Traffic data programs have long consisted of three elements: incident data, flow data and the behind-the-curtain algorithms that make all this information work smoothly together. With the emergence of multiple screen and multiple platform opportunities, though, has come the fourth element: video animation.

In the U.S., as in most markets, there is a limited supplier base for these information types. In the U.S., incident data is primarily available from a combination of public authorities and three radio broadcast organizations: ClearChannel, Westwood One and the Broadcast Traffic Consortium. Flow data is mainly sourced from Inrix, Traffic.com, TrafficCast, and AirSage. (Any organization, such as Google, is theoretically capable of creating flow data from GPS probe inputs from handsets or fleets.)

The companies with the data algorithms to process the incident and flow data into standard traffic information products are mainly limited to Inrix, Traffic.com and TrafficCast. Westwood One, which acquired Metro Traffic and Smart Route, has never created its own independent traffic data service, though it does produce and distribute traffic reports.

With the emergence of traffic video and multiple-screen traffic products and services has come the fourth element. Traffic animation is a valuable commodity in the traffic business. When it comes to monetizing traffic data, broadcast radio and television remain dominant. To better compete, suppliers of video have sought to extend their products and affiliated sponsorships to the Internet and mobile devices.

Live traffic feeds on television during rush hour are available throughout the U.S. and in most markets around the world. In the U.S., though, there are four sources of video traffic animation: Triangle Software/Beat the Traffic, The Weather Channel/WSI, Traffic.com and Westwood One/SigAlert.

Two companies are currently positioning themselves to lead the drive toward traffic-only cable channels: Triangle Software/Beat the Traffic and TangoTraffic, which uses Traffic.com animations and traffic data. Triangle Software/Beat the Traffic is in the process of suing Westwood One/SigAlert over the alleged infringement of multiple patents governing the representation of traffic data in three dimensions as well as routing and segment speed calculations – five patents in all. Also named in the lawsuit are TomTom, Volkswagen and Garmin.

Triangle/BTT, TangoTraffic and Westwood all have their sights set on three screen solutions – TV, Internet, phone – with Triangle the furthest along, followed by Tango and Westwood. The legal action, though, has both highlighted the importance of 3D traffic representations, while casting a shadow on Westwood’s prospects.

With the help of private equity group Gores Group LLC, Westwood has been assembling a traffic solution capable of serving as an alternative to dominant players ClearChannel, Inrix and Traffic.com. The company has cut distribution deals with TrafficLand (Dept. of Transportation traffic cameras) and AirSage (handset signaling data) and acquired SigAlert. In addition, the company is in the process of implementing Gewi’s traffic database system.

Westwood has been able to convert AirSage’s handset signaling information into flow data and has extended SigAlert’s reach beyond its original southern California territory. At the same time, Westwood has extended its products from television and the Internet to handsets. In spite of all this effort, Westwood is still confronting much larger and more entrenched competitors and now must contend with Triangle’s legal action.

The only good news emerging from the legal action is that it validates the value of the data processes behind traffic reporting and imaging. The bad news is it puts financial pressure on an industry still seeking to establish its validity with consumers. Sirius XM is learning the painful lesson that consumers have a limited interest in paying a monthly subscription for traffic data. The failure of the subscription model for traffic has served as a major impetus to pushing traffic into ad-sponsored monetization schemes driven by broadcast sources.

The emergence of traffic television channels, though, in the form of TangoTraffic (Comcast/Fios in the Philadelphia area) and Beat the Traffic (Time Warner in Southern California), may help to raise the profile of traffic information. With a higher profile and more revenue may come new solutions capable of delivering more timely and accurate reporting of traffic incidents on more platforms – maybe even in cars.

Conclusion:

The clash over video – both actual DOT video and animated “flyovers” – is an interesting one with significant implications for the automotive industry. Triangle Software’s video animations of traffic, which continue to see additional enhancements including 3D building representations resembling existing mobile and embedded navigation solutions, are changing the way people consume their traffic information. These images are redefining the value and usability of traffic information.

Car makers and their suppliers are still struggling to determine the most appropriate way to bring traffic video images into cars – either as still black and white images or color-coded 3D animations. At the same time, mobile device makers such as Route 66 and TomTom are making use of augmented reality to overlay traffic guidance on live video images of the road ahead or with enhanced junction views.

The resolution of Westwood’s, TomTom’s, Garmin’s and VW’s legal tussle with Triangle is less important than the business model implications of multi-screen traffic solutions and the emergence of new ways to visualize traffic information. Whatever the result it can’t help but be better than the old familiar and inferior red-green-yellow.

Further Insight:

http://bit.ly/ejAvGp - Next Gen Traffic, Navigation: Hyper Local, Global & Always On - Insight Report - Lanctot - Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service

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

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

The latest salvo from the Genivi Alliance – a SWOT analysis of competing automotive operating systems – appears to cloud rather than clarify the existing automotive OS market environment. The future prospects for current and emerging players are described with little supporting evidence or insight. The report also concludes – from OEM and supplier interviews – that the Alliance’s assumptions regarding cost savings are valid without providing a detailed financial analysis of where cost savings may be achieved – ie. head count, lines of code, etc. Not surprisingly, the self-serving report concludes that Genivi will rule the market in the long term with deployments beginning in the 2013-2015 timeframe (http://tinyurl.com/29aly2t). The report initially sets out to provide a thumbnail view of current OS market leaders Microsoft, QNX, MicroItron, Linux and Android. Going without mention are Mentor Graphics, Ubuntu, OpenSynergy, Meego or even VxWorks (currently used by Peugeot-Citroen, Nissan and Volkswagen). Also missing entirely are Genivi members MontaVista and Wind River. Ostensibly, the goal of the report is to benchmark and/or handicap these various infotainment software architectures and their influence on in-vehicle infotainment systems; and to validate the cost savings claimed for Genivi’s code-sharing/recycling model. Missing is a detailed description of the actual software architectures themselves – ie. what makes one “better” than another. What is available in the report summary seems misleading such as a reference to Microsoft Auto booting slowly, which is also a shortcoming of Android, but which is also easily overcome. Also missing is a discussion of current market forces, strategic supplier relationships, recent mergers and acquisitions or potential mergers or acquisitions. The absence of these latter aspects means that Intel’s acquisition of Wind River goes without mention as does the merger of Intel’s Moblin platform with Nokia’s Maemo OS to create Meego – rumored to have been selected by Genivi as its infotainment platform of choice. (Press and Nokia reports have quoted senior Genivi representatives stating that Meego has been chosen for this purpose - http://tinyurl.com/2d46xls. No affirmation of this selection has come from any Genivi member other than BMW.) MontaVista’s acquisition by Cavium Networks and QNX’s purchase by RIM gets no attention in the report. Neither does TomTom’s decision to adopt the Webkit OS, a platform found in other segments of the mobile market such as Palm’s Web OS. (The report fails to note Bosch’s adoption of Linux or Visteon’s embrace of Genivi, Microsoft, QNX AND Ubuntu – hedging its bets.) These oversights are more significant than they seem as they suggest a lack of awareness of the symbiosis between mobile device operating systems and automotive hardware and software architectures. Additionally, the report repeatedly refers to “risk-averse” Japanese OEMs and tier one’s being hesitant to adopt open, Linux-based platforms – including anything from Genivi to Android.  This assertion is patently absurd given Clarion’s longstanding support of Linux. The report also paints a grim picture of QNX’s market outlook, suggesting the company’s app support is “difficult to configure” and that the company can be expected to withdraw from the IVI market entirely within a short period of time. This will no doubt be news to executives at QNX’s Ottawa headquarters where headcount committed to automotive projects is on the rise as are design wins. And the acquisition of QNX by RIM opens doors to automotive-related IP (ie. traffic apps) while adding access to a massive and growing installed base (ie. probes). Unlike all of the alternatives currently in the market, QNX currently offers a range of flexible, scalable solutions future proofed to support Adobe Flash, HTML5, Flash Air and Flash 10.1 and all mobile OS's. QNX is customer friendly with support unmatched by Linux-based competitors or Microsoft. By way of contrast, OEMs implementing Microsoft are finding they must enlist the aid of third-party developers (bSquare, Elektrobit, etc.) to customize Microsoft Auto to their requirements. Microsoft has left application development entirely to its customers and their partners. It is worth noting as well that QNX’s flexibility is an advantage vis-à-vis Microsoft. Where QNX supports nearly every potential application or implementation known to automotive engineers without favor, Microsoft is likely to push its Bing search engine, Silverlight graphics and other in-house offerings. The report notes that the next generation Microsoft IVI platform, Motegi (Windows Automotive Embedded 7), will launch with Japanese OEMs, though it provides no time frame. Microsoft indeed has at least two partners in Japan – Alpine and Mitsubishi – which suggests that either Honda or Mercedes may be implementing Motegi. The report neglects to mention QNX’s recent gains in Japan, including Panasonic and Denso, showing a deeper penetration of QNX into Toyota. In fact, QNX has benefitted handsomely and rapidly from its separation from Harman – immediately attracting attention from potential Japanese and Chinese customers. Where QNX is weakest is in developer support. This is precisely where Android shines. The report summary correctly identifies existing developers working on automotive Linux implementations – ie. Parrot, Continental and Roewe – and identifies the inclination of many designers in the industry to connect with Android but to keep it out of the central stack. The report also notes Google’s disinclination to support or endorse Android for automotive implementations, but leaves the door open to an embedded future for Android. (GM is thought to be considering an open platform such as Meego or Android for a future OnStar or infotainment launch.) But this points up a fundamental gap in the report, which is the wider context of the OS debate. Android and Genivi do not line up directly with QNX, Microsoft or Linux (pick your distribution). Genivi has always been positioned as a code sharing platform for infotainment systems - as such it has never been presented as a replacement for Microsoft or QNX. Android, similarly, is being pursued as an alternative for ultra-low-cost (entry level) platforms - typically those emanating from India and China - as well as a means for implementing revenue sharing models based on mobile applications in the car. The new Genivi report marks the first time the Alliance's platform is proposed as a replacement for QNX or Microsoft or any other OS, indicating a change in strategy for the group. This is where the group may be overreaching. Presenting Genivi as a one-for-one substitute for existing real-time operating system solutions is a different proposition from offering a code-sharing/recycling platform intended to reduce development costs. Obtaining industry buy-in to this vision will take 5-10 years, by which time the market may well have moved on to the next big thing. And as an industry coalition-driven solution, Genivi arrives untested in the marketplace. The report further attempts to validate Genivi’s vision for cost-reduced platform development, saying interviewees estimated IVI deployment cost savings of up to 50%. At the same time, though, the report acknowledges that initial implementations may cost even more than incumbent solutions. Justifying or validating proposed Genivi cost savings will continue to be a tall order for the Alliance. Conclusions: The Genivi Alliance’s IVI software architecture report provides valuable insights but is rife with glaring omissions, unsupported conclusions and errant assumptions. The report oversimplifies the automotive OS ecosystem and competitive environment and underestimates the influence of some incumbent players, such as QNX, and the emerging role of content and service aggregators including TeleNav, Inrix, Airbiquity, WirelessCar, TCS, ITIS Holdings, Navteq and Hughes Telematics. A few of these content and service providers were interviewed for the report. But not a single telecommunications carrier or handset maker – outside of Nokia - was interviewed. Even more obvious than these omissions, however, was the exclusion of both Audi and the e.solutions joint venture with Elektrobit - the single most prominent, influential and competing IVI platform in the industry. The oversight is obvious and unfortunate. The forces that are determining the future of the automotive IVI experience are almost entirely developing outside of the car, so a wider base of interviewees should have been considered. The single greatest weakness of the Genivi Alliance is its inward focus on the automotive industry as opposed to an outreach to the wider world of mobile devices and consumer electronics. It is possible for Genivi to “win” in the long run and “challenge” (in the report’s own words) Microsoft, but the Microsoft embedded solution will always have the advantage of developer support from across a broader range of industries and the design priorities that those other user communities will contribute. Genivi’s narrower focus is at once its greatest strength but, in the end, its Achilles heel. <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--> <!--[endif]--> Further insight: Smartphone Market Evolution and the Automotive Opportunity Implications – Mark Fitzgerald – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - http://tinyurl.com/34hldb5 Automotive Connectivity: Beyond Bluetooth Solutions – Mark Fitzgerald – Automotive Multimedia and Communications Service - http://tinyurl.com/2gx88eo

It’s difficult to comprehend the schizophrenia of the automotive industry unless you’ve been living with it for longer than you can remember. One minute OEMs are embracing suppliers, the next they are beating them into the earth, forcing down their margins. The latest manifestation of this schizophrenia (some may call it give and take) is the contest over infotainment operating system dominance. Which automotive OS is best? Which is gaining? Which is losing? Does anyone care? The questions are all serious ones and they reflect the struggles at tier one suppliers to determine which operating systems to support. The issue was highlighted, yet again, at the annual Fachkongress Elektronik in Ludwigsburg last week. At the event, Audi voiced its support for QNX, Microsoft restated its devotion to the automotive industry as part of its wider embedded software initiative, and BMW announced its first Genivi implementation for a MY2013 vehicle program. But might these commitments shrivel in time as so many others before them have? What’s new in the current debate is the increased assertiveness of OEMs. OEMs are no longer content to take whatever a tier one supplier may deliver. In addition, there is a perception that the operating system represents a potential point of cost reduction. OEMs are taking charge in a variety of ways including specifying the operating system in the RFQ, creating a coalition for sharing and re-using code as in the case of Genivi, or getting into the system integration business itself as in the case of Audi’s e.solutions venture with Elektrobit. This new assertiveness on the part of OEMs has placed tier one suppliers in a bind. For many of these organizations, software and, by extension, the operating system, has represented the special sauce that the tier one brings to the RFQ proposition. From a tier one supplier’s perspective, the OEMs are seeking to strain that special sauce, which translates roughly as added value or cost, draining it of its value and ultimately diminishing the justification for an expensive solution. OEMs are hiring software engineers and programmers the way they used to hire line workers and tier one suppliers are feeling the pressure. The usual schizophrenia enters the picture when tier one’s try to make sense of what OEMs say they want. OEMs say they want open source software – as in the case of the Genivi Alliance built around Linux – yet they say, generally, that Android (also based on Linux) is too open. They say they prefer closed software systems – as in the case of Microsoft or QNX – but not too closed. It is a clever supplier, indeed, that can make sense of these conflicting messages. But with five-year development cycles in mind, hard decisions must be made. The fundamental criteria for evaluating operating systems break down to: Developer support Cost Flexibility Security Stability Cross Platform Functionality Long-Term Viability Independence All of the available operating system platforms have their merits and are competitive on each of these criteria with some notable exceptions. But it is worth considering the relative merits of each of the most popular platforms. Android is considered by many OEMs and suppliers to be “too open” – by which is meant vulnerable to attack. Android is supported most notably by Continental and Parrot and, indirectly, by a rapidly growing developer community and a growing range of hot selling handsets, Android is an OS to be reckoned with regardless of the qualms regarding its openness. And the widening use of an abstraction layer of code in automotive systems has rendered moot most security concerns. Our sources at Strategy Analytics say RFQs requiring Android have already been awarded. There is a broader battle surrounding Android in that the technology is being extended to a wide range of consumer electronics categories including televisions, netbooks and tablet PCs. Google’s promotion of Android into other domains places the Linux-based OS in direct confrontation with Microsoft and Apple which also have designs on the consumer electronics OS market. The fact that Android is being leveraged to facilitate connectivity to the wider device eco-system makes it an attractive choice for auto makers. Even GM/OnStar is considering Android for its next generation platform. Nevertheless, industry resistance persists. When it comes to automotive operating systems, though, Strategy Analytics recommends a dispassionate consideration of the relevant criteria and all signals suggest Android is a legitimate contender for future automotive platforms. Genivi is a Linux-based, industry-coalition driven OS intended to reduce development costs for OEMs by re-using and sharing software code. Genivi inspires both respect and anger in the industry. But, again, Strategy Analytics recommends a dispassionate evaluation. Genivi inspires respect because it has been promulgated by Intel and BMW, which have attracted a broad coalition of OEMs, tier ones and second and third tier suppliers. It inspires anger because coalition members of lesser status feel their influence is diminished. Most industry participants feel they must “participate” in the Genivi coalition so as not to miss out on any business opportunities with the leaders of the coalition: Intel, BMW and GM. At the same time, skepticism abounds regarding the length of time required for Genivi to impact the industry, the motives of the founders, and the internal decision-making processes of the organization. The impact of Genivi can probably best be compared to the influence of Autosar or JasPar. These initiatives unfolded over many years with the true nature of their impact only recently becoming clear. A typical benchmark to put Genivi into perspective, is the 10 years it took for Nokia’s “terminal mode” technology to reach the market as a commercial standard. As for the motives of the Genivi founders, it is simply to share and re-use code with the intention of reducing the cost of development. Leading Genivi participants expend a great deal of energy emphasizing the limited amount of software code that will be impacted by this sharing, but second- and third-tier players in the organization remain suspicious. BMW’s announcement at the Ludwigsburg event of te first vehicle implementation of Genivi for model year 2013 was momentous for the organization and the industry. But industry sources say the entry nav version of the platform in question – BMW’s NBT, for Next Big Thing – is being built around an nVidia processor. NVidia is not a participant in Genivi. Even in its first implementation, Genivi is raising questions about the solidarity of its coalition. (The premium NBT package will be QNX-based on an Intel platform.) Linux, in all its forms, appears to be the most popular operating system in the industry. Linux benefits from not having the support of any large organization with an industry shaping agenda. As an open source platform it is perfectly malleable and well-suited to a rapidly changing marketplace and technology eco-system. Linux is open and yet not perceived as representing a security risk and it is showing up in a growing range of systems and devices both within and outside the automotive industry. As in the case of Android, developer support is strong, and some tier ones previously working in older platforms, have begun shifting to Linux, as the safe choice. Robert Bosch and Clarion/Hitachi are just two of many suppliers that have turned to Linux even as they weigh other options. Visteon has been showing Ubuntu implementations during and since the Consumer Electronics Show in January. Microsoft, meanwhile, has one of the hottest hands at the OS table. The company routinely points to its two-million unit success with Ford Sync and its one-million unit (and counting) achievement with Fiat’s Blue&Me, with similar expectations for the soon-to-be-launched Kia Uvo platform. But Microsoft still struggles with a legacy of suspicion in the automotive industry. Car makers and OEMs frequently express their concern that the automotive industry is an afterthought for Microsoft. Microsoft has fostered this thought process by shuffling executives into and out of the automotive group. At the Ludwigsburg event the newest head of the Embedded Software group, Kevin Dallas, had his debut making a forceful statement for the Microsoft platform. In spite of any concerns about Microsoft's devotion, suppliers Alpine and Mitsubishi in Japan and Continental and Magneti Marelli in Europe have profitably embraced the platform. Microsoft can rightfully claim perhaps the widest developer support in the software industry. The company’s Bing search initiative is making impressive gains and its developer tools are widely supported. Microsoft even has its own alternative to Flash, called Silverlight, which is expected to see automotive implementations in the near future. Where Microsoft is weak, at least at the moment, is in the mobile market. Where Android has been able to counter Apple’s growing influence in mobile phone operating systems, Microsoft is struggling. Microsoft’s influence on the automotive market would no doubt be greater at this time if the company could point to a stronger position in the handset market. For now, Microsoft will be content to support individual OEM customers. Building on its success at Ford and Fiat and anticipated gains at Kia, it is likely that Microsoft will have a new OEM partner to announce within the next year. Chrysler and Mercedes are the most obvious but not the only candidates for a future announcement. QNX is in the strongest position it has ever been in in the automotive OS market. Harman’s design wins over the past five years have created a monumental backlog of premium infotainment implementations that will keep the company busy for the foreseeable future. At the Ludwigsburg event, QNX gained the endorsement of Audi as a critical element in its strategic plans. The company can also lay claim to the support of Panasonic and Denso, reflecting strong relationships with Chrysler and Toyota. QNX is perceived by many in the industry as being vulnerable for its lack of developer support and its lack of influence beyond the automotive market. But these perceptions may be subject to revision following the company’s acquisition by RIM. RIM creates instant credibility for QNX in the mobile market and QNX for RIM in the automotive market. In its current form, QNX is challenged by the need to keep pace with new drivers for mobile devices arriving on the market on a weekly basis. Microsoft and Android have the luxury of actually providing the drivers to many of these devices. QNX will gain from its RIM relationship, but the challenge will be to expand the capabilities of its operating system without increasing its system requirements. It is clear, though, that QNX has already gained a significant boost from its separation from Harman, making it easier for competing tier ones to adopt the platform. Conclusion The ongoing automotive operating system debate is complex and not easily resolved. Even aging platforms such as Micro-Itron or VxWorks (Nissan, PSA, Volkswagen) continue to persist and most vehicle infotainment systems and devices use multiple operating systems. In fact, the typical car might have a dozen or more operating systems processing information. The automotive business is not a zero sum game. Even at the Ludwigsburg event last week, new OS players Mentor Graphics and OpenSynergy were on hand taking in the latest industry developments even as they are laying the groundwork to make their own impact. Strategy Analytics can only recommend that industry executives make their OS decisions dispassionately and avoid prejudice and suspicion. There is plenty of business to go around and a win by one OS is not a defeat for another. Additional insight: Global OE Automotive Multimedia and Communications Systems Forecast 2009-2017 - Joanne Blight - http://tinyurl.com/24n9nz5 Global Automotive OE Audio/Visual (A/V) Systems Forecast 2009-2017 - Joanne Blight - http://tinyurl.com/2g897ax

TomTom CEO Harold Goddijn must be reading this blog or we are reading his mind. In a post on March 6th (http://bit.ly/aVONfo), we suggested TomTom needed to open its platform to developers and adopt the app store model on a wider scale. TomTom announced its intention to take these very steps at its customer event this week - embracing the app store approach and offering apps to customers by the end of the year, according to a report on pocket-lint.com (http://bit.ly/b5t6jh). It is worth noting that TomTom was the first and only PND maker to create a connected community of users able to share content and map updates. TomTom's Home application also allowed users to purchase applications online. But the platform was closed to third parties, even though TomTom users could record and share their own navigation voices and favorite routes. The new initiative represents a radical shift and a bold gamble on an entirely new business model and hardware and software platform that brings TomTom into more direct alignment with the mobile industry. It also represents a further departure from chief rival Garmin which will still have a closed platform. The report quotes Goddijn: "What is happening here is a break from the past. We have a great infrastructure, but in 2009 we decided it wasn't good enough moving forward. We decided to break the code and move on to new architecture both on the device and the backend." According to the report, the strategy calls for deployment of a webkit-based operating system and the introduction of new technologies in all new TomTom devices in the coming month to "create a platform for ... both the consumer and automotive market." The plans represent a major overhaul of how TomTom offers its services and delivers its navigation software and a direct response to pressure from the mobile phone market where application stores have become the de facto standard for application and content distribution. The new TomTom platform, based on the open source webkit browser engine is to arrive before the end of 2010, though TomTom did not specify a date. The choice of Webkit is significant given TomTom's plans to broaden its footprint in the automotive market where an open platform will facilitate integration with automotive systems. The Pocket Lint report further notes that a separate TomTom presentation described how the company is already evangelising how apps like Wikipedia, tourist guides like Time Out and others, such as piste maps, might help people get a better idea of where they are going. And the company said it was looking at the possibility of adding augmented reality to the mix possibly as a third party offering via the anticipated app store. On the hardware side, the company is preparing the launch of the first device built around the new architecture: the TomTom Go Live 1000. In a drive to keep costs down, Pocket Lint reports that TomTom has opted for the ARM 11 500Mhz processor and a separate Broadcom GPS chip rather than a Qualcomm Snapdragon processor that promises to do it all. Pocket Lint says TomTom hopes to leverage relationships with Volkswagen, BMW, Fiat, Ford, Renault, Toyota and Daimler. TomTom says it will be able to allow car makers to customise the UI, use webkit to provide a "great" programming environment that makes it easier to talk to the other systems of the car (like the heating or air conditioning), as well as deliver over the air (OTA) updates thanks to built-in connectivity (ie a SIM card), something that will no doubt appeal to car makers, normally slow to implement new technologies in the latest models.

Amid the hybrid hype and horsepower hoopla at the New York Auto Show this week Ford Motor company presented a unique vision of the future of efficient driving in its partnership with Microsoft’s Hohm power management initiative. Launched in June of last year, Hohm is an energy management application developed in cooperation with U.S. energy suppliers and intended to manage and conserve home energy consumption.

Ford president and CEO Alan Mulally acknowledged what few car makers have addressed, which is the potential doubling of home energy consumption for home owners who choose electric vehicles. Ford is working with Microsoft to help mitigate that added cost of ownership. Hohm is an Internet-based application that will help owners of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles determine when and how to most efficiently and affordably recharge their batteries.

Microsoft says Hohm is available for free to all U.S. residential energy consumers and has multiple partnerships with utilities and other relevant partners. Ford is the first auto maker partner in the program. Ford also announced its plan to offer a smartphone-based application to remotely assess vehicle charge status and find charging locations, not unlike the application shown earlier this year by OnStar in connection with its Volt EV launch.

Ford’s electric vehicle and hybrid plans announced at the New York show include five vehicles in North America and Europe by 2013. For North America, Ford has planned the launch of the Transit Connect Electric later this year, the Focus Electric in 2011, a plug-in hybrid and two next-generation hybrids in 2012, joining four Ford and Mercury hybrids already on the road and a new Lincoln MKZ Hybrid coming this fall.

Other major EV and HEV announcements at the New York Auto Show included:

Kia said it will offer a 2.4L hybrid version of the Optima late in 2011.

Lincoln introduced its first hybrid – the 2011 MKZ Hybrid premium midsize car. The car is expected to deliver 41mpg in city driving when it arrives in the fall.

Think announced plans to begin selling the Think City EV in New York and other select cities later this year.

Hyundai showed its first hybrid, the new Sonata Hybrid based on lithium polymer technology offering what it claimed as more horsepower (169hp), more torque (156 lb. ft.) and better gas mileage (52mpg) than competing hybrids and using Hyundai’s Hybrid Blue Drive architecture with its 2.4L Theta II engine.

Volkswagen showed its first hybrid at the show – a Touareg with a nickel-metal hydride battery due later this year. The hybrid drive is paired with a 3L supercharged, direct injection V6 and VW claims a 40% reduction in CO2 emissions and 25/21mpg in highway/city driving.

Porsche showed its first production hybrid, the 2011 Cayenne S Hybrid due this fall, which will sell for $4,000 more than the $63,700 Cayenne S with a 400hp V8.

 

For further insights into global EV/HEV programs:

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

In the new Roman Polanski movie “Ghost Writer” there is a scene which perfectly captures the cultural divide between the U.S. and Europe over in-vehicle human machine interfaces. The lead character, played by Ewan MacGregor, enters a BMW X5 and is verbally greeted by the ConnectedDrive system. The system has stored the last route driven by the vehicle and proceeds to attempt to navigate to that destination. The MacGregor character tries futilely to terminate the navigation by touching the screen.* Aye, there’s the rub, or maybe I should say, there’s the smudge. European HMI mavens are almost universally opposed to the touchscreen, although some cracks in the wall of resistance to touch interfaces have appeared in recent years – most notably at Volkswagen. BMW, Audi and Mercedes Benz, however, remain in the haptic camp and announcements at the recent Geneva Motor Show reinforced their stance. Audi introduced gesture recognition enhancements to its HMI, Mercedes showed a gesture recognition interface enhanced with a camera and BMW showed a toggle interface for managing its new Mini iPhone integration. Following Geneva, Audi provided an elaborate defense – or maybe I should say explanation - of its MMI approach at the Nuance Automotive Usability Forum (http://bit.ly/c6omG2). In its consumer studies, Audi found “track deviation” during testing to be most severe for touchscreen interfaces, followed closely by “turn push knob” devices. Touchpad technology, normally situated at the front of the console under the driver’s right hand, had minimal deviation. Additionally, Audi found that “eyes off the road time” was at least twice as much for the “turn push knob” type of interface for actions including “input of destination” and “dial a number.” Audi performed a further analysis of driver assessments of interfaces before and after using them and found a positive assessment of touschscreen and negative assessment of touchpad prior to driving that was completely reversed, after driving, to negative for touchscreen and positive for touchpad. Conclusions from Audi’s global study included: “high potential of innovation for touchpad” (Germany); “simplicity in operation and handwriting recognition is convincing” (USA); and “high customer friendliness especially while driving through optimal position” (China). Audi’s conclusion: The input by touchpad surprises by its error robustness and exceeds clearly the expectations of our customers. Of course, as these conclusions were being expressed at Nuance’s voice-centric event, Audi proceeded to describe the ultimate automotive interface as a multimodal solution with robust speech recognition. It appears that everyone can agree about the importance of voice, but prying Americans away from their touchscreens will be a challenge. *A note on the BMW X5 appearance in "Ghost Story". The character who last drove the car the Ewan MacGregor character was driving is presumed to have made it to his destination and was on his way home when he met his demise. Therefore, the destination should not have automatically activated when the car was started. Trying to figure out how to terminate unwanted navigation assistance is one of the great conundrums facing the industry and drivers. So MacGregor’s hopeless poking of the navi screen represents a moment many people can identify with. And to think, all he had to do was press the “voice” button on the steering wheel, wait for the “beep,” and say: “Stop guidance.” Additional insights: Automotive Bluetooth: Profile Strategy Key to Infotainment Success - http://bit.ly/9NwxfC CES 2010: The Arrival of Converged Automotive Multimedia Products - http://bit.ly/baUnoV

QNX Software Systems has more or less quietly taken control of the luxury car market for embedded infotainment operating system software and, increasingly, application-level software in the head unit as well. The month-long, nationwide tour coordinated with Alcatel-Lucent to show off the now-famous LTE-enabled Toyota Prius has sent a clear message that QNX has tomorrow's automotive infotainment solutions ready today. The LTE implementation shows QNX at the peak of its game. In fact, QNX and Microsoft virtually pushed VxWorks out of the automotive operating system market and the two are virtually unchallenged aside from M-itron, which is dominant among Asian OEMs. Could QNX be poised for further gains or is the company's position more vulnerable than it seems? The demonstration of the LTE car, most recently featured at the Rock Financial Showplace in Novi, Mich., reveals an in-dash system with two front-seat screens along with back-of-headrest screens for rearseat entertainment. As a concept demonstration, the vehicle of course violates existing limitations on frontseat, in-dash video, but the point is that virtually any kind of audio, video or game content is available via any screen each of which can be personalized to the passenger in that position. The basic options displayed in the demos are Games, Communications, Internet,  Entertainment, Vehicle and Navigation. Of course, these six choices could be whatever the developer prefers and users are able to customize the sub-directories as they would radio stations. For example, within Internet the options include: Chumby, Browser, Fanbase, Home Control, Internet Video, Kabillion, Weather, YouTube, QStore, Pandora and Local Search. A similar rich mix of options is available under vehicle where QNX has realized the vision of the virtual user manual with vehicle schematics tied to on-board sensors. And, of course, QNX has enabled several on-board application stores. There are several implications to the QNX design. First of all, the system is a cloud-ready solution. A vehicle equipped with the QNX software is location aware, capable of tapping into the Internet for its information needs or the information needs of the driver and/or connecting with the driver's phone to access contact or scheduling information. Secondly, the QNX system shows how comprehensive connectivity almost completely obviates the need for a call-center-type telematics service provider. The driver can access almost anything he or she needs via voice commands and the vehicle, with appropriate software enhancement, is capable of anticipating or responding to most requirements. Lastly, the LTE demonstration is a warning to auto makers that emerging network deployments may be closer than they appear in their rearview mirror. Verizon says that by 2013 its LTE network deployment will be equivalent to its 2009 3G deployment - ie. nearly ubiquitous. Those modules may be expensive, but they're coming fast and those prices will fall correspondingly. Enabling this level of functionality is QNX's so-called abstraction layer of software for Alarms, Audio, SOS, Phone, GPS, Net and CAN. This abstraction layer acts as an interface between the embedded systems and the application layer. The applications "subscribe" to the objects in the abstraction layer which receive their updates from the embedded software. The only bad news for QNX is that this LTE solution is ill-suited for the volume segment of the automotive market. While QNX has taken charge of the high end of the market, the high end of the market is characterized by low margins and low volumes. Microsoft, another contender for luxury segment business, has made a name for its self in the volume segment of the market where both margins and volumes are superior. The question facing QNX is whether it can leverage its high-end success with mass market solutions. Given the fact that it is already well positioned with relationships with key players such as Hyundai and Volkswagen prospects are positive. But with a swarm of small cars hitting the market it is likely that Microsoft is better positioned to benefit the most from emerging opportunities. In spite of the elegance of the LTE showcase, QNX is an industry shark that needs to find a way to swim like a minnows. If there is a segment(s) on the rise it is A/B.