The measure of a creative and powerful marketing organization is often best taken when the chips are down. For Hughes Telematics that measure might have been taken two years ago when Chrysler and Hughes agreed to part company with Chrysler in the throes of a Chapter 11 filing.

 

The loss of Chrysler meant that Mercedes-Benz (Mbrace) might be left as Hughes’s lone OEM customer in North America. The loss of Chrysler also looked like the final straw that might bring down Hughes’ once-grand vision of a cross-OEM hybrid telematics system integrating cellular and satellite connectivity. That vision included a hardware module, call centers, service partners and an integrated three-screen solution enabling Web and smartphone access to vehicle information along with remote control.

 

Today, all of those pieces – except the satellite connectivity – are still in play, but Hughes has repositioned itself to address a wider scope of potential verticals (including healthcare and insurance) while still addressing automotive OEM and aftermarket opportunities.  Hughes is approaching the market with a less grandiose and more flexible offering – in-Drive.  

 

in-Drive to the Rescue

 

In-Drive allows Hughes to pursue fleet, insurance or aftermarket vehicle tracking and recovery solutions as a white label provider of software systems capable of supporting wired or wireless modules or even smartphone-based solutions.  The introduction of in-Drive, heralded at the 2010 CES show and even more advanced at the 2011 show in January, showed Hughes bouncing back with a new vision.  

 

Paramount to that new vision is an emphasis on the insurance side of telematics.  Thanks to intellectual property acquired from NetworkCar, Hughes has the most flexible and extendable platform available in the insurance telematics market.  Also thanks, in part, to that technology positioning, the company is engaged with unidentified insurers to bring a next-gen telematics solution to the market.  (Hughes declines to identify any potential partners or the nature of any systems that may be in development.)

 

The importance of the insurance telematics angle ought not to be underestimated by car makers.  Progressive’s launch of its Snapshot usage-based insurance product (http://bit.ly/fu1JCa - Usage-Based Insurance Brings New Competitors to Telematics Market) has the potential to fundamentally change the relationship between insurance companies and their customers.

 

Progressive’s Snapshot product tracks vehicle miles driven, amount of time driven and time of day and calculates speed, though it does not correlate speed to posted speed limits.  The online reporting tool shows these figures along with a calculation of the number of “hard braking” incidents. 

 

The Snapshot reporting tool also displays a graph characterizing the driving behavior as to whether the driver is maximizing MPG correlated to the time of day of that driving activity.  In this way Progressive is opening the door to a new relationship with the customer.  To Hughes’ credit, the company described its own solutions around eco-routing and eco-driving three or more years ago.

 

Hughes Enabling Next-Gen UBI Solutions

 

Hughes’ insurance offering, like Snapshot, might be an OBDII plug in, or it can be implemented in a variety of ways including wireless connectivity.  Hughes is not wed to a particular platform and is capable of deploying its solution on any platform.  More important is the back-end analytical tools Hughes brings to the proposition allowing for everything from traditional safety and security to vehicle diagnostics, emissions, concierge services or family monitoring.

 

The system/service bundles offered by Hughes via in-Drive (http://bit.ly/hOgPcV) include:

 

Automotive Data Services

Telematics

Family Co-Pilot

 

Hughes’ newfound flexibility means the company is free to pursue opportunities in the fleet market as well as in the consumer market.  In fact, thanks to its wireless patents, Hughes could launch its own OnStar-like aftermarket telematics mirror with CAN connectivity for capturing vehicle data if it so chose.  In other words, Hughes could out-OnStar OnStar.

 

Working through insurance partners, Hughes is in position to help its partners redefine that customer relationship.  An insurance telematics device is perfectly capable of providing vehicle tracking and recovery – like LoJack – roadside assistance, navigation and POI assistance, or any of a variety of concierge and vehicle diagnostics capabilities.

 

The vehicle diagnostics capabilities offered by Hughes include vehicle emissions monitoring for inspection purposes as well as the checking of error codes.  In the event of a breakdown, a Hughes-based insurance telematics solution could provide names of nearby approved service or repair providers.

 

The same kind of functionality is true for emergency circumstances.  A Hughes module, provided by an insurance company and equipped with appropriate sensors and CAN connectivity, could alert emergency responders – again, in an OnStar-like fashion.

 

To paint an even rosier picture of Hughes’ renaissance, prospects are good for the signing of a second OEM telematics relationship later in 2011.  Between its improving OEM outlook and robust aftermarket prospects, Hughes is tracing an improving trajectory.

 

Implications:

 

Hughes Telematics’ emergence in the insurance market changes the prospects for this application segment.  Until now, insurance telematics solutions did not stray far from the basic collection and analysis of driving time and time of day – with some exceptions (http://bit.ly/9XRntG - #Allianz Changing the #PAYD #Insurance Game - blog).  The range of solutions available from Hughes for collecting and analyzing vehicle information opens the automotive market to new opportunities for insurers.

 

The fleet industry is already looking at behavior modification-type solutions tied to vehicle tracking.  (http://bit.ly/e94Opj - Behavior Modification Comes to Fleet Telematics from the Cloud)  Progressive has already taken the step of integrating ecological driving elements in its UBI solution.  A wide range of possibilities are available to auto insurers, but there are obstacles.

 

Devices, like Progressive’s, that connect with the vehicle CAN bus via the OBDII port are problematic.  Some cars are known to respond unpredictably to such plug ins and gleaning the necessary data can be a challenge.  The value proposition difference between such a device and one that is not connected to the vehicle is significant.  

 

It is still early days for UBI-based underwriting.  But Hughes participation in this market has the potential to change the market significantly.

 

Progressive Update:

 

This analyst is currently participating in a trial of Progressive’s Snapshot UBI service.  Progressive said it could not provide an OBDII Snapshot plug in for my 2009 BMW 5 Series, but it could provide one for my 2004 Toyota Sienna.  The initial reporting appears below:

 

 

 

 

 

The battle is on to capture the most and the most accurate traffic incident data on a global scale. Several strategies are being deployed to collect this information including traditional journalistic traffic reporting and a growing variety of technology-based solutions including GPS-based probe solutions or GPS Floating Vehicle Data (GFVD) from smartphone and connected PND makers and carriers to cellular network-based probes (CFVD), video cameras, mobile phone camera probes and crowdsourcing. GPS-based probe data networks are particularly popular with companies ranging from TomTom and Nokia to Inrix, Google and RIM. The significance of the emergence of probe data is the fact that any organization with connected devices, applications or vehicles on the road is a candidate for delivering probe data. The industry is facing a proliferation of probe data sources encompassing everyone from Waze, Skobbler and Navigon to OnStar, TeleNav and TeleCommunications Systems. The CFVD crowd includes TomTom, AirSage, iTIS Holdings, Cellint, Intellione, TrafficCast and a few others. The inaccuracy of probe data, GPS or otherwise, is stimulating interest in license plate scanners, tolling networks and Bluetooth roadside scanners from companies such as Bluetoad. In fact, TrafficCast has already deployed or received approval to deploy Bluetoad scanners in 20 states. The Bluetoad technology with its range of up to 200 feet picks up signals from passing Bluetooth devices which have become nearly ubiquitous in mobile devices. The beauty of Bluetooth scanners is that they can precisely identify both the roadway and speed, making them ideally suited to creating flow data. The downside, of course, as with all sensor-based sources, is the high cost of deployment – usually borne largely by local DOTs who gain access to the data – and the not infrequent failures to which they are prone. Of course, all of these solutions are only really able to act as proxies for identifying incidents as they can only identify the results and not the causes of backups. That is where cameras and observers and journalistic data from companies such as Clear Channel, Westwood One and Navteq’s Traffic.com come into the picture. Two years ago this analyst was a strong believer in the power that video could bring to the traffic data reporting and interpretation game. When I met the team at TrafficLand I came to believe that I had found the ultimate solution for the driving public: show people what the traffic disturbance is rather than tell them. TrafficLand had – and has – a near monopoly on DOT traffic camera installations, but its real value add is managing those images on the back end. TrafficLand not only captures most of the data but it also serves it up to handheld devices and Websites and, soon, to automotive head units. Alas, a lot can change in two years. Cameras do play an important role in traffic reporting and interpretation, but the cameras that are likely to make a difference are not the ones mounted along highways. Front-facing mobile phone cameras are the new frontier waiting for a clever entrepreneur. More than one industry executive has talked to me about the potential power of a network of camera probes transmitting real-time traffic camera information from the road. The user interface is a potential issue as is the required bandwidth, but what is a market changing proposition without a few challenges? There is more than one way to make such a network come to pass, these executives suggest, including everything from a dedicated dashboard camera to a smartphone-mounted device to a forward-facing camera on a PND or even the use of existing on-board cameras. Solutions already exist. Navigon has shown augmented reality navigation solutions using forward-facing cameras and Imaginyze has a lane-departure warning app based on a similar device. There is even a company, Apollo Video Technology, with an iPhone app to allow transit officials to view live video feeds from buses, trains, police cars and transit vehicles. Even the execs working on the Next Generation 911 solution for the U.S. are looking for ways to integrate video and text reporting of incident information from smartphones or other devices. It shouldn't be too long before a crowd-sourced traffic solution is introduced for smartphones that allows for the automatic uploading of photos and video stills from a dashboard perspective of traffic conditions under predetermined circumstances. To make such a crowd-sourced solution effective requires a sufficiently large and connected network of users and an automated application. In fact, it is almost shocking that neither TomTom nor Nokia have taken the leap into crowd-sourced traffic video feeds. Or is it? While I was a big fan of integrating traffic video feeds into navigation solutions two years ago, with today's emphasis on mitigating distracted driving the idea has lost significant traction. In fact, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is on a personal jihad to ban even voice calls while driving. Video is important and can be powerful, but the time is not right and the concepts currently in the oven - including Visteon's TrafficLand app - need more time to reach maturity. What is available today, however, is crowd-sourced traffic data from Inrix via its iPhone app (and soon on Android). The app-based Inrix system is the most complete solution, designed around one-touch incident reporting along with the ability to validate the entries of nearby drivers as well as to share the resulting data with local departments of transportation. Aha Mobile has been combining its own crowd sourced inputs with Inrix flow and Clear Channel incident data since late 2009. In fact, Inrix's approach stands as a model for future crowd-sourced traffic solutions with its tools for ranking participants and identifying "trusted sources" and the integration with local traffic authorities. Since June, 47 of 50 state DOTs in the U.S. have adopted Inrix's agency model for sharing this user-generated data, which the DOTs are able to view on the large screens in their traffic operations centers and then check by dispatching their own responders. Inrix says it is processing these crowd-sourced traffic feeds in real time thereby revolutionizing traffic reporting. In this way, Inrix is distancing itself from the existing competition through the integration of an entirely new source of data and a closed loop approach. The challenge for Inrix, though, is the limited size of its probe network, based on users of the downloadable iPhone app.  To have an impact Inrix, mainly seen as a white box supplier to the industry, will need a little help from its industry friends. Crowd-sourced traffic information has become the new standard and Inrix is setting the bar. Waze may claim to have the largest user population worldwide, but the company has chosen not to integrate other corroborating traffic information sources. Fusion of multiple types of data sources is a critical foundation for using crowd-sourced data, along with building  validation processes. Inrix has the largest North American population of users and has recently rolled out its apps in Europe. It is collaborating with ClearChannel in North America and other incident providers internationally for journalistic data. Crowd-sourcing of traffic data is nothing new. Crowd-sourcing by mobile phone users has been around for decades. It is only recently, though, that smartphone apps have enabled the automation of the process and, now, with Inrix's system, the integration of crowd-sourced data into local DOT traffic feeds - although Inrix traffic app users get the data right away, including inputs from nearby drivers. What is curious is that Inrix, while not the first to market with crowd-sourced traffic, is the first to take it to a level where it is integrated with official traffic feeds. While the crowd inputs are validated or rejected by other users on the network, the local DOT is also involved in the validation process. The open line of communication with local DOTs also means that real time street closings and openings can be transmitted along with incident validation. Inrix is not alone. TeleNav has a crowd-sourcing function for its app and TrafficTalk has been testing a crowd-sourced offering. Harman's Aha Mobile and competing mobile platforms will no doubt seek to bring their own offerings to market as well. Looking at the Inrix model, one has to wonder why TomTom, OnStar, ATX, Google, Nokia, RIM, TCS or TeleNav haven't moved in the same direction. OnStar has its good Samaritan function for reporting accidents, but there is no provision for instantly integrating an OnStar user-reported accident on the in-vehicle navigation/traffic display  - let alone sharing it with public authorities in real-time. The same is true for ATX. Conclusion: The automotive environment is ripe for crowd-sourced applications, which already include the reporting of speed traps (Trapster). The world of thumbs up/thumbs down, check-ins and trusted providers of reviews/data is rapidly proliferating on mobile devices and migrating into embedded automotive solutions. It is fitting that traffic information lead this migration since this form of data is of the highest relevance to drivers and rapidly changing. The power of crowd-sourcing of traffic data has the dual effect of creating a new source of incident data along with its own validation process. One of the greatest challenges to creating reliable traffic information systems is validating journalistic data inputs. The crowd is able to view live traffic data, create new data and validate that data. The next step is to open the taps to other data types from parking and gas pricing to weather and event information. Eventually, crowd-sourced video will work its way into the mix as well - and probably sooner than anyone expects. Additional insights: http://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/deumcd -# Traffic Data Quality Will Determine #Telematics Winners - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics

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

Europe is one of the most competitive markets for traffic data and TomTom claims pan-European market leadership by virtue of its HD Traffic solution. The power of HD Traffic lies in its use of cell signaling data to identify traffic jams and notify drivers who may need to be rerouted or who may want to change their driving plans completely. This analyst is a big fan of HD Traffic, having used it in recent European travels, but the company makes a claim in its latest press announcements that raise questions about HD Traffic even as they call attention to the power of the solution. Taken along with TomTom’s Traffic Manifesto (http://bit.ly/9IHHDj) one wonders if the company is more interested in bravado than actually advancing the art and science of properly interpreting traffic data. It is no small feat for TomTom to be such a standout player in the European market. There are multiple market players in Europe with GPS probe-based solutions, cell signaling solutions and all manner of offerings based on public, private, historic and real-time data “algorithmed” into elegant predictive models. And new predictive models and routing schemes seem to emerge on a regular basis. But TomTom was first on the continent with a multi-country cell signaling solution – HD Traffic – and the company has had it in devices and in use for more than two years with admirable results. Competitors, most notably iTIS Holdings in the cell signaling space, and Nokia Navteq and Inrix with probe-based solutions, are threatening, but the TomTom HD Traffic solution, thus far, remains dominant. All three competitors also integrate other real-time and historical traffic data. At the Paris Auto Show two weeks ago, TomTom announced the release of its next generation traffic data system across Europe. Called HD Traffic 4.0, TomTom says it is the first pan-European solution to use historic, real-time and predictive traffic data to deliver the most accurate traffic navigation available. While there are other traffic providers in Europe that use cell signaling data and similar data sources and types as TomTom, the company remains the only one with its scope of market coverage and with a commercially available retail product. The company says HD Traffic 4.0 covers more of the road network and reports traffic jams with more accuracy, giving drivers the most precise traffic information in Europe. The company says existing HD Traffic customers “will experience the benefits immediately, without the need for any software upgrade.” But at this point in the TomTom press release, the company introduces a bit of murk that both shines a light on its technology and raises questions. TomTom says its real-time and predictive traffic technology “now detects traffic jams that other services are unable to:”“HD Traffic 4.0 reports traffic jams with higher accuracy, reporting up to 200% more traffic jams during rush hours than previously, in particular on urban roads.” –TomTom press release. This claim raises a host of questions about the relative merits of cell signaling data and the very definition of a traffic jam or the quality and accuracy of congestion detection. The critical determining evaluative criterion both academically (see BMW’s Qkz traffic quality standard methodology) and intuitively is: Does this traffic solution detect what I am or what I, as a driver, may experience/perceive/consider to be “congestion?” Cell signaling data, based on triangulation of handset signal strength, is some of the most powerful available traffic data for reasons related to the ubiquity of handsets and the universality of cell signaling. Anyone with a mobile handset that is within range of a cell tower is automatically transmitting location data, which can be interpolated from the cell signals. While advocates of probe data are quick to point out the low level of accuracy of this signal interpolation – perhaps as poor as 100-200 meters – suppliers continue to refine their models and algorithms. The proof is in the pudding. AirSage in the U.S., TrafficCast in China, IntelliOne in Toronto, Cellint in Israel and TomTom and iTIS Holdings in Europe have all produced usable and commercially available traffic flow solutions based on cell signaling. (In fact, the data is not just used in traffic solutions for drivers it is also used in urban planning and in the selection of locations for billboards, stores and cell towers, among numerous other applications.) In contrast, handset GPS probe data not only requires the presence of a GPS module in the handset, but also requires the user to turn the GPS receiver on. The rapid battery consumption of GPS modules guarantees that GPS based solutions, though more accurate, will necessarily be based on a smaller data set.In this context the TomTom claim breaks down two ways. Either TomTom is claiming that it is capable of detecting 3X more (+200%) traffic/congestion incidents than competing solutions on THE SAME roads, or it is claiming to detect 3X more traffic/congestion incidents because its roadway coverage is broader. Further, it appears that the claim is associated with HD Traffic 4.0, which is most likely an enhancement of the existing data interpretation algorithm. Since TomTom appears to be mainly concerned with detecting jams on major roadways, the claim is clearly associated with detecting 3X as many jams on those roads as the competition. The fundamental problem with this claim is that it exposes the single weakest aspect of cell signaling data: FALSE POSITIVES. Because of the combination of the huge volume and low accuracy of cell signaling data, the technology has always been prone to generating false positives. False positives are indications of traffic jams that, in fact, do not exist and are actually misinterpretations of the cell signaling – ie. parked cars mistaken for a jam. In this analysts’ experience, TomTom devices identify multiple jams on the roadway ahead (something not all technologies or devices are able to do) which, more often than not, disappear before the driver arrives at the identified location. In other words, it is not clear whether the multiple congestion points being reported ever really existed. Other detection technologies are equally vulnerable to false positives, but it is the volume of data and the number of false positives that uniquely distinguishes cell signaling-based solutions. To look at the TomTom claim with an even more cynical eye, it is possible to suggest that TomTom simply changed its definition of an accident in order to claim a threefold increase in reported jams. BMW’s Qkz traffic quality standard uses 50Km/h as a measure of congestion detection accuracy. If the standard were raised to 60Km/h, the number of detected points of congestion would increase in a corresponding fashion. TomTom wants to get drivers to their destinations faster by helping them avoid jams. The company claims a 15% improvement in travel time based on its technology. It is time for TomTom to close the gap in logic and explain more precisely and honestly how it is achieving travel time improvements, if it is in fact doing so. By now, most drivers know from painful experience that traffic, like a balloon, is a zero sum game – squeeze it on one side and it simply bulges out the other. It would be good to know whether TomTom’s claims are something more than hot air. Additional insights:http://tinyurl.com/2bz9zq6 - Google, Nokia and New Entrant Positioning in Automotive Infotainment - Lanctot – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dniNxa - Navigation Heuristic Evaluation: Telmap5 – Schreiner – Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/95NCoW - Automotive DMB Digital Radio: Marketing Strategies an Increasing Priority – Blight – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/dtRE5C - Automotive Telematics Services: Shifts in Pricing and Monetization Expected – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/bwdwcW - Connected Vehicle and Vehicle Device Connectivity System Database by Feature, Region, and Price 2010 – Canali – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles – Canali – Aumotive Multimedia and Communications Service http://bit.ly/deumcd -# Traffic Data Quality Will Determine #Telematics Winners - Lanctot - blog - Strategy Analytics

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

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

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 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

The transition to digital radio has been slow, but no one should have any doubt about its inevitability. One of the greatest challenges in ushering digital radio into the market, aside from differing standards (in Europe) and analog radio shut off issues, is the user interface. Digital radio opens up a new world of location-relevant information including both data and content all of which means opportunity for system designers to compete and differentiate. Digital radio is forcing designers to change the way they think about broadcast content and how consumers will access and “discover” new sources and types of content – from traffic and weather information to podcasts and enhancements such as slideshow functionality and conditional access. While the fundamentals of frequencies (in the U.S.) and station names (Europe) remain unchanged, the ability to search for specific content or location information is transforming the radio experience. Digital radio is ideally suited to the emerging cloud-based content and service delivery world confronting the automotive industry. This convergence of radio and the cloud is manifested most obviously in so-called hybrid radio (promoted by RadioDNS www.radiodns.org) which brings together broadcast signals with online content enhancements such as album art. Of course, hybrid radio is still just an idea today, although broadcasters and content providers are building the necessary databases to support the technology. (Strategy Analytics data shows FM radio technology forecasted to be available on 60% of handsets sold in the U.S. by 2014.) Meanwhile, electronic programming guides – such as RadioTime – have already made search and location relevance a reality. The unspoken facilitating technology is the smartphone. The growing popularity of smartphones and the corresponding rise of automotive smartphone connectivity and application stores have facilitated the introduction of Internet radio and music services into cars. The integration of this access with on-board systems will add yet another layer of added value for the consumer. Even more significant is the emergence of interactivity and conditional access to radio content. The proliferation of music services is turning music consumption into a thumbs-up/thumbs-down proposition allowing consumers to customize their experience..Among the music services enabling this customized experience are Pandora (streaming), Slacker (cached), Mog, Rhapsody and Thumbplay. But unlike digital radio, none of these services are completely free for a commercial-free experience. Digital radio stands alone as a ubiquitous, free-over-the-air offering increasingly built into OEM and aftermarket solutions. Of greatest importance, from a user interface perspective, is the fact that the OEM can control, leverage or drive the digital radio experience, unlike Internet radio, which is connectivity based. The march toward digital radio was manifest at last week’s WorldDMB conference in the form of software defined radios capable of supporting DAB, DAB+, DMB and HD Radio systems. Companies showing such solutions included ST Microelectronics, Maxim and EtherWaves. Frontier Silicon laid claim to market leadership in digital radio implementations in its comments at the event. Frontier made a distinction between higher cost software defined radio solutions that provide for flexibility and upgradability and hardware radios that are lower cost and less flexible, while offering a third path of hybrid radio (not to be confused with the RadioDNS technology) offering an optimal mix of lower cost and flexibility. Panasonic Electronic Devices also showed multiple-format modules at the conference. The overall tenor of the WorldDMB gathering was oriented toward overcoming transition issues for the implementation of digital radio throughout Europe. Of course, the industry can only progress as quickly as the systems can reach the market. Hardware and software companies are still scrambling to bring all of the capabilities of digital radio into being. This is most clear from the progress of iBiquity Digital in the U.S., key sponsor of HD Radio technology. This week the company reported that 18% of aftermarket systems sold in the U.S. this year came with HD Radio. The company also reports steady progress in recruiting OEMs to implement HD Radio, which is increasingly standard. But none of the implementations currently on the market are able to take advantage of the complete range of available digital radio applications. So, the content is available in the form of hundreds of broadcasters and the receivers are in place in line-fit and aftermarket solutions, but complete technology deployment is still in progress at the silicon level. Nevertheless, governmental authorities are aggressively pursuing awareness campaigns and contests intended to drive digital radio adoption. The numbers are still modest, typically in the hundreds of thousands of units, but at least these representatives recognize that digital radio will require active efforts to stimulate consumer interest. At the same time, new capabilities will mean new business models and new user interfaces. One of the essential reasons for the introduction of digital radio is to open up congested airwaves to more broadcasters and more broadcast content. This will stimulate additional advertising and revenue opportunities and confusion. But these are early days for digital radio. The inevitability of digital radio was clear at the WorldDMB conference where country rollout status reports were shared including some hard digital switchover dates, such as the U.K.’s 2015 deadline. (France was notable by its absence at the event - due to logistical issues. But France’s mandate for DMB leaves no room for doubt regarding its transition to digital radio.) Whether or not digital radio replaces analog radio over the long run, the automotive industry is in the forefront of the movement and stands to reap the greatest rewards. It remains to be seen which OEMs or suppliers will lead the way but the race is on to deliver a new level of value to consumers. Further insight: http://bit.ly/8Z8HZh - Automotive Connectivity: Beyond Bluetooth Solutions - Automtive Multimedia Communications - Mark Fitzgerald http://bit.ly/b5W8ZS - Nokia and RIM Push Into Automotive as 'Apps' Competition Mounts - Automotive Multimedia & Communications - Joanne Blight http://bit.ly/blAHUC - Handset Sales by Type: Smartphone, Feature Phone and Basic Phone - Wireless Device Strategies - Alex Spektor http://bit.ly/9jANwu - Global Smartphone Sales Forecast by Country Western Europe and North America - Wireless Smartphone Strategies - Thomas Kang

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