The U.S. National Transportation Safety Administration has presented new proposed guidelines intended to encourage automakers to mitigate driver distraction when interacting with various in-vehicle applications. The recommendations are not only ambiguous and nearly unenforceable, they reflect a lack of understanding regarding in-vehicle systems in spite of volumes of available research.

The ominously described “first phase” of the guidelines include the following recommendations (as described in a report in Automotive Fleet Top News):

• Reduce the complexity of in-vehicle devices, and the amount of time required to use those devices;
• Limit system operations to require only one hand;
• Limit the time required to glance at a device to no more than 2 seconds;
• Limit the amount of unnecessary visual information in the driver’s field of view;
• Limit the number of manual inputs needed to operate a device;
• Disable functions while the vehicle is in motion – ie. text messaging, Internet browsing, social media use, entering navigation system addresses, entering phone numbers for dialing, displaying more than 30 characters of text unrelated to driving task.

Among the more naïve (if not absurd) statements reported from the DOT was the statement that systems that help drivers avoid accidents (forward collision avoidance systems or lane-departure alerts) were not considered to be distracting and that GPS enabled navigation systems were safer to use than maps.  Agency representatives said future  guidelines would address devices brought into vehicles and voice-based controls.

NHTSA representatives said they chose guidelines over mandates out of a preference for voluntary compliance from auto makers instead of the coercive power of mandates, according ot the Automotive Fleet Top News report.  NHTSA executives reportedly indicated they intend to testify at upcoming NTSB hearings regarding banning the use of all mobile devices in cars and that the agency is awaiting the results of research on cognitive distraction before proceeding with creating additional guidelines.

NHTSA Director Ray Lahood said the new guidelines are now open to a public comment period of 60 days, inviting feedback from the public, automakers, and other interest groups.

The first wave of guidelines listed above read like automotive user interface best practices created by an engineer with no prior experience.  Of course designers should reduce complexity; limit interaction to one hand at a time; limit glance time, limit unnecessary visual information; limit manual inputs and disable functions while the vehicle is in motion.  But each of the prescriptions is either too specific or two vague.

#1 – Limit complexity and the amount of time required to interface – Is this NOT a no-brainer?

#2 – Limit operation to one hand – Is it necessary to make this a guideline?

#3 – Limit the time required to glance at a device to no more than two seconds – Who is going to measure this and how?

#4 – Limit the amount of unnecessary information in the driver’s field of view – Define unnecessary.

#5 – Limit the number of manual inputs needed – Is there any engineer, anywhere in the industry, trying to ADD unnecessary manual inputs?

#6 – Disable functions while the vehicle is in motion including phone # entry – Best of intentions taken too far.

 

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturer’s (AAM) Driver Focus – Telematics Guidelines (http://bit.ly/wmqoX7) represent the gold standard for existing industry design criteria for mitigating distracted driving.  Their very existence obviates the need for redundant guideline creation or mandate setting.

The AAM testified before the U.S. House of Representatives in October 2009: “The Guidelines are a ‘best practices’ document that addresses essential safety aspects of driver interaction with visual‐manual interfaces. They consist of 24 principles that address the design, use, and installation of telematics systems with the goal of maximizing ‘eyes on road.’ The Guidelines provide criteria and verification procedures for use by automotive manufacturers and telematic device manufacturers during product development. Each individual Guideline has associated with it:

                        Rationale

                        Criterion / Criteria

                        Verification Procedure(s)

                        Examples (as appropriate)

                        Cites to supporting peer‐reviewed research

“The 24 guidelines are divided into five groups:

                        Installation (5 Principles)

                        Information Presentation (4 Principles)

                        Interactions with Displays and Controls (6 Principles)

                        System Behavior (3 Principles)

                        System User Information (6 Principles)

“The Guidelines assume manufacturers will follow rigorous process standards when developing telematics systems. Let me highlight two key principles:

Principle 1.4 – Addresses the positioning of visual in‐vehicle telematics displays - The proper positioning of displays close to the driver’s normal line of sight allows drivers to continue to monitor the roadway peripherally while looking at the display.

Principle 2.1 – Sets visual demand limits - Eyes‐off‐road time is limited because functions or features must not exceed specified visual demand or driving performance criteria.

It is clear that there is no need for additional guidelines or mandates from NHTSA – or at least not guidelines and/or mandates that do not take into account the progress that has already been made in the industry.  Also unnecessary, are guidelines or mandates that do not provide or leave room for advances in user interface technology intended to mitigate distraction and enhance safe driving circumstances.

Some of the emerging solutions take advantage of contextual information including vehicle location, condition of the driver and road and, ultimately, weather conditions and the state of operation of in-vehicle systems.  Providing ambiguous “guidelines” without the context of recent and anticipated technological advances risks freezing development activities and preventing new safety systems from reaching consumers.

Implications:

This latest NHTSA initiative reinforces the notion that U.S. regulators are still at sea in their attempts to fathom and combat the emerging driver distraction phenomenon.  Rather than encouraging advances in technology they are steering the industry away from solutions built around voice and touch interfaces that are already helping to resolve the problem.

Rather than embracing and highlighting technology, NHTSA clearly prefers to draw lines in the sand and wall off certain areas of development.  In the context of the automotive industry’s existing guideline development, it appears that NHTSA’s efforts are wasteful, redundant and distracting.  

Rather than pursuing the existing side show of additional hearings and research, both the NTSB and NHTSA ought to conduct a careful review of the existing AAM guidelines as well as those of similar organizations around the world, and assess whether any additional guidelines are really called for.  In the end, the NTSB and NHTSA efforts look like nothing more than public relations programs unlikely to advance the industry’s technical understanding of the causes or potential solutions of distracted driving.  Of greater concern is the potential for these regulatory bodies to interfere in ongoing technology advances and actually throw the industry into reverse. 

Technorati Tags: Ford,Safety,Hands-Free,Voice Recognition,Nuance Ford Motor Company’s Dr. Louis Tijerina, senior technical specialist, research and advanced engineering, is worthy of special mention following Nuance’s Automotive Summit last week for his concluding presentation. In his comments he pointed out the overwhelming conclusions from the dozens of studies that have been conducted regarding distracted driving correlated to mobile phone use:

1. Manual interfaces are significantly superior to voice interfaces for task duration for a wide range of functions across a large number of different studies and tests including naturalistic, simulator and even data from GM’s OnStar division. But voice interfaces outperform manual interfaces when correlated to lane keeping, speed maintenance, car following, eye glances, object and event detection and “subjective assessments.”
2. Talking/listening in hands-free or handheld modes on a mobile phone are both significantly, statistically safer relative to a wide range of other distracting activities, including consuming food or drink, based on a recently released Virginia Tech naturalistic study of 13,000 vehicles over a 90-day period using DriveCam video monitors.
3. A study of Sync use co-authored by Dr. Tijerina found Sync voice interfaces statistically superior to manual interfaces for everything but digit dialing and answering incoming calls. Voice had the advantage for eyes-off-road time, standard deviation of lane position, percent of trials with a lane exceedance, maximum speed difference and pedestrian detection task reaction time.

Source:  Ford Motor Company, Oct-10

Dr. Tijerina proceeded to carefully deconstruct the sources of misinterpretation and flawed methodologies that have been exploited by regulators and lobbyists involved in the distracted driving debate. In spite of his extraordinary presentation and lengthy responses to audience questions, there is no doubt the distracted driving discussion will continue unabated. It is also certain that car makers and their suppliers will make further advances toward safer user interfaces.

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

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

Mid-week thunderstorms in Detroit appeared to be Mother Nature’s comment on momentous industry events, but it was Harman International that stole OnStar’s thunder with its announced acquisition of Aha Mobile. While OnStar celebrated its 15^th anniversary by announcing plans to offer voice-enabled access to text messages and Facebook, Harman’s Aha Mobile acquisition introduces the prospect of the first cloud-based telematics solution. The timing of the two announcements was extraordinary in juxtaposing two very different visions of the future of telematics. It showed OnStar still struggling to create a solution capable of stimulating organic consumer demand, while Harman is showing the way toward a platform capable of responding to and moving with changing consumer requirements. The Harman announcement also defined a third path – different than both the dominant OnStar embedded and Ford Sync connected solutions. It is a path likely to rapidly attract adherents and converts – especially given Harman’s command of the high-end infotainment market. The greatest challenge facing the telematics industry is the inability to get consumers to pay for additional subscription services. This shortcoming is manifest in the free months and years of service that are offered to prospective telematics subscribers and the corresponding retention rates of, at most, 50%. The free service is a lie, of course, since the system cost is already baked into the price of the vehicle. But the proposition is described to the customer as a giveaway, which has multiple negative connotations. As a giveaway, the telematics service is immediately perceived as either not having any value OR as something the customer will not normally request and be willing to pay for. This is a very shaky foundation for any industry. In fact, giving away anything is usually the first step toward that product or service being discontinued – with the possible exception of navigation. A good example of this phenomenon is satellite radio vs. Internet radio. Satellite radio continues to be subsidized by the service provider with a free subscription period for the consumer. The high cost of the service and hardware is masked by the supplier’s subsidies, but the cost remains and it is because of this cost that satellite radio is increasingly a consumer-selectable option or is no longer offered on a growing proportion of cars. In contrast, the millions of users of Internet radio services have demonstrated that they will go out of their way and pay handsomely for the privilege of accessing this service. Car makers and carriers could not kill consumer demand for Internet radio even if they wanted to. The fact that satellite radio is subsidized and offered “free” to the consumer is a long-term predictor of failure. The automotive telematics industry faces this same prospect every day. Rare is the Mercedes, BMW, GM or Toyota customer that crosses the dealer threshold requesting telematics services. In fact, dealers are hesitant to mention these services because of the occasional customer that might want the system removed from the car! (Don’t believe everything you read about OnStar’s claimed influence over GM vehicle purchases. Those messages are coming from OnStar, not GM.) It is in this context that OnStar announced the prospective capability for drivers using the Gen 9 system to receive audio Facebook updates and to receive and send text messages. The group also announced what it described as a platform offering the “potential for open development.” The focus on Facebook showed OnStar reaching out for an application that will offer users daily relevance – something missing from run of the mill safety and security applications. But this laser focus on a single application misses the greater goal of enabling GM customers to safely access any application they may desire. OnStar scores big points for identifying the most popular application within its target demographic, but what it misses is the ethos of that customer base which is freedom and personalization. This is where Harman scores with its Aha Mobile acquisition. While OnStar is testing and recruiting university students to cook up creative application concepts, Aha Mobile has already created a cloud-based location aware platform purpose-built for automotive environments, that is voice-enabled, traffic-data enhanced and ready for integration into automotive solutions. More important, the Aha Mobile strategy is to rapidly deploy application programming interfaces to enable the latest applications regardless of what they may be. In other words, it isn’t all about Facebook. Aha Mobile’s success is built on a portfolio of content and applications delivered in a manner suitable and responsive to the user. There are other Aha Mobile-like platforms, such as Aloqa, representing the latest wave of cloud-based aggregation solutions. But Harman’s acquisition, coming on the heels of 18 months worth of divestitures of divisions, facilities and personnel, reflects its importance in the context of a telematics market seeking that elusive objective: organic consumer demand. It will be interesting to see which Harman client is able to push to the front of the line to deploy the Aha Mobile solution: BMW, Mercedes, Chrysler, Toyota, PSA, Volkswagen, Audi or Hyundai. Might OnStar be interested in deploying Aha Mobile? What about Ford? With the acquisition of this tiny start-up Harman may breathe life into a telematics industry in desperate need of a marketing lift. Additional insights: http://bit.ly/bUoJKc - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/aLtrF7 - Google, Nokia and New Entrant Positioning in Automotive Infotainment - Lanctot - Automotive Multimedia & Communications http://bit.ly/d0aLhq - Connected Vehicle Telematics: Car Maker Profiles - John Canali - Automotive Multimedia & Communications Service

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

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

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

Attendees at Ford’s recent launch of the 2011 Explorer at the Newseum in Washington, DC asked company executives if they were worried about the potentially distracting aspects of the MyFord Touch voice-based interface available on the new SUV. The answer from Ford was that MyFord Touch specifically enables hands-free use of vehicle systems allowing the driver to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. This is the message that not all industry participants are grasping. The smartphone is rapidly becoming a platform for delivering safety systems into vehicles and yet leading governmental and non-governmental bodies continue to declare their opposition to the use of mobile devices in cars. The National Safety Council, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) and the American Automobile Association have all declared their opposition to mobile phone use in cars. Public authorities should speed, not impede, the path of technological progress. If smartphones can deliver safety to drivers faster than embedded systems or DSRC-based systems requiring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, so be it. And new applications from companies such as ImaginYze and Global Mobile Alert, among many others, are making advanced safety technology available via smartphone apps. Fortunately, none of this opposition to mobile phone use in cars has produced national or even local legislation banning mobile phone use altogether. Most laws only go so far as to either ban texting and driving or to require hands-free devices. In some states, teen drivers are forbidden to use mobile phones while driving. Nevertheless, the campaigns continue, including Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone. Germany probably has the best solution in allowing mobile phone use in a car but forbidding the touching of the phone while driving. This seems like an effective and appropriate solution especially since it allows the driver to continue to benefit from the growing range of applications that provide for enhanced safety. Throughout the world the race is on to bring advanced safety systems to cars. The European Union most recently detailed their plans to mandate safety technologies. One can only hope the EU will not proceed to define which technology is used, as in the case of eCall. If there is anything that has slowed down the advance of connected safety systems in European cars it has been the pursuit of a mandated technology on top of the application mandate. Meddling governments – operating with the best of intentions – have repeatedly intruded on new technology development and instead of stimulating innovation and competition have quashed both. In the case of eCall, the in-band modem technology selected by the EU arrives as an already outdated solution that continues to be resisted at the Federal, OEM and public service access point levels. (In contrast, the U.S. is already well on the way to defining and deploying far more flexible digital solutions as part of its Next Generation 911 initiative - http://bit.ly/9jg576.) European research initiatives ranging from SISTER (http://bit.ly/cTiRxx) – which looks at satellite-based safety solutions – to AKTIV (http://bit.ly/b4og1K) – which looks at the efficacy of embedded cellular technology for safety apps – to TeleFOT (http://bit.ly/c9AeT8) – which is assessing nomadic device-based safety systems all reveal the range of available solutions capable of fulfilling the newly-minted EU program of safety system mandates (http://bit.ly/aNDSh1).  Even Ertico’s ADASIS, the Advanced Driver Assist Systems Interface Specification Forum (http://bit.ly/9Lkngj) has been considering smartphone-based solutions. At the most recent ADASIS meeting a solution was presented as part of a separate presentation showing a solution from ImaginYze (http://bit.ly/cUGFpM) offering an augmented reality lane departure warning solution based on a forward facing smartphone camera – a solution long in development - for portable navigation devices - from companies such as Navigon and Elektrobit. (Since its most recent meeting - July 5th - ADASIS has released a specification for map-based ADAS applications - http://bit.ly/axuJrc.) But it doesn’t stop there. About a dozen applications (http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ) have been launched around the concept of limiting mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, most notably Zoomsafer. Interestingly and maybe not surprisingly some of these companies have turned to commercial opportunities to enable safe use of mobile phones for fleet drivers.  Global Mobile Alert offers yet another application suited to both passenger vehicles and commercial applications. A $24.99 (per year) download for Android phones, which just launched two weeks ago, Global Mobile Alert is an application that uses a digital map as a sensor to warn drivers of approaching traffic lights, and school zones or railroad crossings, among other hazardous conditions (http://bit.ly/dhzigZ).  The Global Mobile Alert (GMA) crash avoidance application is the first of its kind and can be deployed in a smartphone or licensed for navigation systems or in-vehicle telematics systems. GMA provides audible alerts when a moving vehicle approaches an intersection at a dangerous predetermined speed. The objective of the application is to overcome driver distraction. (GMA licenses Navteq data for its application, although even Navteq's database does not include every single traffic light, but Navteq was the only available source of this data.) Of course, systems have been tested and are in development to allow a smartphone to actually be aware of the status of upcoming traffic lights. This is not something the GMA app is capable of, but is likely to be available commercially in the near future. Interestingly, an almost identical solution to GMA is in development within the IntelliDrive community using DSRC technology – instead of a map – to alert drivers to oncoming vehicles at dangerous interections. Of course, the DSRC technology, which is years from being deployed, has a wider range of implied applications in that it enables vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. In conclusion, government authorities will do well to do their best to avoid unintended consequences in their legistlative activities. The EU no doubt intended to speed the arrival of eCall by getting involved in the standards-setting process. All parties would agree today that the reverse has occurred. Similarly, in the drive to save drivers from distraction and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage, elected officials should be mindful of the distraction mitigating capabilities of smartphones. The source of the problem is the source of the solution.