 2009 est.) of $136 vs. $1.25/user for Internet radio and $10-$20/listener for terrestrial radio. 

Conclusions  It’s worth noting that Karmazin made no reference to either HD Radio or to Sirius XM’s stated transition to XM by 2016. While the present looks promising for Sirius XM in the form of rising vehicle sales and the launch of new certified pre-owned vehicle programs, the long-term outlook is less rosy.  The wider deployment of competing and free traffic services should put the last nail in the coffin of Sirius XM’s telematics ambitions. Embedded telematics services and smartphone connectivity, combined with FM- and HD Radio-based solutions, will obviate the need for any Sirius XM data services.  A new front end to Sirius XM’s audio content will provide a short-term lift in allowing for easier access to specific types of music. And premium sports and personality content remain a demand wild card and, combined with nationwide reception, preserve the satellite value proposition.   But car makers are still not likely to integrate satellite radio into the core of their center stack platforms, meaning satellite radio will remain an add-on, particularly given ongoing system upgrades. In a matter of years, cars will be shifting to Internet connected solutions allowing for personalization and location awareness, two propositions with which satellite radio cannot compete. Additional insights: http://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/deumcd -# Traffic Data Quality Will Determine #Telematics Winners - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics

IntelliDrive, the USDOT program intended to create intelligent highways, stands at the crossroads of major funding and deployment decisions but may be overlooking a solution capable of realizing the smart roadways dream in the twinkling of an eye – relative to current timelines. To do so, though, may mean setting aside, for now 5.9GHz DSRC technology in favor of a technology most recently associated with bad driving behavior. Smartphones and the cellular network hold the key to the deployment of wireless systems and services capable of revolutionizing automotive safety and achieving the dream of safe connected highway systems. This goal can be achieved through opt-in solutions that provide for the sharing of device data and could serve as a transitional technology between existing systems and the DSRC technologies not likely to be deployed for another 5-10 years. Alternatively, the government could step in with its regulatory and legislative powers and mandate the provisioning of cellular data transmissions for connected vehicle communications. (Such a scheme was described to me by an ITS America member at the recent Distracted Driving event in Washington, DC. The executive asked to remain anonymous because his proposal may actually be at odds with the short-term interests of his employer.) So cellular technology, which is already part of the IntelliDrive vision along with DSRC and Wi-Fi, can be used as a transitional alternative to DSRC on a voluntary or involuntary basis. (DSRC is universally preferred for safety applications because of its low lacency.) On the involuntary side, concept is to require smartphones to share their location data and to be used for the reception of targeted emergency or road sign messages. The proposition involves a monthly charge to the subscriber of approximately 10 cents – not unlike the current eight-cent charge for mandated 911 calling on mobile phones – to cover the cost of the first 500Kb of monthly data use on the phone for ITS purposes. (It is worth noting as an aside that Wi-Fi technology has already been pioneered – notably by Dash Navigation – as a V2V technology for communicating highway and traffic conditions. With Wi-Fi technology proliferating on smartphones it will not be long before this same capability emerges in the handset space.) Confronted with this opportunity opponents are quick to note the privacy and liability concerns associated with cellular (and Wi-Fi) technology and the need for, at the very least, an opt in mechanism. The bottom line is that these concerns are not insurmountable and a mandated system is feasible. Opening up a data channel on all phones for location data and automatic crash notifications (transmit) and in-vehicle messaging (receive) will open the door to wide adoption of telematics technology and achieve the goal of connecting vehicles to the infrastructure, in-vehicle messaging and to emergency services. The business models to support the service rationale are not unlike those for RDS-TMC, 911 and 511 services, which means this solution is designed to be low cost but still requires some third party support from private companies. The barriers to be overcome are numerous and include – inter-carrier cooperation, the creation of a data clearinghouse for processing and filtering data, and the creation of a broadcast mechanism most likely via multiple private entities. Achieving comprehensive deployment on mobile phones will also require federal legislative and regulatory action. Because the mobile phone-based system will pay for itself while also taking advantage of ubiquitous handset technology and the cellular network it has massive advantages over the proposed DSRC-based system. The 5.9GHz DSRC technology will require BOTH auto maker support for an added module and antenna AND a huge deployment of transmitters and receivers along roadsides and the corresponding data processing infrastructure. DSRC is inevitable, but why must the driving public wait for a solution that will save lives. If the mandated approach is too onerous, then it is more or less left to private enterprise to implement their own prove networks along the lines of Waze and the CloudMade communities which are multiplying around the world. These emerging networks have the capability to bring these services to market almost immediately. More importantly the proliferation of OBDII connections (admittedly using wireless communication protocols claimed by Hughes Telematics) means smartphones are also capable of communicating vehicle sensor and camera data, further enhancing the value of the proposed systems. The proliferation of low-cost sensor and camera systems means there is a wealth of available inputs such a system can put to work to enhance safety, reduce congestion and hazardous driving conditions, and improve the overall driving experience. In fact, the proliferation of smartphones and inexpensive cameras and sensors are rapidly combining to mitigate the demand for the IntelliDrive DSRC vision. Consumers and industry representatives may discover after the implementation of a smartphone based network sharing vehicle and sensor data and communicating traffic conditions, the incremental enhancement of DSRC deployment is unnecessary. The concept also suggests that those car makers with embedded systems should be able to gain an advantage from having more direct and complete control of the user experience. And those car makers with existing probe networks will gain the first-mover advantage of having a larger volume of inputs to process for the benefit of their subscribers. Facilitating the implementation of this vision will be the rapid development and deployment of handset connectivity technology. From terminal mode to Delphi’s D-Connect and Apple’s iPod out, the technology is rapidly falling into place – alongside OBDII communications and sensor proliferation to facilitate the communication of traffic and other urgent messages to primary and secondary displays in the car. In fact, the mobile phone industry is facing the prospect of a handset FM receiver mandate that will create yet another pathway for communicating information into the vehicle either via the on-board radio or via the mobile phone. The handset FM mandate is intended mainly for the transmission of emergency alerts, but will also enable regular FM transmissions. Conclusion: The concept of using mobile phones and cellular technology to supplant or serve as a transitional solution to the proposed DSRC network for V2X communications is radical and lacks an advocate as a mandate but is already emerging as a voluntary solution in the form of discreet smartphone applications and related user communities. The mandate path is likely to die since the very companies that most recognize its value – those with currently deployed embedded telematics systems  - have the most to lose from its implementation. Other market participants such as content and applications providers and even telecommunications carriers may also be opposed to a mandated proposition as it threatens existing business models and relationships. But all parties are beginning to recognize the mobile phone as the key to solving multiple safety challenges in the vehicle. Whether anticipating hazardous intersections (Global Mobile Alert) or sharing probe data (Waze, TrafficTalk) the smartphone has established its credentials as a safety device. The phone also benefits from the support of a rich developer community rapidly moving smartphone technology into realms not previously foreseen. Additional Insights: http://bit.ly/aWhNuC - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/9QCIVw - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Datatables - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights

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

The arrival of Nokia’s Terminal Mode technology for smartphone integration and ATX Group’s downloadable application for Mercedes-Benz’s TeleAid telematics service has highlighted the intensifying battle between OEMs and third-parties over car owners and the in-vehicle experience. OEMs are being forced into the business of certifying applications for use in the car at the risk of losing control of both the customer and the user experience. And the encroachment of third-party apps is raising serious security concerns. The introduction of the ATX downloadable app is perhaps the worst case scenario for an OEM given the existing relationship with Mercedes TeleAid subscribers. The application was neither created by Mercedes nor was it certified or approved by Mercedes. The result is the first instance in the industry of a service provider competing with an OEM for the OEM’s customers. The clever application allows for the wireless transmission of destinations to Mercedes navigation systems equipped with TeleAid connections and also allows for remote door unlock among other features. The purpose of the application is to extend and maintain the existing ATX relationship with legacy TeleAid subscribers. But it is an intrusion most unwelcome at Mercedes headquarters. Most of the functions offered by the ATX app were made available in a similar app launched by Mercedes last Fall as part of its mbrace telematics service launch. The difference between the two is that mbrace, launched on November 16, 2009, is part of Mercedes’ introduction of a new telematics service relationship with Hughes Telematics. Aside from the relevance of the ATX announcement to the ongoing contretemps between Mercedes and its service provider (the two have yet to resolve their legal differences), the implications for the industry, telematics and the app store model are critical including: Management of the telematics service Ownership of the customer Control of the telematics marketing message Control of dealer marketing and incentives Certification of vehicle related applications Control of the in-vehicle user experience But these issues are inherent in the app store model itself. For Mercedes, the mbrace app, for select iPhone and Blackberry smartphones, enables a similar feature set as the ATX app and also sets up the ability for Mercedes to create its own app store. The mbrace app was groundbreaking because it was the first from an OEM to enable remote functions from a handset – demonstrated but not delivered by others – while simultaneously changing the telematics service provider and call center phone numbers – effectively transferring existing TeleAid customers (now using ATX) to the mbrace service. Mercedes even stated plans to introduce new applications periodically, the first of which are expected to arrive later this summer, propelling Mercedes to the front of the automotive app store class, where it is now joined by Ford (which seems to introduce new applications monthly). The ATX announcement, however, reveals the proverbial fly in the app store ointment. If ATX can divert Mercedes’ TeleAid customers, which OEM will be the next to see an app divert their customers? ATX’s app allows the existing TeleAid subscribers, of which there are an estimated 400,000, to maintain their relationship with ATX and provides them with functionality similar to that offered by the new mbrace service. Since customers are paying ATX in total nearly $100M for the service, this is important. To help drive the message home, ATX is offering Mercedes dealer sales personnel $100 spiffs to communicate the message to existing Mercedes owners. (The only service being offered by dealers on new vehicles is the mbrace service.) Meanwhile, Mercedes is offering a 20% commission - worth about $100 - to dealer F&I and sales executives to promote longer-term (18 month) initial mbrace subscriptions. (Customers already get six free months of the basic service and three free months of the Plus service which includes concierge support among other functions.) There is the potential for a mixed message here, although the ATX message is only for existing owners, while mbrace is targeted at both existing owners and purchasers of new Mercedes cars. (A recent visit to a Mercedes dealer revealed no visible onsite literature or POP materials for either TeleAid or embrace – ie. telematics is still not part of the core Mercedes message. To top of the lack of telematics enthusiasm at the dealership, the F&I exec said he didn’t see the need for telematic services since he owned an iPhone!) Because of the terms of its now concluded agreement with ATX, Mercedes cannot promote, sell or install the mbrace service for any Mercedes vehicles purchased between Nov. 16, 2008 and Nov. 16, 2009 until after Nov. 16, 2010. It is also for this reason that Mercedes is hampered in its marketing and promotion of mbrace, although various Mercedes Websites make clear that the only service currently endorsed by the company is mbrace. The irony in this battle for customer ownership between ATX and Mercedes is that the average Mercedes customer is likely not purchasing the vehicle for the telematics service. Little or no advertising activity is committed to conveying the telematics message. And, yet, with an estimated 400,000 subscribers paying upwards of $240 per year, the revenue stream is valuable to ATX, Hughes and Mercedes. Although unique, the ATX-Mercedes situation is analogous to the emerging automotive app store proposition. Nearly every OEM is scrambling to demonstrate or introduce an app store strategy of some kind following the perceived success of Ford’s Sync model. But no one is pondering the potential for an application to commandeer an OEM’s marketing, sales and telematics strategy as well as the user experience in the vehicle. Nokia’s Terminal Mode capability has raised similar questions of control of the user experience in the car. It is for this reason that Delphi introduced its own alternative to terminal mode which provides for a Delphi application certification process and OEM control of the HMI (http://bit.ly/94Mn1V). The broad industry perception of the Nokia solution, which reproduces the display of a mobile device into the vehicle and enables the use of on-board interfaces, is that it fundamentally alters the carefully crafted vehicle HMI. There is no doubt that no single company – Nokia, Delphi, RealVNC, Airbiquity, Continental, Parrot, etc. – will control the critical smartphone interface. But what is clear is that it has become a critical battleground Not surprisingly, Apple must be watching these developments and snickering. Apple’s iPhones have enabled a wide range of services, application and content delivery to drivers with marketing, revenue and HMI implications outside of the scope of the OEM’s plans. Customers enter dealer showrooms on a daily basis looking for cars with which their devices can connect – the classic case of the tale wagging the dog. The Mercedes-ATX situation provides a glimpse of a brave new world where car makers are simple pawns in a chess match controlled by carriers, handset makers, application developers and service providers all seeking to extract revenue from car owners. The good news is there is opportunity for those companies able to offer a secure smarthone interface that enables an OEM’s brand definition. OEMs have already taken steps to create certification procedures along with their own in-house development teams. Car makers will never have complete control over applications such as Internet radio or location-based services. But applications that tap into vehicle data and functions, such as remote door unlocking or vehicle starting, are areas that OEMs will demand control. Mercedes’ new telematics partner, Hughes, was once the ultimate embodiment of the external third party seeking to implant a revenue-generating module in consumer vehicles. The automotive industry rejected the Hughes model – particularly its hardware platform – opting instead, as in the case of Mercedes, to leverage the Hughes back-end infrastructure. What could help to make all parties play nicely together is revenue sharing. OEMs clearly want a cut from the stream of revenue flowing from off-board applications. The long-term winners will be those solution providers that provide for that OEM piece of the action and, most importantly, bullet-proof security. Hughes had the right idea: to create a platform in the vehicle for accessing revenue-generating content, services and applications. Little did Hughes know at its inception that the smartphone would replace its embedded module. OEMs know now that they must take the steps today to create the connections and define the relationships that will allow for mobile device connectivity while keeping the OEM in a secure user experience/revenue producing loop. Additional Insights: http://bit.ly/94Mn1V - Delphi Emerges at SAE with Answer to Nokia Terminal Mode - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics http://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as 'Apps' Competition Mounts - Joanne Blight - AMCS http://bit.ly/aIm4vK - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 - Joanne Blight - AMCS

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

BMW’s wholistic EfficientDynamics campaign is the latest and clearest manifestation of an industry movement that is propelling telematics technology adoption. In a recent presentation to the International Motor Press Association (IMPA), BMW executives clearly defined an integral role within the EfficientDynamics agenda for navigation, embedded vehicle connectivity and even smartphone integration. The company has already made impressive gains in fuel efficiency and CO2 reductions while preserving or enhancing performance via mechanical means, such as optimizing transmissions and adopting brake energy regeneration and auto start-stop functions. Now, BMW foresees even greater gains coming from the integration of on-board sensor inputs. BMW seeks to extend efficiency gains from the fusion of data inputs from navigation systems, adaptive cruise control and parking distance control systems, cameras and light/rain sensors, DME and DSC systems and V2X communication. The output of this data fusion will lead to the prediction of upcoming driving situations and optimized vehicle conditioning (ie. charging or discharging of the battery). These system enhancements will help optimize operating strategy and determine optimal driving distance for available consumption. The integration of navigation and safety system inputs means that in the future both the navigation set-up and the portfolio of safety systems will increasingly be standard equipment. They will be integral to the efficient operation of the vehicle. And connectivity will be necessary so that the very latest information on road conditions (including traffic) is available. While a growing proportion of cars will have embedded connectivity, smartphones will still play a vital role in the drive for more fuel efficienct cars. The company has already learned from its Mini E field trial that smartphone applications have a key role to play. Drivers will use smartphone applications to remotely check the state of vehicle charge as well as to signal the car to begin heating or cooling batteries while still connected to the grid. OnStar has foreseen this as well, showing just such an application at the recent Consumer Electronics Show. It is true that range anxiety is a very real customer concern with electric vehicles. In fact, it is yet another reason for such vehicles to be equipped with standard navigation systems. But BMW executives told the IMPA delegates that customers in the Mini E trial found that “charging (was) not a big issue even without (an) extensive network of public charging stations.” According to the results of the trial, the range of the Mini E was sufficient for most trips. This finding corroborates GM’s finding that 78% of people drive 40 miles or fewer per day. In the end, therefore, the role of the on-board map and navigation will likely have more to do with maximizing vehicle range as opposed to easing driver anxiety. And road elevation data will no doubt play a greater role as well in route planning. The drive for fuel efficiency and electrification will combine to bring cars to market that are not only more efficient and emitting less carbon dioxide, but that are also safer with the additional sensor content and map data. Further insights are available: http://bit.ly/bv3Q0B - Hybrid and Electric Vehicles: OEM Strategies Reviewed – Kevin Mak http://bit.ly/alm4vK - Global Automotive OE Telematics Market 2008-2016 – Joanne Blight

It is very strange indeed to find Toyota at the focal point of a vehicle recall imbroglio after years of immaculate quality ratings and at the peak of its global market share. But the strangeness of the timing is even more severe than that, because it was Toyota’s Prius that was used by QNX and Alcatel-Lucent to promote their “ng connect” LTE Car initiative late last year. The Toyota Prius became the mascot for the ng connect program, popping up in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas, in fact anywhere cars or automotive technology were on display. The purpose of the ng connect tour was to spread the word about the onset of 4G LTE technology and what it will mean for connected cars. Of course, the tour was also a showcase for QNX’s vision of both on-board and connected applications. Chief among the roster of on-board applications was a so-called Virtual Mechanic. The virtual mechanic is intended to provide live in-vehicle status reports on a wide range of vehicle systems including brakes, transmission, fuel, etc. with text and graphics. QNX is already the enabling software behind OnStar which, like Ford’s Vehicle Health Report feature, provide drivers with emailed status reports. The difference with virtual mechanic is that the information is live and delivered inside the vehicle. For QNX, the virtual mechanic was merely a concept shown in the context of a wide range of other concepts including in-vehicle displays of remote traffic cameras, access to Internet radio (Pandora), and a host of other location-aware and entertainment oriented applications. But the plot thickens with the emergence of Toyota’s recall nightmare because QNX is a supplier to both GM and Toyota. The virtual mechanic concept appears to belong to QNX, but the possibility for GM or Toyota to adapt the technology for their own marketing and customer relations purposes changes the prospects for this technology considerably. The question now is which manufacturer, Toyota or GM, will be first to enable a virtual mechanic-type application in the car. Or could some other QNX customer leap to the front of the queue: BMW, Peugeot, Mercedes Benz, Chrysler, Hyundai? Any one of these companies can look at Toyota’s difficult situation and realize they could be the next car company with software-laden cars producing unexplained, and seemingly unfixable, failures. A challenge for both Toyota and GM in implementing QNX's virtual mechanic will be the limited number of cars both companies sell with full-screen navigation sufficient to graphically display on-board systems. But LCD attach rates are improving for all OEMs in all segments and this application is yet another justification for large display fitment. Suffice it to say that the virtual mechanic is a concept that has arrived just in time to offer a way forward for a damaged auto maker and possibly for the entire industry. Whether QNX’s customers view this prospect from the same perspective remains to be seen. A final note: In this analyst’s opinion, the virtual mechanic will also make a great customer demonstration for car dealers. Source:  Strategy Analytics